“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” the pro-intelligent design documentary featuring actor Ben Stein, made history this weekend as it propelled full speed into the top 10 box office. It opened as the widest and one of the most commercially successful releases for any documentary film.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Entertainment > Movie
'Expelled' Explodes into Top 10 Box Office
By
Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Correspondent
Mon, Apr. 21 2008 03:36 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Tarzan,
If you’re interested in other such examples of intermediates or those which can be used as examples bridges one group to another group I recommend researching groups like the early reptiles and their descendants the mammal like reptiles and their descendants the reptile like mammals. With regards to these groups, its sometimes hard to identify which are clearly reptile and clearly mammal as the intermediates are so numerous, so numerous in fact that paleontologists continue to debate on where the lines are drawn between such large groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodont
“... do you know if the Archaeopteryx was able to breed with others within it's species?”
Well of course it would have been able to, members of the same species by definition are able to breed amongst and with each others of the same species. Some members of one species can interbreed with another closely related species (lions and tigers or horses and donkies), but they generally reproduce with difficulty or produce infertile offspring so the lineage can’t continue with this hybrid, be it a Liger or Mule. With this in mind, it’s at possible that Archaeopteryx was not only able to mate with those of its own species, but also those genetically close enough, but again the offspring would be infertile.
From the site you referenced – http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html
“Two important points evolutionary biologists rely on when claiming Archaeopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and its teeth.”
Take all the intermediate features, and how closely they demonstrate Archaeopteryx and those of its type as being a transitional species. No modern birds have teeth, but the first birds did, not just teeth either, but notable reptilian teeth. No modern birds have a reptile like head and no beak/bill either like Archaeopteryx and others like it. No modern have a long tail with feathers either, but the first birds did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
“shoot me that info on lobe finned fish and tetrapods,”
You can find some on talkorigins, but here are some tidbits. I think PBS or Nova’s site also has some info on them. Refer to the articles from Wiki and not just the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega
http://pandasthumb.org/links.html
agentorangex... i know the difference between micro and macro, sorry if i worded incorrectly... i did read up on theropod dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx... saw 2 opposing viewpoints
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html
... do you know if the Archaeopteryx was able to breed with others within it's species?
... shoot me that info on lobe finned fish and tetrapods, would be interesting reading... thanks for the kind replies
Tarzan,
Re-read what the differences are between macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution is the allelic genetic variance from generation to generation, like how your parents might have blue eyes, while you have brown, or how the offspring of a black and white person will have such a variance from its parents in many respects.
Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level boundary, so anytime a species diversifies into a new species, you have macro evolution. This is when genetically speaking, a species becomes isolated and can’t breed with its former ancestor, at this point each species goes on it’s own genetic trajectory.
“but i didnt see any pigs with wings... elephants with giraffe necks”
These are examples and not realistic ones, however a better example is reviewing extinct species, and other extinct species, which lived more recently, and then extant (living) species and showing their common ancestry. For this I suggest looking at major animal groups, like theropod dinosaurs and birds, and then such examples of species like Archaeopteryx, which exhibited transitional features between both groups.
Another example would be reviewing the transitionals between lobe finned fish and early amphibian tetrapods. If you’d like the examples for these, please ask, I’ll cite them.
Another example would some interesting apes from Africa who began walking upright and showed a progressive use of tools and growing of the cranium and development of culture.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
agentorangex, i read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and all i saw was micro evolution.... plants mutating into different kind of plants.. flies mutating into differing flies... but i didnt see any pigs with wings... elephants with giraffe necks... etc
“I don't know that it is not falsifiable, I mean I.D. is not "one" theory in the same way that evolution is.”
ID folk say it’s a theory and as such it should have many avenues from which it can pull its evidence from and be falsifiable and falsified from, just like how evolution pulls from many different avenues of knowledge and based on them and their falsifiability they and it can be falsified. How is ID falsifiable?
“is highly unlikely that some random process would lead to a concious and reasoning being like us (yes yes, it is not really random because of Natural selection, but honestly, there is no reason why organisms should have desired to form into a highly innefficient "animal" like a human being”
Firstly, you’re wrong animals don’t ‘desire to change’ in accordance with evolution, their change is the result of external forces, conditions and environmental pressures, most of which they absolutely no direct control over and due to their lacking control the only course of action they have to continue to exist is to change.
“it seems evolution is getting worse and worse in terms of efficiency and living capability”
How do you mean, elaborate please. Evolution for a given animal makes a certain animal(s) more apt of survive in a given environment, but environments aren’t static and as such animals continually have to adapt. Perhaps bacteria are the best ‘all suited’ of all animals to survive all habitats, virtually all animals are local their niche, biome and this is where they thrive, outside of it, food and resource competition makes a living harder.
“Also, origins is a problem for evolution”
How? Evolution would still be a viable concept regardless if aliens engineered it, god poofed it, or if it arose naturally, in the end evolution as a process still holds water. Evolution only seems to be a problem for those that expect evolution to explain origins, but alas it does not.
“I reject natural selection on a common sense basis, rather I can accept a form of evolution which is based and determined in "God's Will".’
Reject NS you might, but the problem is as it pertains to ‘Science’ and how ‘god’s will’ is totally unfalsifiable and as such can’t be explained in a scientific manner and this is the problem ID faces and it can’t explain the designer for fear of being called religion. So what ‘common sense’ basis reveals to you NS isn’t tenable as an explanation for evolution?
For instance, how does ID explain ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion in a scientific manner? Surely ‘the designer made it that way’ isn’t a scientific explanation as its not falsifiable.
“From the brief viewing of various I.D. proponents websites that I have visited, I can honestly say that they do not argue from lack of evidence,”
They don’t? The notion of IC is based squarely on personal incredulity and ignorance. ‘ I don’t know how it could have evolved, so a designer MUSTA dun it’. That sums of the arguments for IC pretty much. The instances of IC Behe refers to have been addressed and shown to have evolutionary pathways, and yet still I hear time and again how I am supposed to be in awe of the complexity of the flagella or the immune system.
‘take it up with them.’
Or just watch Ken Miller address Behe’s argument for IC here…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
“it seems that the anti-I.D. side spends a lot of time on this idea that I.D. is a "god-of-the-gaps" theory and what not, I have rarely see them rely on such ideas,”
How is arguing for IC not an argument from god of the gaps again? Look at how all the examples Behe has given have been shown to have evolutionary explanations and in the end Behe is the one looking not too wise in defining them as IC and he did so chiefly b/c ‘he couldn’t see how evolution could make sense of it’.
‘I think the ID folks see mass media and PR as a last resort? Perhaps this is another baseless attack...”
how’s it an attack, it’s the truth. ID lost in peer reviewed science journals? Check. Lost in court to have it injected into classrooms? Check. Last resort is to mass media and PR
‘Ben Stein said that he would love for both sides to sit down and discuss and allow ID ideas to be put to the test,”
They’ve been put to the test and each time have fallen just like William Paley’s old watchmaker arguments. SSDD.
“say baseless because they are not based on the actual ID perspective”
Well, lets hear some actual SCIENTIFIC evidence with respect to ID that stands up to testing and critique. The way you talk it’s just overflowing, so lets hear some. I’ll wait….
"Hate to burst your bubble, but I.D. is in fact just as falsifiable as Neo-Darwinian evolution."
Hate to burst your bubble, but simply stating it's falsifiable doesn't make it so. Show HOW it's falsifiable based on it's own evidence and testing.
Correction: There are many theories in Evolutionary thought, but they are not so wide in explanation (at least as far as I have seen) as ID theory.
Agentorange (Part 1),
I will briefly respond here, thanks for your posts though!
"Firstly, ID isn’t even a valid theory, its not even falsifiable. Evolutionary theory can make testable, falsifiable predictions which ID can’t be used to explain. How does ID explain ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 in a falsifiable manner? ‘The designer made it that way’ isn’t falsifiable and as such isn’t Science. What is the intrinsic value in assuming something to be designed?"
I don't know that it is not falsifiable, I mean I.D. is not "one" theory in the same way that evolution is. I.D. ranges from Theistic Evolution to 6-Day Creationism. My position is closer to a "theistic" evolution, and yes there are "atheistic" and "theistic" branches of evolution. Personally, I have near zero training in science and therefore I am not qualified to debate any specifics. However common sense leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that some random process would lead to a concious and reasoning being like us (yes yes, it is not really random because of Natural selection, but honestly, there is no reason why organisms should have desired to form into a highly innefficient "animal" like a human being, it seems evolution is getting worse and worse in terms of efficiency and living capability). Also, origins is a problem for evolution, whether or not evolution deals with it does not matter, because there was an origin and that origin will vastly effect the way we interpret data and look for answers regarding evolution. ERVs and Chromosomes aside.
That being said, perhaps there is in fact good evidence for evolution, big deal!? I reject natural selection on a common sense basis, rather I can accept a form of evolution which is based and determined in "God's Will". This is Intelligent Design. Perhaps you can substitute an alien for God, as Richard Dawkins apparently has done (still waiting for substantiation of that though) and Watson, from Watson and Crick most certainly assumed.
Agentorange (Part 2)
"B/c ID argues from gaps of ignorance, it’s not based on actual evidence, but lacking evidence."
From the brief viewing of various I.D. proponents websites that I have visited, I can honestly say that they do not argue from lack of evidence, but what they believe is evidence supporting their position. You may disagree, but you should take it up with them. Anyways, it seems that the anti-I.D. side spends a lot of time on this idea that I.D. is a "god-of-the-gaps" theory and what not, I have rarely see them rely on such ideas, except when they are pointing out supposed holes in evolutionary theory. This is a baseless attack, and is not valid.
"We will adopt a new science theory (ID included) IF it’s supported by lots of evidence and tons of critique and has withstood the normal testing to be deemed scientific."
I have never heard an ID proponent call for adopting a new theory, only to discuss ideas.
"But ID folk don’t want to go that route, instead of actually supporting it in court or showing all the evidence and testing supporting it then try their only tactic – mass media and PR campaigns."
I think the ID folks see mass media and PR as a last resort? Perhaps this is another baseless attack... Anyways, Ben Stein said that he would love for both sides to sit down and discuss and allow ID ideas to be put to the test, and he said if they are really as fraudulent as Evolutionists claim then they can be blown away. Why would Stein say this if it was able to happen? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between the two sides...
Anyways, I think this whole debate is laughable and a shame. If I were a brilliant scientist on either side I would say "Hey let us discuss and reason and come to a conclusion" So far, I haven't been hearing that from the Evolutionist side, I just hear a lot of baseless attacks. (I say baseless because they are not based on the actual ID perspective, they are based on ignorance thereof, and they really really are).
Hate to burst your bubble, but I.D. is in fact just as falsifiable as Neo-Darwinian evolution.
seed,
“You speak clearly here that it is the best model that naturalism has to date”
Seedy, all science is based on the natural world, as soon as you include the super natural into the equation to explain things it ceases to be Science. This is why calling is ‘naturalism’ as if its comparable to other isms is wrong and horrid logic.
“They see certain DNA that seems to demonstrate common decent.”
Certain DNA? The sheet fact that DNA is a common coded heredity passed down each generation only adds more evidence for evolution, for if it didn’t exist it would he hard if not impossible to explain how species change in response to their environment. And to you, how can you make sense of such evidence but by inferring such evolution or common descent? Surely were evolution and common descent not to be valid we would have found it to be falsified on many fronts, but after finding genetics we’ve found it to fill in further gaps and define more details only reaffirming current knowledge of evolutionary biology.
“They see various changes in beaks and colors as well as in bacteria that they interpret to imply natural selection and random genetic mutations are our beneficiaries.’
So what is your alternative explanation, that some super duper ID is magically controlling the beak sizes and allowing bacteria to magically have the ability to all of a sudden digest nylon? Natural Selection is a natural process, just like the coming and going of the weather, there need not be string pulling. How is such a hypothesis of ID working on such micro levels even testable or falsifiable?
“But it is a valid question, one which is essential to evolution.”
Sure it’s a valid question, we don’t know how yet, but does not knowing how rule out evolution once life exists? No, it most certainly doesn’t.
“Myers article was not even supposed to be allowed to be peer reviewed, that was a slip in the system so to speak.”
And Behe? Were his ideas refused an open forum? No, they weren’t. His idea of IC from ‘Darwin’s Black box’ have been addressed in literature and only fools still use the flagella and others as instance for ID.
“gravity is a constant force which we can feel and test virtually any time,”
and the evolutionary process is one we can test everyday in the labs and based on such knowledge can make falsifiable predictions, even regarding where we should find certain intermediate forms like Tiktaalik. Now why should we be able to make such a prediction of where/when such transitional forms should exist unless such evolution at the macro level are indeed true? Additionally, genetic evidence like ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion can only be explained by inferring such macro-evolutionary changes. Again, these are facts and such facts only make sense in light of large macro changes over time.
Chris333
“Perhaps an example of something that evolutionary theory gives us, which ID cannot?”
Firstly, ID isn’t even a valid theory, its not even falsifiable. Evolutionary theory can make testable, falsifiable predictions which ID can’t be used to explain. How does ID explain ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 in a falsifiable manner? ‘The designer made it that way’ isn’t falsifiable and as such isn’t Science. What is the intrinsic value in assuming something to be designed?
“until then I will laugh at you, hahahaha"”
No chris, if ID is actually supported by actual evidence and actual testing it will be a form of science regardless of how hard anyone tries to ignore it. B/c ID argues from gaps of ignorance, it’s not based on actual evidence, but lacking evidence.
“Fine, now lets talk about holes in the evolution theory, and lets talk about how and if they can be explained using the evolutionary theory, or if some new theory should be introduced, that is what science is about right?”
You lead off, go ahead pick the areas in which evolutionary theory can’t yet explain. Don’t cry, now is your chance, pick something it can’t legitimately explain. We will adopt a new science theory (ID included) IF it’s supported by lots of evidence and tons of critique and has withstood the normal testing to be deemed scientific. But ID folk don’t want to go that route, instead of actually supporting it in court or showing all the evidence and testing supporting it then try their only tactic – mass media and PR campaigns.
Good points Chris. The fact is is that Neo-Darwinism may never be capable of actually being proven in as a historical fact. Here, the naturalist must take it by faith. They see certain DNA that seems to demonstrate common decent. They see various changes in beaks and colors as well as in bacteria that they interpret to imply natural selection and random genetic mutations are our beneficiaries. All the while numerous skepticism remains in their thinking regarding the historical evidence surrounding the Nazarene. Never mind the changed lives. The hundreds of prophecies are to ancient to understand nor can the texts be reliable. It is interesting indeed the way evidence can be rallied behind while other evidence can be shrugged off without a moments notice.
To presuppose evolution to the detriment of scientific research only leads to the degradation of science and the trustworthiness it exerts in the community.
You speak clearly here that it is the best model that naturalism has to date. This speaks to the issue that seems to be lost in the academic community. If this simple concept was nailed down, I think that it would do wonders for scientific progress. Until it is one hundred percent certain, it has the power to do indeterminable harm.
Agent, your list only reveals the reality of changes, not the benefits of teaching evolution. All creationists worth their credentials recognize changes. While it is debated within creationists and ID proponents exactly what these changes constitute, neither deny them.
Agentorange continued,
"Right, but like i'd said before, with regards to evolution working as a process or not, it matters not how life originated, so essentially it's a non-factor in determining if evolution be true or not. "
But it is a valid question, one which is essential to evolution. Still, I believe that ID proponents by and large have more problems than just origins.
"Myers has submitted an article to peer review (free speech) and it was promptly destroyed"
Myers article was not even supposed to be allowed to be peer reviewed, that was a slip in the system so to speak. It is one thing to give objective criticism, it is another to outrightly ban an idea from scientific inquiry.
"And do we not have facts about the holocaust, gettysburg adress, WWII, gravitation, heliocentrism, and evolution? Ahh, but we do and as such we are responsible to teach the facts as this is what is supported."
WWII happened recently and we have historical documents, places and people to verify what happened, gravity is a constant force which we can feel and test virtually any time, heliocentrism is not as easy to test as gravity, but it can be known by simple observation and record. Evolution is a process that takes millions of years, and cannot be seen today, the only way to access said facts is by labratory. Certainly there are facts supporting it, but it is not comparable to the others you mentioned, even on a basic level.
Agentorange,
"Agriculutture (genetically modified crops), medicine (evolutionary techniques for medicines), healthcare ( identifying unique genes in hosts which corelate to diseases or make the host immune to them) want more?"
I believe that ID does not exclude any of the mentioned benefits of evolutionary theory, as such it would not matter which theory one espoused, the only thing that would change is the perspective or means of reaching the conclusion. Perhaps an example of something that evolutionary theory gives us, which ID cannot?
"To get to that level it has to EARN its way, by showing EVIDENCE and TESTING which supports their claims. Simply putting it into the ring to be shredded wont advance anything, we need sound hypothesis which can be supported by plenty of evidence and produce results. ID has had a few articles go before the peer reviewed journals, alas they were SHREDED for lacking evidence"
This seems very unscientific, it is basically like someone saying, "Hey professor, I have a theory about such and such" To which the professor abruptly responds, "You are so stupid, how could you have a theory about this, just by the title of your theory I can see that there is no evidence for it, hahaha, I am so smart and superior, hahaha, you have to earn your way, until then I will laugh at you, hahahaha"
"AGAIN, Stein is Wrong here. Theories in science have boundaries on what they can and can't explain, no single theory can explain all facets of all things all at once. Theories in science are like collective pieces of a pie of truth which collectively explain the universe."
Fine, now lets talk about holes in the evolution theory, and lets talk about how and if they can be explained using the evolutionary theory, or if some new theory should be introduced, that is what science is about right? (Wait, maybe I am mistaken, maybe science just maintains the old forms of thought FOREVER)
"it is about allowing freedom of speech and ideas"
In science when an idea is supported by evidence and tests then and only then is it taught in classes. Myers has submitted an article to peer review (free speech) and it was promptly destroyed. Don't give me the 'free speech' nonsense, like none from the evolutionary side aren't being censored or haven't lost their jobs over teaching it. Oh but Stein neglects to mention how Chris Comer was fired for teaching evolution, o well, I guess you're right he's not pro-ID.
"Possibly, but the Holocaust is not comparable to a scientific theory, it is a historical fact."
And do we not have facts about the holocaust, gettysburg adress, WWII, gravitation, heliocentrism, and evolution? Ahh, but we do and as such we are responsible to teach the facts as this is what is supported.
seedplanter,
"I think that most creationists and I.D. advocates would be happy if at least the criticisms of evolution be addressed as well as alternatives reviewed. "
We should teach what the evidence supports and is well tested and not vacous gaps of ignorance which what ID hides in. Science works by teaching what the evidence supports and can answer, not by pointing out the small gaps of nominal things that we've yet to explain.
"Maybe you can explain how evolution “helps” scientific progress "
Agriculutture (genetically modified crops), medicine (evolutionary techniques for medicines), healthcare ( identifying unique genes in hosts which corelate to diseases or make the host immune to them) want more?
"If ID is so foolish, why not let it be peer reviewed and put into the scientific arena so that it can be blown away and proven to be so ridiculous?" (summarized) Well, why not? "
To get to that level it has to EARN its way, by showing EVIDENCE and TESTING which supports their claims. Simply putting it into the ring to be shredded wont advance anything, we need sound hypothesis which can be supported by plenty of evidence and produce results. ID has had a few articles go before the peer reviewed journals, alas they were SHREDED for lacking evidence.
"Here I think that Stein is noting a lack of explanatory power in the theory of evolution."
AGAIN, Stein is Wrong here. Theories in science have boundaries on what they can and can't explain, no single theory can explain all facets of all things all at once. Theories in science are like collective pieces of a pie of truth which collectively explain the universe.
"while evolutionists say that they are not concerned with origins, they do say a great deal about it"
Right, but like i'd said before, with regards to evolution working as a process or not, it matters not how life originated, so essentially it's a non-factor in determining if evolution be true or not.
Agent,
Thank you for addressing the argument that I posed to dongard in his claims that I.D. Proponents are attempting to prosecute evolutionists or whatever he was ranting about. My point to ifeelfine regarding the equal time advocates is merely that while many creationists have pushed for such public school amendments it is not so within the entire scope of creation scientists. I think that most creationists and I.D. advocates would be happy if at least the criticisms of evolution be addressed as well as alternatives reviewed. I think that a typical 55 minute class time would be more than sufficient time to cover the issues debated for what little impact it has in the realm of scientific thought. Actually, I don’t really even see the dire need for diving into the depths of evolution as far as practicality is concerned. I know that that one will really put you off. Maybe you can explain how evolution “helps” scientific progress (outside of pushing a natural materialism philosophy on unsuspecting).
dongard,
Is that really the headlines, or are you predicting? Also, did you intentionally misspell "expelled" as a pun on words? (These are serious questions)
Agentorange,
"it’s not about atheists chris, it’s about science, what it is and what it isn’t and how Expelled directly targets evolution of all science realms."
I don't see it as such. The point of expelled (according to the producers) is not to put forth Intelligent Design as a theory, it is rather to open up the scientific community for reflective criticism, the bedrock of science. I saw an interview of Ben Stein and Glen Beck, (don't go crazy all at once) and Ben Stein said, "If ID is so foolish, why not let it be peer reviewed and put into the scientific arena so that it can be blown away and proven to be so ridiculous?" (summarized) Well, why not?
"the concern is that some will confuse evolution with relating to the origins of life or the origins of the cosmos as Stein proclaims it does"
Here I think that Stein is noting a lack of explanatory power in the theory of evolution. Evolutionists may throw up there hands and say, "We don't know what happened at the exact beginning" But they do say that life originated from a single cell. Also, while evolutionists say that they are not concerned with origins, they do say a great deal about it (or at least they traditionally have).
"Then you do not stand for truth. We should all stand for what is based on evidence as best supported."
I did not say that I would not protest, or denounce such a movie, I said I would not have a hissy fit and try to sue them. But the issue here is not "not standing up for what evidence supports" it is about allowing freedom of speech and ideas.
"You’d probably feel different were you a Jew and a film was made called ‘The Holocaust hoax’ right?"
Possibly, but the Holocaust is not comparable to a scientific theory, it is a historical fact. Still, I would not try to ban the holocaust-deniers from speaking their minds, rather I would let them present their evidence, and then blow it away, as the scientific community ought to do, instead of ostracizing and discriminating against ID proponents.
seedplanter,
“I.D. “scientists” (last time I checked Michael Behe wasn’t attending Loyola to become a priest) want to force people to believe in creationism under the penalty of law.”
Ever heard of ‘The Wedge Document’? Sure, it’s not arguing for under penalty of law, but the disclosure of the wedge document is hard to shallow as their motives are quite clear.
“Also please document where any I.D. advocate is demanding “equal time.”
No offense Seed, but you’re coming off as mighty naïve of it all. The very notion of ‘equal time’ and ‘teach the controversy’ were coined directly as consequence since the IDiots lost in Dover in 2005. Do some Googling and you’ll be able to find athe discovery institutes offering a ‘how to teach the controversy legally’ video.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy
‘“I.D. can be falsified if plausible natural mechanisms can be devised to explain all candidates for irreducible complexity...”
The problem with IC is many things can appear to be IC based on our current knowledge of a given system, biological or otherwise. IC essentially argues from gaps of ignorance.
If I can show how instances of IC are found to have evolutionary pathways, that would essentially kill the notion of IC, would it not? Poof then, falsified and they are quite reasonable. (they are long, but worth it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30_u9W6_UWA
'Also please explain to us how evolution is falsifiable."
Find mammal fossils in the Devonian geological strata layer, that and other such finds would erase the notion of certain species derving from other extant extinct ones. Find some bunny fossils in the same layers as the jawless fish and it's about done. it wouldn't kill the theory spot on, but would create some problems explaing how mammals came about before the reptiles and the mammal like reptiles. see where I am going? i can list 27 falsifiable predictions evolution has passed if you'd like.
“but it accurately defined a major problem in education today which is the persecution of scientists who do not see evolutionary theory as a valid explanation for the origins of life.’
I am debating to even comment on this string of words, alas I must, lest you make the same comment again later. Doc, evolutionary theory doesn’t describe, nor does it attempt to, the ORIGINS of LIFE, rather it explains the diversity of life.
“persecution of scientists”
Here are some ‘other’ scientists who’ve been persecuted for teaching evolution. Strange this all didn’t make its way into Expelled. Might as well just go to www.expelledexposed.com
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/nwescientist-bl.html
“Evolution as an explanation for the origin of man is a fabrication meant to substitue for a creator.”
No it’s not. Evolution is biology and it describes how all living things are related to via extended descent, there is no implication that b/c evolution is true god becomes not true. Again, evolution doesn’t explain the origins of life, only the diversity of it.
“Intelligent design does not promote a specific creator”
That’s right, it doesn’t, but it can’t as if it did it couldn’t be taught in schools on grounds about the 1st article In fact it doesn’t even permit anyone to investigate the designer and says that we don’t need to define it to know it exists. Talk about horrid logic. And this is why ID isn’t falsifiable and why it’s not science.
“I must know and believe in random chance evolution”
Evolution isn’t random in totality, it’s more like deterministic. Mutations are random, but overall the processes of evolution isn’t random at all.
Agent, you can be disappointed with the creationists that I referred to, but not me. The simple facts that I have been posting are that I.D. proponents do not refer to the Bible as their 'a priori.'
Your disillusionment is with them, not me. I merely stated for the record that there are in fact creationists, such as Hugh Ross who has not been swayed in the least bit by ID. While he himself may even glean from writings of ID proponents, he in no way subscribes to their theorem. He is not alone.
ifeelfine, would you be so kind as to show exactly where creationists and I.D. “scientists” (last time I checked Michael Behe wasn’t attending Loyola to become a priest) want to force people to believe in creationism under the penalty of law. Also please document where any I.D. advocate is demanding “equal time.” Also please explain to us how evolution is falsifiable. Ah, let me guess, if God steps down from heaven and says, "I DID IT!" For every single bend in the road there is always a promise of some future explanation. We know that Neo-Darwinism retains the copyrights on science because "we believe". Never mind the impracticality of the theory, it is just true, NAS says so!
Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler points out in The Evolution Controversy, “I.D. can be falsified if plausible natural mechanisms can be devised to explain all candidates for irreducible complexity...”
Seed,
‘I.D. on the other hand may be seen as another form of creationism to many atheists, but it is not so within the Christian community”
Seed, my opinion of you has fallen. ID is neo-creationism. The very first writings of ID are derived in Pandas and People a formerly YEC book. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
Having lost in 1987, ‘creationism’ was deemed not legally able to be taught in schools let alone science. At the moment in ’87 Pandas’ changed ‘creator’ to ‘intelligent designer’, refer to the Dover trial in 2005.
ID is simply creationism but they have gutted the notions of a 6000 year old universe/earth, no mention of religions or gods directly, no mention of jesus, admam and eve, the flood, salvation and other biblical themes as they know much of the evidence doesn’t support such things nor are they ‘scientific’. But what is left is the claim that William Paley and some ancient Greeks used, namely the ‘watchmaker’ arguments, essentially arguments from ignorance.
“Many creationists do not support ID at all”
You’re patently ignorant here Seed, the main proponents of ID are in fact creationists. Look at the who’s who in the ID camp and they are virtually all creationists. Albeit they’re aren’t the YEC variety, they are creationists none the less.
‘If atheists claim this movie is so ridiculous, so stupid, so fake, so false, then why are they so angry!?”
it’s not about atheists chris, it’s about science, what it is and what it isn’t and how Expelled directly targets evolution of all science realms.
Chris
“They should be laughing if this is as ridiculous as they say it is.”
We DO laugh at it, but the cause for concern is how most laymen’s are utterly scientifically inept and therefore the concern is that some will confuse evolution with relating to the origins of life or the origins of the cosmos as Stein proclaims it does. We’d have the same concern in a film was put out called ‘Expelled: the controversy over the flat earth and what round earthers are hiding’. The issue is what the evidence shows and how a film like this is intentionally made to mislead, gain a quick buck and not to educate at all- essentially propaganda.
“I would not become outraged and throw curses at a movie made by flat earth proponents, if I did, I would look like a complete fool.”
Then you do not stand for truth. We should all stand for what is based on evidence as best supported. You’d probably feel different were you a Jew and a film was made called ‘The Holocaust hoax’ right? See the dilemma on truth there?
I went to see Expelled this weekend. It was interesting that there were no previews for other movies before it. I suppose they did not want to be connected.
I thought the movie was great. It was not an Indiana Jones adventure flick, but it accurately defined a major problem in education today which is the persecution of scientists who do not see evolutionary theory as a valid explanation for the origins of life. That is what is what the movie is about. It is about the sarcastic, disdainful, dismissive, hateful attitude of evolutionary biologists. They are are so smart and anyone who disagrees is so stupid.
That kind of thinking prevents us from examining the facts of the matter. It stifles inquiry and prevents us from finding real answers. The problem with this bias is that it bleeds into other areas of science.
The best of the of the movie was at the end when Stein said that "truth crushed to the ground will rise again and that no lie can stand forever." Evolution as an explanation for the origin of man is a fabrication meant to substitue for a creator. Intelligent design does not promote a specific creator. It only says that it is hard even impossible to explain the existence of complicated life on random chance selection basis.
I am a physician and I have been asked if it is hard to believe in God since I must know and believe in random chance evolution. My reply is that, since I am a physician and have spent my whole dealing with scientific facts, it is entirely reasonible to believe in an intelligent creator.
headline for this weekend exspelled sinks like a stone at the box office
Ifeelfine,
I am not angry at Dawkins, when he calls Christianity a fairy tale, I don't start making angry protests. Dawkins has an opinion that he is entitled to. However, if Dawkins was deliberately making fun of Christianity, in a way that he knew wasn't true, then I would be somewhat more angry, but I wouldn't call for bans on him or his books.
The Family Guy example is accurate, because from Dawkins' perspective, Christianity (and ID) is a made up ridiculous phenomena, thus he shouldn't take it seriously. Just the same as I don't take flat earther's seriously, even if they came out with a documentary.
Either, Dawkins believes there is something more to Christianity than he is letting on, or he is over reacting.
seedplanter: There is a big distinction between ID and evolution as it relates to "equal time" in the science class - evolution is science and ID is not. No one has answered how ID is falsifiable (which is one part of science and the scientific method). It doesn't deserve equal time because its not science.
Chris333: Your logic is flawed because you would get angry (and say that you have) over perceived slights to Christianity. The Family Guy is an animated comedy which is very different from an educated Dawkins putting down Christianity. I happen to think Dawkins is a brilliant mind but I believe he is wrong about God and it angers me when he calls it a fairy tale, etc. And I know it angers you and others here because posts that tend to be hard on Christianity are especially popular here. So when you put down evolution, of course he is going to get angry - as are others. You need to be a little more self reflective when it comes to some of these topics.
dongard,
"the flat earthers (and yes they do exist) are not trying to throw me in jail, make my union with my partner illegal, and in general expect that everyone should believe under penalty of law there is no other possible answer except that the earth is flat."
I know they exist, it is painful to hear their arguments... nonetheless, I don't know what it is that you might be doing that could give someone the impression you should be in jail, if you have stolen something or killed someone or somesuch, perhaps you should be in jail, if you are in a homosexual relationship then you should not be in jail, the vast majority of Christians do not say otherwise, especially not ID proponents. Intelligent Design has little to do with the homosexual union debate, I for one think that Christians should not worry about what non-Christians do. Also, I have never heard a Christian say that everyone should have to be Christian under penalty of law, and if I did I would seriously doubt that persons faith, as it is completely against Christ's message which was not of this world. Please don't attribute to Christianity what these abusers are saying, I don't call all atheists genocidal maniacs because Stalin was an atheist.
"sorry to say that the same cannot be said for christians. "
Sorry if you got this impression, as a Christian, who spends a great deal of time with Christians, and reading Christian literature, I can honestly say that the vast majority of us have no such ideas.
"you guys sure seem to be in love with using the power of the hereandnow state and have been for centuries. when you argue that tradition counts you also assume the burden of that tradition. "
I think you are confusing pre-Council of Trent Catholicism with all of Christianity, still for the Catholics part, the Pope did commit a Church-wide repentance for these and other things. We (Christians) ask for your forgiveness, but I understand if you are not willing to give it.
Chris
Ifeelfine,
How is my logic wrong? Richard Dawkins says, and many others with him, that ID proponents are idiots who are ignoring well established facts. Then they go on a rampant about how evil we are, and how we are trying to supress the truth.
Anthony Horath describes it as, "The outrage expressed by the atheistic community at Ben Stein's movie, ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ has been so palpable you could bottle it up and sell it as an energy drink. They are practically foaming at the mouth"
Why? I do not get worked up whenever Family Guy runs another episode with some gross misrepresentation of Christianity. Certainly I feel offended, but if someone were to be debating me, and use family guy as a basis for their argument, I would not get into a hissy fit over it. I would probably laugh and shrug it off. I couldn't take it serious enough to get angry over it. The same applies for movies like "The Davinci Code" I have spoken to people who honestly thought it was a strong argument against Christianity. Granted, I am upset that to this day the Davinci Code website has a blatant lie listed in their facts section, I am not "foaming at the mouth" over it, I feel bad for the people who are decieved by it, much the same way I feel sorry for the people who read tabloids and actually believe it.
In short, I have nothing against Richard Dawkins et al, being upset and protesting this movie, I actually have nothing against them having a "hissy fit" over it. I just can't understand why they go so far, when they say that it is not serious in the first place.
don, are you suggesting that Christians are trying to make nartural evolution illegal in academia? At this point in time many creation proponents are at the same place where Darwinists were during Scopes. Evolutionists were arguing for equal time and not necessarily a total overthrow of what was then the standard text - creationism. That seems to be the same arguement today only in reverse. I.D. on the other hand may be seen as another form of creationism to many atheists, but it is not so within the Christian community. Many creationists do not support ID at all. While there are many YEC proponents that utilize there research, many of them only support them because of a lack of a better alternative at this point. YEC proponents have been locked out completely and the ID proponents are in the same predicament. It is naturalism that is having the hay day in terms of wielding the power of the state.
chris333
your premise is sound, but fortunately the flat earthers (and yes they do exist) are not trying to throw me in jail, make my union with my partner illegal, and in general expect that everyone should believe under penalty of law there is no other possible answer except that the earth is flat. sorry to say that the same cannot be said for christians. for people who want so badly to believe in the afterlife, you guys sure seem to be in love with using the power of the hereandnow state and have been for centuries. when you argue that tradition counts you also assume the burden of that tradition.
Chris: Once again, your logic makes no sense. Substitute Christianity for the movie and see if you would get angry. I would and so would everyone here
If atheists claim this movie is so ridiculous, so stupid, so fake, so false, then why are they so angry!? They should be laughing if this is as ridiculous as they say it is. I would not become outraged and throw curses at a movie made by flat earth proponents, if I did, I would look like a complete fool. Well congratulations Richard Dawkins, et al, you have made fools of yourselves, if you feel your position is superior then laugh it off and let people go see the movie, they prove the movie's point by their reactions.
Never have I seen such illogical rampant responses.
Are you Pentecostal?
As a matter of fact I do come from that perspective, Assemblies of God to be precise. I currently have fellowship at a Missionary Alliance church. I have found it to be enriching spiritually and intellectually. I would prefer a more spiritual emphasized service. The worship is Pentecostal, but the preaching is so refined that it lacks the enthusiasm that entails Pentecostalism. This is not really so different from many AG churches. The emphasis is shifting as the demographics of America are changing.
I don’t think any of the things that you listed as supportive of Mark 16:9-20 depend upon the validity of it being a part of the original autographed copy by Mark. Glossolalia certainly isn’t dependant on Mark, neither is the historical assertion of the miracles set forth there as you yourself provided alternative references to. I don’t think it is relevant to a Pentecostal that Mark 16:9-20 is historical, unless you really think it adds weight in a debate with a cessationalist. Since they would reject it anyway, the best way to use it would be to point out that even if it isn’t in the earliest manuscripts, it at least reveals that the content has not been recently developed by Pentecostals, but is in fact in line with very old traditional views.
Cevink, it is nice to officially meet you. Howard is a very emotional atheist who uses numerous names due to being kicked off CP so often. He went into a rage one time and deleted every single post on every single page on all of the stories that were on the main page. It must have taken him hours. You will recognize him by typical gestures such as claiming Christians believe in magic ferry dust and other imaginative insults. He recently has taken the name Jerry1, the fifteenth name that I am aware of.
....and I have no idea who the Jerrys, Georges, and Howards are, but they are *not* me. If you google cevink, you will find a multitude of things I have written in other forums. I am a regular at Biblelandstudios.com and the forum debates on Origins and evolution. Of course, I think my myspace page kinda proves that I am me, or that I am at least pretending *really* hard.
You guys kill me. Interesting & fun Kevin facts:
I was a pentecostal christian, 4 years as a matter of fact. I left the faith after my pastor gave a sermon claiming he had raised the dead...it was too much for my 13 year old mind to grasp.
I am currently single, but in Star/Patty's case I would demand supermodel looks and an unrivaled cooking ability to make up for the plethora of stupid. If you rate yourself a 9.5 or better and can cook like Emeril, hit me up on myspace (www.myspace.com/cevink)
...I understand the differences between us, you believe and I don't. Other than that, we might be remarkably similar.
I actually thought pattiepie (great name by the way) was Bob, Danny, First, etc.
Star2,
Of course you’re nice, you’ve never given me any reason to think otherwise. Somewhat frustrating to converse with you at times as it's like talking to a brick wall, but otherwsie manners and all I can't complain. you stick to your guns, which from a certain perspective is hard not to respect.
“So you say you could see through the facades of pattiepie because of the way she expressed herself. Well, who did you think you were talking to?”
At first I thought I was talking to a person from the South, evident by her lacking English and being Pentecostal. Though after a while I began to get the feeling this person, Pattiepie, wasn’t legit but was an alter ego of someone I already knew from here, namely you. Of all the people that could personify her, you did the best and so my inkling was that perhaps, just perhaps this is Star2, all along and I decided to play along for a while.
seedplanter
Re: Mark 16:17-18
I personally believe that Mark 16:17-18 are the words of Jesus. The early Church certaintly lived out those signs.
'Casting out devils" : Paul casted out a spirit of divination from a young damsel. The incident is recorded in Acts 16:16-18.
'they shall speak with new tongues' is recorded in Acts 2:4.
'they shall take up serpants...': The incident of Paul be bitten by a venomous snake on the Island Melita and not affected by the snake bite is recorded in Acts 28:3-6.
'they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover': After Paul was bit by that snake, he
laid hands on the father of the island's chief who was sick of fever and he was healed. (Acts 28:8.) Then the other islanders who were sick were also healed by Paul (Act 28:9).
I don't think there is any record of any believer drinking poison and not being hurt by it in the books of Acts. However, not everything the early Church went through was recorded like not everything Jesus did was recorded (John 21:25).
I am Pentecostal. I believe that the miracles that were experienced by the early Church is for today as well.
I have been a personal witness to casting out devils, tongues, and healings. I have not been a personal witness to 'they shall take up serpants and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them'.
Are you Pentecostal?
seedplanter - The underlining attitude towards creationism, God, and Christians. Like Jerry1, he tried to change his writing style but there was too much similarity with GeorgeX, Howard, and etal in how they thought.
Did you think pattiepie was an imposter? If so, who did you think she was? Or did you think she was for real but a little, stupid?
By the way Star2, why do you think cevink is another alias of Howard the lame duck?
He seems a bit to formal in his evolution escapades.
Hey Professor T, are you related to Professor X?
Poor cevink.
seedplanter - no, agentorange liked pattiepie.
seedplanter - well, cevink (Jerry2, Jerry1, GeorgeX, and etal) is really a very knowledgeable guy in his field of interest. But he and I don't see eye to eye on the issues of origins, Jesus, and eternity. He probably would find me very boring and lacking in original ideas. He would want a woman who had ideas!
Now, me I would want to go out with a guy who loved Jesus. cevink doesn't meet the criteria.
Maybe he prefers Pattiepie. He probably finds the slangs appealling.
Look at how grouchy he is all the time. That should be a clue.
Man needs God and man needs woman.
What of it cevink, is star2 in your sights?
I think that is what he's looking for in a date - a debate.
seedplanter - please, a date with cevink? You got to be kidding! He wouldn't like me because I have no original ideas plus I would be preaching to him about his favorite topic - Jesus!
And by the way, geriatrics Jerry is Howard the duck and a lame duck at that.
Personally Star2, I think that cevink is playing rough because he's looking for a date. Watch out, you may be in his sights.
The beauty of "Expelled" is that Ben Stein has shown us that you do not have to get into the public schools to teach people about Creation by Intelligent Design. I am calling on Christians to start buying Creationism and ID books and DVDs for the purpose of giving those books and DVDs to friends and neighbors, especially those with Jr. High and High School age kids. If we are going to take back origins science education from the God-hating Darwinists, we are going to have to circumvent the public education system and take it directly to the people ourselves. Are you on board with me? Please visit my blogsite http://exploringcreationism.blogspot.com God bless you.