Expelled

Have you seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed“? My hope is that you make a point to. Unless you really did evolve from a monkey – you’ll find this documentary intriguing and necessary.

In a scientific world gone mad, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is the controversial documentary that will chronicle Ben Stein’s confrontation with the Neo-Darwinian machine, exposing widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination in his heroic quest to bring back freedom in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, with the help of the world’s top scientists, educators and thinkers.

Advertisements

14 responses to “Expelled

  1. Pop quiz, how many of these “persecuted” people were actually fired? Hint: It’s less than 1

    Meanwhile, how many people have been fired, forced to recant, physically assaulted, and received death threats for teaching evolution or questioning Creationism? Oh, quite a few. http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626

  2. In America, one person is too many. I’m thankful God made us curious – and intelligent. The fact that no indisputable evidence exists to fully support man’s purpose (or lack thereof) on earth, yet evolution has been shoved down our children’s throat as fact – should horrify us all.

    Apes, lightning, aliens or percolating mud can’t be credited with the miracles I’ve experienced. And my children will be educated in the many ways God works in our world.

    Thank you for commenting.

  3. Evolution has nothing to do with man’s purpose or lack thereof on earth. Any claim that it does so leaves science and enters philosophy.

    If you’re looking for indisputable evidence in science, you’ll never find it. Science is not in the business of proving things. It is in the business of *disproving* things. So I do not get why people wish to put God to the test by attempting to put ideas that require the invocation of God in science. Do they really wish to falsify God?

    Evolution has no more been shoved down your children’s throat than gravity has. There is no proof that gravity exists. You only see the effects of letting go of an object and seeing it fall, but that does not prove there is anything called gravity. It could very well be that God is, in every single case, personally pushing objects down with His hand. Does that mean we should teach Intelligent Falling in science class?

    Indeed, God does continue to work his miracles in the world. All the natural laws of the world are testament to His power. Including evolution.

  4. I disagree – Darwin’s theory sought to explain mankind’s existence, which to me goes hand in hand with purpose. But, then I believe in God and need no science to confirm my Creator.

    Science cannot answer the question “How did life begin.” Even Dawkins stuttered in giving a reply, life form aliens??? God has given us the answer and His book outlines it quite clearly. If something can’t be scientifically supported, perhaps it’s better to leave that door open rather than choose one theory over another.

    This movie clearly demonstrated what is supported by America’s educational institutions. The core message of this movie isn’t evolution/intelligent design – it’s about responsible academic freedom (or lack thereof).

    My kids are taught at home, so they will know about evolution but see the daily evidence of God’s work in our lives.

  5. Actually Darwin’s theory was about the origin of species, not the origin of life. It doesn’t matter what else he may say about mankind’s existence, that is his personal opinion and irrelevant to the theory of science.

    As far as academic freedom goes, people have always been free to teach Creationism, Intelligetn Design, and other creation myths in philosophy and religious studies class.

    Trying to teach it in science class is no more a matter of academic freedom than teaching math in English class is a matter of academic freedom.

    That’s the point we’re making about the film.

  6. Oops, typo. Meant to say theory of evolution in that first paragraph.

    Also, in case there’s a misunderstanding, I don’t really care what you teach your kids (I was partially homeschooled so I know the benefits).

    My comments were to clear up what I felt were some misconceptions about the film and evolution. 🙂

  7. Thus the entire debate. Evolution occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design . It is simply change. It’s inevitable.

    Yes, I stated no one can answer the question “How did life begin?” Darwin is credited with today’s far-fetched theory of evolution, but he himself still referred to “the Creator”. I reject the “fact” of evolution as well as the “theory” of mechanics suggested. I reject that our mankind has mutated.

    But enough of that – I do care what my children, and others, are being taught. They should learn Darwin’s theories. They should ALSO learn alternative theories. Most importantly, they should learn to THINK for themselves. There should not be fear to voice a different opinion. Not in this country.

  8. Actually I would qualify your statement. Nobody, *today*, can answer how did life begin. That does not mean they will never do so.

    Theologically, I find this view of God as extremely dangerous. Believing in a God of the Gaps means that it is inevitable the more we found out about the universe through science, the smaller and paler our God becomes as He is squeezed out of the remaining unexplained mysteries of the universe. That’s really not the right way to go about it and will eventually lead one to one of two paths, to either reject reality or to reject one’s faith, neither of which is a good thing.

    But what is this “alternative” theory you speak of? Let me ask this to make sure we’re on the right page. 1) Do you understand that science cannot make any claims about the supernatural, because the supernatural cannot be tested and falsified using natural means? 2) Do you understand how Intelligent Design and Creationism in general both invoke the supernatural? 3) Then, do you understand that though you are free to teach “alternatives,” they are not, strictly speaking *scientific* alternatives. They are philosophical alternatives. If you agree on all three points, then I think we agree with each other.

    If not, well, we can agree to disagree though I would urge you to read more about this matter. I would recommend Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller as a starting point. He is a Christian, and a professor of biology at Brown university, and was actually involved in the Dover trial on Intelligent Design a few years ago.

  9. Science cannot say whether the supernatural is real, or not real.

    Science should not get to arbitrarily choose which rules or explanations should apply.

    Science should describe things that happen, that which can be measured or repeatedly observed. Since we cannot, of course, go back in time, the past cannot be scientifically proven. Science means “knowledge” and historically has not discounted philosophy OR theology.

    We have to rely on documented accounts of the past, and a key source I rely on is the Bible. I don’t know that the Holocaust occurred, so I’m left to trust recorded events. It would be wrong for science to label either as philosophy and discard the truths. I don’t question the methods of science – I do object to labeling ID as “religion” in order to legitimize evolutionary theories. The science taught should include alternative explanations of life’s origins as well as the opportunity to question or deny evolution.

    I’m a human being, created by God in a world He created to be orderly and logical. He is certainly capable of using extraordinary means for extraordinary purposes. Certainly SUPER, but not necessarily NATURAL, by our limited definition.

  10. Please explain how science arbitrarily chooses which rules or explanations apply.

    We may not be able to go back in time, but we can observe the effects. There are recorded events too. Not left by humans, but by nature, in the fossil record, in the way things are left behind, in the light of the stars that have traveled many many light-years to reach us.

    Unfortunately, I’m going to have to disagree with your understanding with science. I am going to assume you understand what the scientific method is. Please explain to me how you will scientifically test for the existence of God, or any other designer in nature? This means you make a falsifiable prediction regarding the existence of God or other designers in nature. If you cannot do so, then you have no grounds to object to ID being labeled as philosophy.

    Indeed, God is supernatural and created the world. So explain to me how you are going to measure the supernatural using natural means.

  11. Yet you discount records left by humans? That is the crux of this discussion, and the arbitrary exclusion of history.

    Yes, I understand scientific method. Obviously there is no testable, observable process to prove or disprove the origin of creation. Science deals with things that can be repeatedly observed and measured – I don’t expect man to replicate what God did.

    I make no “falsifiable prediction” only a steadfast belief in His word as the consistent source of truth which has stood the test of time. Science isn’t about predicting and is focused on natural occurrences. To discount God as our Creator by design leaves a gaping black hole of guesswork. Which takes us back to square one and not choose one “theory” as fact.

  12. I’m confused as to what records left by humans I am discounting. Do you mean the Bible? That is a complex question which involves answering whether or not the bible was meant to be used as a history/science textbook, to which I would say no. I believe it’s intended purpose is to guide us on matters of faith and salvation. I think this is something we’re likely to disagree on so the discussion should probably left to some other time or it’ll derail the current discussion.

    So we seem to agree with what the scientific method means, and it would seem to me that you are also agreeing that the claims of ID cannot be tested via the scientific method.

    Then, why do you object to ID being labeled as “not science”?

    Science does make predictions about the natural occurrences. There have been several things we have found in nature that was predicted by the theory of evolution, which if found to be false, would have falsified evolution. For example, if we found the remnants of modern organisms in the fossilized feces of prehistoric animals, evolution would be disproven. Yet we don’t.

    Science does not discount God. It simply doesn’t talk about God, because it doesn’t know. It can’t know. And you seem to agree with me here in that it cannot test outside the natural occurrences. So I am unsure why you feel that science is anti-God when it clearly isn’t. If anything, it would at most be labeled agnostic.

    That last sentence, where you call it a “theory” being treated as a fact. Do you understand what a scientific theory is? It’s not the same as a guess or a hypothesis. A theory in science is actually the highest level an idea can become, not the lowest level that an idea starts out from.

    The theory of evolution is no more a “guess” or treated any differently than the atomic theory, germ theory, the theory of gravity, etc.

  13. I’ll repeat my main points and leave it at that:

    Ben Stein’s message of free speech is lost in the subject matter of creation.

    This is a never-ending circular argument. I’ve decided that those with little, misguided or no faith cannot embrace a God who can (and does) work miracles. Some things are simply beyond our brain capacity to fully comprehend in a logical way. Creating mankind cannot be duplicated, measured or even fully understood.

    That said, I maintain it is wrong to teach our young people only one piece of an unsolved puzzle.

    Thank you for taking the time to share your points.

  14. Alright, I’ll close with my main points as well.

    Ben Stein confuses free speech with the scientific method in his film, thus creating a strawman argument. Science has standards that need to be met for something to be called science.

    Alternatives should be taught, but they should be taught under the right category. Science under science. Philosophy and religion under philosophy and religion.

    Nobody is censoring ID and lots of people have told them for years, stop wasting money playing this political/lawyer/public relations manipulation game and do the actual science and get your stuff published. If you refuse to do so, then stop complaining when people don’t treat your stuff as science.

    And finally, evolution is certainly compatible with God. But not under ID, under theistic evolution.

    And thank you for sharing your views as well. It was fun. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s