If you have heard of the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opening April 18, chances are you have heard all kinds of distortions and myths about it. So let me set the record straight about some of the most common myths.
Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.
Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interviews.
Myth #2: The film is anti-science.
Wrong again. Many distinguished scientists were interviewed for this film and given the chance to express their views. Just like their Darwinist counterparts, the advocates of intelligent design and their supporters who are interviewed are there to talk about science, not to dismiss it. These are people like Cambridge physicist John Polkinghorne; Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox; journalist Pamela Winnick, who has received hate mail for covering the issue; and biologist Caroline Crocker, who was fired from George Mason University for discussing intelligent design in the classroom. Some of them are religious believers; some are not. But what they share is a commitment to science and the unfettered pursuit of truth. Expelled is not anti-science; it is anti-censorship.
Myth #3: Ben Stein, the actor and writer who hosts the movie, has lost his mind.
Bringing up this very issue in a conference call, Stein quipped that he probably has, “but it was a long time ago . . . probably sometime around 1958.” Well, I have known Stein well for years, and he is as bright as a button and anything but out of his mind. On a serious note, Stein and his film’s producers explained that the mud that people are flinging at him is just one small example of what happens to people who question Darwinian orthodoxy. The original idea for Expelled, said co-producer and software engineer Walt Ruloff, came to him when he was working on a project with a group of biotechnologists and learned “that there was a whole series of questions that could not be asked.”
The prevailing ideology among many scientists—it turned out—he concluded, was keep your mouth shut, take the research money, and publish only the data that fits with “the party line.” The issue that concerns Ruloff and the others behind Expelled is whether the scientific establishment in this country is going to allow genuine “freedom of inquiry,” or simply shut up—and slander—those who do not toe the line.
Given all this, Ben Stein states, “As long as the cause is right, I’m happy to be in an uphill struggle.”
Myth #4: Popular author and atheist Richard Dawkins tells Ben Stein in this film that there could have been a designer of life on earth, but it would have had to have been “a higher intelligence” that had itself evolved “to a very high level . . . and seeded some form of life on this planet.”
Well, actually . . . that one is not a myth. He really did say it—striking admission, though it is.
So, I urge you to go see Expelled when it opens at a theater near you. Believe me, in this case the truth really is stranger—and more compelling—than any fiction the film’s detractors could possibly dream up.
_________________________________________________
From BreakPoint®, April 11, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
Comments
Check out Caroline Crocker's slides:
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/ode-to-caroline-crocker/
Her speaking fees range from $1000-$5000 (from her own website: http://www.intellectualhonesty.info/index_files/Contact.htm). These fees "do not include travel expenses" in case you are interested.
So it looks like she is doing just fine, enriching herself off of the ignorant. Ben Stein has joined her at the trough.
Seed,
"While that has been proven to be true in minor changes and variations, it has not been proven in the universal scope of life."
Well you have to ask yourself how all the evidence can be explained but by such large scale 'macro' evolutionary changes. Surely DNA evidence like ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion and others can't be explained by infering no macro evolutionary changes.
What indications/evidnece are there, especially given the lengths of time we're talking about, that varitation within a species can occur, but anything above that cannot? Speciation, or evolution at the macro level (aka ORIGIN of NEW SPECIES) has and continues to be observed (go ahead and ask for my sources, I think you know I am good for it), so what indication is there that a new species can arise, but this stops and somehow couldn't form yet a higher organism taxonomy like genus, family or order? Why do you think it makes sense for evolution to simply stop at the species level and no further?
As soon as speciation has occured, you have 2 unique populations of organisms and they will essentially be genetically isolated, which over time means they will evolve accordingly in different, but somewhat perhaps similar trajectories.
Agent I am not sure when I’ll have the chance to give your comments a thorough response. Let me just say that there are non-Christian historians who would disagree with your assessment.
“Evolution (as a process of change over time) is a fact…”
While that has been proven to be true in minor changes and variations, it has not been proven in the universal scope of life. Furthermore, it not only opens up more questions, but it also has yet to be demonstrated in the first place. While statistics may help prove the historical function of evolution, statistics also reveal that Neo-Darwinism is incapable of explaining the origin of species.
Thumbs up for Star
Would that more Christians would engage the world NOW instead of waiting for "graduation" from some ethereal training before "walking in those works that God has ordained"
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
If the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ has been made plain to you and you have responded, you now know all that you need to know in order to spread the message. Christianity IS an on-the-job-training pursuit. Evangelism is not just the purview of theologically trained pastors.
You learn as you go.
Sanctification is a life-long process, not an event.
Star: I know exactly what you mean! Our chuch, for all of the good in it, well, it just simply stinks at discipleship. So, we've taken matters into our own hands. As a small group, myself, my wife, and two other couples have been working through some terrific discipleship materials produced by Campus Crusade for Christ. I think that, ultimately, the message here is that even though we "belong" to a church, we must still ultimately "work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling" and sometimes, this calls for us to take responsibility for our own training in righteousness.
Again, just my $.02.
Quecat and Emmaus
In Jan 1, 1981 I told God that I wanted to be a woman of prayer, grow in the knowledge and wisdom of God and His Word, know what my spiritual gift was and to use it, and to be a soul winner. Even though the Church I was going to was going to do a year long teaching on these topics, God didn't have me attend those training classes. Instead He sent me out into the world to serve Him so He could answered my prayer requests. My Singles Minister called that on-the-job training.
Emmaus-
The problem stems from the parents being luke-warm Christians. A hallmark of these folks is that they think that "going to church" is all that is required of them to "please God".
They fail to embrace the fact that daily fervent prayer and personal study and application of of the scriptures is how one grows in Christ. The Word of God is what feeds us, but for some reason these folks think that their soul can survive on a once a week meal delivered via a Sunday sermon! Some diet.
So they apply this same logic to their children's lives. They've delegated the spiritual training of their children to the Sunday school teacher for one hour, once a week - and then are mystified that their children behave no differently than the rest of the world!
A child is a blank slate. Parents, do you honestly believe that if that child receives only 1 hour per week of spiritual training and 100 hours of secular schooling, playing video games, and hanging out with non-Christian friends, in between the few "quality moments" that they might get from you, that you're going to somehow raise up a child who loves the Lord?
Seed,
“which have ironically only lead to more questions”
Sorry, but science isn't a silver bullet like theology that proclaims to answer all things in an instant. Science uses reductionism, so it's not in the overnight business, it's in the slow and steady and accurate business. Yes, with science we will always find new questions in wake of answering other ones, but that is how it works and more importantly that doesn't mean there is nothing geniuenly gained from examination. If you can think science hasn't been a great help to humanity or hasn't answered relavant questions for us, then how do you sleep at night? The very thing you're using right now is directly from science.
Science works by reductionism and so over time you get a clearer and truer sense of how the universe works. IE, in netwons day gravity was instan forcet, but this was the best one could do with the afforded technology, however a young jew from germany changed all that with his idea of relativity and b/c he was able to support his idea with evidence and b/c it produced further testable results, it was accepted.
Relativity as you recall wasn’t accepted immediately, it took a while. So now we have a more clearer, truer understanding on how the universe works and it couldn’t have been done by using ‘god did it’ or made it that way in certain parts of the equation.
“However to completely base a scientific theory, calling it fact,
Uh, uh, hu back it up a bit. Gravity (why/how things fall or move in relation to mass) is a fact. Gravitational theory, is the model which explains the facts of gravity.
Evolution (as a process of change over time) is a fact, the Evolutionary Theory is a model which explains the facts of Evolution. See the difference? Now you know the difference. Theories in science are bigger than facts, theories explain the facts, facts support the theories. There is no ‘absolute certainty’ in science, as such theories are tentative, so in this view one could say they are more of a probabilistic function based on observations and tests. Thus, the more evidence one gathers that cumulatively points in the same direction, we can say that it's well supported, if not essentially a fact.
Quecat: I just read the article, and it just further confirms what we already know - parents, those who are primarily responsible to "raise their children in the faith" are failing at it. Add to that, in my opinion, failed youth ministry programs at the average chuch, and its no wonder why so many are falling away. They're never being convicted of that most important of all messages: Repent and be saved!
Just as an aside, this is precisely why we don't have our 9th grader involved in our youth ministry at our church. There's no challenge to the kids to take responsibility for their own salvation, even if their parents won't raise them in the faith. So, instead, our oldest serves as a room aide with the little kids, and she leans so much from serving than sitting around with a bunch of other kids who are complaining about their lives and how hard they have it. Instead, she serves, and then goes to "big church" with her parents. It's soooo much better!
Anyway, just my $.02. Thanks for the heads-up on the article, I would have missed it otherwise.
Emmaus -
as if right on que - this morning's Post story: "Saving Youth from Church Exodus Not Enough, Says Youth Leader"
Seed,
“If you are implying that naturalism is unscientific, then you may have my ear.”
No, think about it. We can only include natural things into Science as this is what we can hold constant, which is critical for testing in the scientific method. We can’t hold constant some god/ID, that is the crux and this is why supernatural doesn’t working at explaining anything more in detail than before.
“The natural materialistic exclusive truth claims cannot support themselves under the pressure of reality.”
Well, what has supernaturalism ever offered? Surely the Dark Ages and the fall of the Islamic science are reasons enough to know that invoking ‘god did it’ at every puzzling corner is not in our best interest.
“this mode of experimentation was in fact derived from within the Christian theistic worldview”
You’re on crack ol chap, the Classic Greeks (430 BC and prior) were using methods of the scientific method before jesus was even around. The Romans also used some of their techniques, until the Dark Ages took over leaving a 1000 scientific void in EU. In the mean time the Muslims were using science in many realms while Europe was floundering. No until the reformation and until some of the intel left behind from the Islamic conquests in Spain and France made there way into European societies did anything change in Europe. The real scientific method we use now, isn’t Christian in origin at all, but Islamic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Myself: “…you would admit that there is no empirical evidence that completely dispels the scientifically based pronouncements in ‘Expelled.’”
Agent says: “To be sure there are questions yet to be answered in evolutionary theory, as there are in gravity and every other theory, so in sake of knowing all things right now, you’re saying it makes more sense to appeal to god/supernaturalism?”
Agent, you’re chasing a rabbit’s trail that you think leads to the acquittal of naturalism and materialism from their predisposed biases, but it’s not so easily done. Nevertheless, to plow into your main point and skip the diatribe I confer not only with your assessment of gravity and every other theory that has been developed with the thought of having once and for all given us answers which have ironically only lead to more questions. However to completely base a scientific theory, calling it fact, when in reality it does not hold the verifiable empirical evidence that these other problematic theories did offer, leaves a bit to be desired of. Secondly, this only reveals the problem that evolution does not in fact offer the kind of falsifiability that Neo-Darwinists such as your self try to pin on I.D. proponents and creationists on a regular basis. The fact that even if it were possible for Neo-Darwinism to account for all living things, it does not seem likely that it could ever be proven or disproved as say other theories such as the one you made. This does not make creationism or I.D. the ‘scape goat’ from the rigorous scientific investigations, but neither should supernatural explanations be omitted from serious enquiry. The simple fact that Neo-Darwinism lacks explaining power which has given rise to Meta-Darwinism should be a clue that even if I.D. is selectively discriminated against over its inherent appeal to religious belief, it doesn’t follow that Darwinism should be let off the hook as the theory de jure.
“…you see how/why appealing to the supernatural isn’t scientific, right?”
Sorry Agent, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are implying that naturalism is unscientific, then you may have my ear. The natural materialistic exclusive truth claims cannot support themselves under the pressure of reality. Not only is there no basis for truth, neither is there a foundation for its development in a materialistic worldview. The mad hatter becomes just as sane as Einstein, no pun intended. There is no way to presume that the man excepting the Nobel Prize is any more worthy as its recipient than the man on the street corner begging for his next drink. It is all in fact meaningless and lacking the capability of distinguishing it.
“Appealing to ‘god made it that way’ is an intellectual dead end.”
I’m sorry Agent, but you are mistaken here. While it may be that for certain practicality sake that one needs to roll up his sleeves and investigate matters for him self without making certain supernatural and mystical explanations, this mode of experimentation was in fact derived from within the Christian theistic worldview. It was Platonic philosophy that held science at the dead end as you called it. It was Christians thinking out of his box that has lead to the disrespect and degradation so commonly held by Mother-Earth advocates and pantheists against Christianity.
w00t/Howard/George/oldguy/Dwen/yyyy/xxxx/first/danny2/danny/BobC/BobCu/Asdfg/zxcvb…
“ID is not science. …there is no science in Expelled.”
…Spoken by a naturalist who has yet to see the movie. Should anyone wonder? “All the information is out there available to you. Take the time to look at some of it.” Sounds like you’ve got some great source material w00t. Why should anyone bother watching it objectively when there are plenty of emotionally distressed reviewers who have been barred from the early previews in the first place? Perhaps if you devoted materialists were to unlock science from strangulation you might learn a thing or two and even have a little laugh along the way. I doubt anyone who has been to Stein’s film sight has been able to keep a serious face. But for you, its all magic man superstition, no?
You may not take pleasure in your worldview being picked at, but it does not give you the right to dictate what other people should think and investigate, just because Maha mahesh w00t says so. Even if I.D. proponents are wasting their time and finances, what is it to you? If Neo-Darwinism is the king of the hill let the facts speak for themselves; it’s not like they are tax-payer funded as the numerous scientific naturalism projects are. They are not advocating an exclusive indoctrination, as Neo-Darwin proponents. If anything they want science unleashed, rather then being stifled by an angry mob of mad scientists who are committed to religious naturalism who demand respect and government support.
You know, X, you can be a real pain in the rear. I'm not "shoving" anything down your throat. I was just commmenting to other Christians about a Biology cirriculum we use (btw - you can CLEP college-level biology classes with it). I wasn't even trying to say anything to the evolutionists out there.
You might find that you will get a little more respect, and people will be a whole lot more willing to listen to you if you'd drop the hostility. It's just downright mean.