lib_dem_womyn Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Ok, I just watched the movie Expelled. It basically argues that science has an exclusionary attitude toward the idea of intelligent design. I'm not sure he is agreeing with the ID theory, but he is definitely arguing that it should be viewed as a valid scientific theory and should be explored using scientific procedure. Which is another sticking point. How do you empirically explore a belief system based on 'faith'? It seems like a silly argument because it is inserting a belief system (that we are intelligently designed). They even go so far as comparing Darwinism and a belief in evolution to Hitler and eugenics. It implies that if we rid ourselves of religion we would turn into a society that kills and tortures people with mental and physical handicaps. Cue the dramatic music, and the death camp stories of the Nazi's trying to exterminate the Jewish population. Yes he really ties this in to the Nazi genocide of all imperfect people. He even attacks Dawkins, and asks him ridiculous questions that he himself cannot answer. It is backwards to ask someone a question that your own beliefs cannot answer. It is like a catch 22. And at the end he parallels Ronald Regan's "Tear down this wall" speech to tearing down the wall in academia between religion and science. He says "we aren't trying to silence anyone" he says it is for freedom of speech. But I felt like I just watched a propaganda video for the Theo-con Republicans. Is science to exclusionary, and elitist against the intelligent design theory? Is there a valid argument for science to explore this? Hasn't science been elitist throughout its history? And hasn't religion been exclusionary of science that can prove even simple Bible stories wrong? If science accepts this as a valid theory, will religion accept aspects of science? I don't think religion will is going to play fair in this one. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this a real valid concern? I feel like I'm close minded to the idea of scientific exploration of a religious theory, because of my religious beliefs, or lack of them. But it also seems logical to not spend time researching something that is based on a 'feeling' (i.e. faith) and cannot ever be proven. I think this will be an interesting discussion. Lib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SteamTull Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 ID would be examined as a hypothesis/theory in academia if it had any proof to back it up. If you are close minded if you don't except ID, then you are close minded by not excepting every theory for everything (ie astronomy or alchemy). There's less evidence for gravity than evolution, yet nobody (or very few people) accuse people who except the theory of gravity to be close minded. Only when a theory threatens people's supernatural beliefs does it get flack. Fortunately for us, science really doesn't care about people's beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 8, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted January 8, 2009 ID isn't a valid subject for science. Not because of anti-religious bias, but because it's an article of faith, not a conclusion drawn from evidence. As we learn more about our reality we discard incorrect and fanciful explanations that grew out of the ignorance of earlier times. Insisting that ID be taught in schools is akin to demanding that astrology, alchemy and levitation be in the curriculum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 "Goddamit Wilma. They're persecuting us because they won't let us try out for Daytona. I just know I can win. I just know it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 ID isn't much more than a hypothesis which tries to explain irreducible complex DNA code. The problem is that every irreducible complex code has been proven to be reducible, so ID is not needed to explain anything. It's only adding a superfluous assumption for something which already has an answer. That puts ID at the fringe science for now, until (which probably will never happen) irreducible complexity can be proven. And science class can't cover, and doesn't have the time, to cover every fringe science out there. There's no need to talk about Thor swinging his hammer to create thunder, and we don't have to have science books telling us that rain is the tears of the gods, or that earthquakes are punishments from god, unless these things are put in a comparative religion class. Right subject in the right class, or we have chaos. The day ID is taught in science class, then we should demand evolution, cosmology, relativity, Euclidean geometry, physics, and math to be taught in religion class, philosophy, English, and PE. Hey why not? Gravity is a theory to be presented in PE, as an alternative to why I'm overweight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Lib I saw this movie when it first came out and as with most things I am of more than one mind about it. In my mind there is no doubt that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. But at the same time I think that our theories of evolution are lent an explanatory power above and beyond what they deserve. I don’t believe evolution explains everything about organisms. But in some circles to say such a thing is almost a heresy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lib_dem_womyn Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 Legion, I think it being heresy is a good thing, science should exlude beliefs that cannot be proven. Isn't that the reason we have science to begin with? To empirically prove things. Lib I saw this movie when it first came out and as with most things I am of more than one mind about it. In my mind there is no doubt that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. But at the same time I think that our theories of evolution are lent an explanatory power above and beyond what they deserve. I don’t believe evolution explains everything about organisms. But in some circles to say such a thing is almost a heresy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lib_dem_womyn Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 If believers in ID think irreducible DNA code means there is a god maybe we should suggest he made it irreducible because he hates scientists and Christians! LOL Reading this makes me ever more leery of the idea of religion, in any aspect getting its foot in the science door, so to speak. ID isn't much more than a hypothesis which tries to explain irreducible complex DNA code. The problem is that every irreducible complex code has been proven to be reducible, so ID is not needed to explain anything. It's only adding a superfluous assumption for something which already has an answer. That puts ID at the fringe science for now, until (which probably will never happen) irreducible complexity can be proven. And science class can't cover, and doesn't have the time, to cover every fringe science out there. There's no need to talk about Thor swinging his hammer to create thunder, and we don't have to have science books telling us that rain is the tears of the gods, or that earthquakes are punishments from god, unless these things are put in a comparative religion class. Right subject in the right class, or we have chaos. The day ID is taught in science class, then we should demand evolution, cosmology, relativity, Euclidean geometry, physics, and math to be taught in religion class, philosophy, English, and PE. Hey why not? Gravity is a theory to be presented in PE, as an alternative to why I'm overweight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Putting Kirk Cameron and Ben Stein in the same room would likely cause a rip in the space-time fabric. That much stupidity concentrated in one place......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfraysse Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Putting Kirk Cameron and Ben Stein in the same room would likely cause a rip in the space-time fabric. That much stupidity concentrated in one place......... Agreed! In my opinion, Ben Stein has not helped his “cause” (if you can define it) with this Movie. In fact, Ben appears to be so de-focused at times that his movie comes off as an hour-plus rant about a number of topics, some of which are not strongly related. Is he fighting social injustice, religious intolerance, intellectual bigotry, evolution or science in general? My take away is that Mr. Stein seems to be in the standard fundamentalist camp when it comes to being anti-science and presents nothing new. Now concerning his desire to have the Theory of Intelligent Design (ID) taught, Mr. Stein seems determined to re-define Science. His new definition would also include Astrology! I think this idea is completely absurd. Science is, by definition, the study of Natural causes, not Super-Natural ones! We, as part of Creation, are blessed with the unique honor of discovering how the universe works! However, the “works of god” are also, by definition, outside of Science and I think that maybe “god” likes it that way! From the very beginning of the Movie, Ben Stein shifts the topic to a non-Evolutionary subject, that is, the topic of “Life Origins” or abiogenesis. What a brilliantly irresponsible tactic! However, now it is obvious that the real issue is not Evolution but “who” or “what” caused these things to occur. Clearly, this points to a Creator or a “God-Dun-It” conclusion which Ben Stein is completely open and unabashed about. This plays right into the hands of Atheists and Evolutionists when they emphatically state that ID is a Religious topic! Mr. Stein’s Movie GIVES his opponents ALL the Ammo they need to refute him and then presents NO EVIDENCE that ID is actually science. Not persuasive to me at all! Now, having said the above, I do think ALL Evolution courses should have a disclaimer which is written in each text book and read aloud to all students by the teacher or professor prior to beginning of the course. This statement would state that at no time will the “origins of life” (abiogenesis) be discussed as part of the Theory of Evolutionary and that all aspects of the development of Life on Earth are not explained by Evolution. The student would then be encouraged to research these issues outside of the given syllabus and class room discussions if they so desired. The Movie is also disingenuous about the "persecution" and his choice of interviews. Ben’s interview with Richard Dawkins (famous Biologist and Atheistic Author) was conducted on knowingly false pretenses. Naughty-Naughty, Ben! And why didn’t he interview some of the evolutionary scientists that have reconciled their life’s work with their belief in a Creator?! Well, I think the answer is obvious, this would derail his rant. And finally relating the cause of the Holocaust to the study and belief in Evolution was extremely insensitive and as outright stupid as using all of the god-directed slaughter in the OT to justify genocide. Then there was the “quote mining” where they pulled Darwin quotes out of context, painting him as an anti-social psychopath. I wanted to puke! I’m sorry, but to me, Ben Stein comes off as just another entertainer trying to push all the “Hot Buttons” of the Religious with a weak and eclectic list of “injustices”. But, then again, most charlatans aspire to be great entertainers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Believers are the ones making the extraordinary claim that God exists and created the universe, so they're the ones that have to present the extraordinary evidence to back it up. If they can't back it up, then it's not real science, so of course, science must be elitist towards religion. That's the way the scientific theory works. Even most Christians nowadays would mock you if you suggested that it's just a theory that the Earth is flat because the bible says so and that scientists are being too elitists towards flat earthers. Some fundies even try to rewrite history by trying to claim that the bible has always claimed the Earth is round long before science discovered it to be true, even though it obviously doesn't. For some reason though, when it comes to evolution, science is expected to tip toe around the facts lest they offend closed minded xtians. Some forms of Christianity might not be incompatible with science and I have more respect for them than I do for the fundies, but what religious believers think of science should be irrelevant to what the facts are. If the believers still feel that God exists, then it's their job to reconcile their faith with science, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelloWorld Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Expelled sucked. IT FUCKING SUCKED! One day back last summer, by bf and I were walking to get groceries. We see my parish priest standing at the corner outside a the theatre where the movie was showing. We say hi and he and the two people they were with start falling all over the movie, gushing, saying how amazing and great it was. I had some great reservations about the documentary, so I politely declined their urges to go see it in theatres. Anyway, when I got back home I did some research about the documentary and was appalled. It was a thoroughly deceitful production besides the fact that it had no scientific basis. So I decided to write the priest an email explaining why I would not go see the movie and suggested that he consider my points. He emailed me back and said he would only discuss the doc with me after I had seen it. I was annoyed, but I accepted. When it came out on DVD, a bunch of my friends and I got together to see it. I was really excited about getting angry at all of the crazies on it and plain just poking fun at the whole thing. Well, let's just say that the doc was so boring, SOOOO stupid, soooo ridiculous that I was just plain....totally disengaged. I used to have respect for that priest. My level of respect has dropped. I decided it would be fruitless to email him back about the doc. And I was so disgusted that I didnt even have it in me if I wanted to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts