Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by BrutalB83, May 1, 2008.
Anyone seen it? Comments?
Piece of propaganda trash. Read the reviews.
You know it's bad when a movie is described with the words "a blood libel on Western Civilization itself".
It's a documentary hosted by Ben Stein concerning the debate between evolution and intelligent design theories.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Right, yeah. But then again, a lot of the sources calling it propaganda are scientific reviews and institutions who clearly hold the opposite view from what the film's trying to promote, so I was just wondering if anyone had actually seen the thing and could give me an objective opinion.
I've heard that it presents some good and interesting arguments in defense of intelligent design, but that it's legitimacy is tarnished by some innacurate presenting (on Darwin's views and evolution's supposed role in Nazism and the Holocaust in particular) and also by the fact that some of the interviewees say the producers weren't exactly honest about the film's premise and intent.
Anyway, just wondering if anybody had actually seen it yet or not...
Not available yet online - so I haven't seen it.
And who would you trust to review the movie if you wont believe scientists? They're the experts on what people are trying to refute.
PS - Intelligent Design should not be referred to as a theory in any sense. It is not a scientific construction - it only holds counter-arguments and offers no structure of its own. In all reality it would be contained in Evolution as a set of questions/concerns over evidence (even though most of their questions have answers).
I've been following the Expelled mess since they duped the scientists with Crossroads.
If the film actually brought forth evidence of their "theory" instead of constantly criticizing evolution, it may be more than propaganda. Seriously, nothing is presented to support ID throughout the entire film. EVER. It's Christian porn, plain and simple.
that would make it the most boring movie ever. Just enough penitration for impregnation purposes. Hey at least it's not catholic porn, staring the alter boy.
All flash, no substance.
Yup, describes Expelled.
First off, let me just say that I'm not advocating the film or the idea of intelligent design in any way here, I'm just wondering about it...
Well, that's assuming that all scientists refute the "theory" and accept evolution unequivocally. There are scientists out there that don't necessarily 100% accept Darwinian evolution. Obviously they're a minority, but they do exist. I think the point of the film is to talk about that particular debate within the scientific community, rather than just assume all scientists are atheists and focus on the "science vs. bible thumpers" debate.
Like I said though, I have not actually seen the thing, so this is just what I've heard...
You're completely right, and I apologize for calling it such. It's a "theory" in the loosest sense of the word, i.e. it's an idea that some people hold as a possible explanation for something. A true theory is testable though, and since the idea of intelligent design calls for some degree of faith in the unknown, it's not really testable.
I myself certainly do buy into the theory of evolution. With the extensive fossil record we have here on this planet, I think it's pretty clear that life has existed here for millions of years, and that it's changed and evolved over time.
The only problem I have with the theory of evolution as a complete answer is the question of origin. I've never really heard a satisfactory explanation for how inorganic matter makes the transition to an organic, living being. From what I've read, the chances of the necessary proteins lining up by accident are pretty astronomical, so that's always bothered me. And if that's the case, then I don't really see a reason to dismiss the possibility that some sort of superior being had a hand in designing and jump-starting that process. Then again however, if somebody could offer me a plausible explanation as to how the inorganic could become organic through chance, I'd be happy to accept it.
I guess I'd be considered an Agnostic?
It may very well be religious porn, and it certainly sounds like the producers and Stein himself were kind of shady and manipulative with some of the people they interviewed. Whether it's strictly Christian-based however, I don't know. I'm pretty sure Stein is Jewish.
So have you actually seen the movie? From the way you're talking it sounds like you've seen it maybe?
Ever seen Primal Fear with Richard Gere and Edward Norton?
And that's where you trip and fall I'll be "nicer" to you than I am towards people on other forums, however.
Evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. It never will. That is not evolution's job.
Abiogenesis is where you want to look for the origin of life. For the origin of species (now you know why it's named that), evolution is the scientific theory.
What you are asking is similar to wondering why the theory of gravity can't explain the origin of the universe.
Here's one of the things that bothers me with a "designer".
What designer in his right friggin mind would design the eye in which the optic nerve passes in front of the retina? That's a HUGE design flaw and leads to a blind spot (check the net, there are little "tests" you can do to show this), and any designer, engineer, builder that made such a colossal screwup would be fired on the spot, never to work in that field again.
Why do we have the ability to make our hair stand on end (goosebumps) when it serves no purpose?
Why do we have the genetic code to produce fully functional tails?
Chromosome 2. Explain that one.
Simple questions like this shine LOTS of doubt upon the idea of a "designer".
So I can go Supersayain
Sweet! All we need now is the ability to instantly grow blond hair to our feet and drop deuces with the same size ratios as childbirth and we've got it!
Oh, the ability to shoot green/pink/blue/orange beams from our foreheads is a bonus.
that all comes with training, you need time in the hyperbolic time chamber.
I don't see any reason not to be nice about this. Am I not being nice? Have I said anything that's ridiculously absurd or ignorant? I don't think I have. Like I said, I would classify myself as an Agnostic at this point, and I'm open to hearing arguments from any perspective.
Honestly, I think you're reading me wrong. I think you're thinking that I'm coming from a very traditional Judeo-Christian perspective on this, and I'm not. I most certainly DO NOT believe in the Genesis creation story, nor do I believe in any way that human beings were fashioned in their current form right off the bat. Like I said, evolution makes a lot of sense to me.
Are there any good resources on abiogenesis that you could point me towards? Like I said, that's one thing that's always bothered me and that I've never had a good solid explanation for, that being the question of how the inorganic can transition into the organic...
I thought it was pretty well established that things like this are evolutionary "left-overs," no? See once again, I think that you think I'm coming from a much different perspective than I truly am. I accept evolution, it's the origin part I have trouble with...
Or a gravity chamber.
I had the idea of turning a Gravitron carnival ride into a workout room long before I saw Dragonball Z. I freaked the heck out when I realized both that my idea had already been thought of, and that I needed to finish the design and start using it so I could shoot energy from my hands.
And I was merely pointing out that you stepped on the number one misinformation landmine concerning evolutionary science, which is that it somehow has to explain life's origins in order to be fully valid.
It's the theory that works. It answers the most questions, has the most lines of objective evidence and has, time and time again, made predictions that are still being validated.
The case was closed the instant Darwin's theory of Evolution was "voltron-ed" with Mendel's theory of Genetics. It was literally two puzzle pieces that interlocked perfectly.
Wiki's abiogenesis article is decent. For the books, no, we haven't been able to create life. Once we do such, then the theories get MUCH stronger.
If you want to get into origin theories... funny enough, panspermia is the theory that got a shot in the arm recently with some decent evidence in its favor. It's possible and makes a whole lot of sense. The problem with origin theories is that we've got so little to go on versus everything else... where else have we seen life or know where life has started? We can see evolution, we can see it work and see its effects. Origins are another story.
I am simply showing that you are aiming at the wrong target. Looking towards evolution for life origins is going to yield nothing. In contrast, the origins of life could be pretty much anything... from panspermia to a pink unicorn from Jupiter. The reason science does not touch on ID or creationism is simply because God or any other supernatural being simply isn't science. No tests can be made, no predictions, no evidence, and most importantly of the bunch... no ability to be falsified. All scientific theories can be falsified, find a horse fossil in the Precambrian area of the geologic column and evolution is toast. ID/Creationism simply say "Goddidit" and continue on. It's not science.
Separate names with a comma.