First Review of Expelled!: An all around pan for Creationist cinema
The first major review of a preview screening of Expelled! has hit the net, and the reviewer basically confirms all our prophetic jeers and boos.
In keeping with what I’ve pieced together about film’s likely approach, it apparently never really even defines what Intelligent Design is, or really even explains what evolution is. Informing your audience about the basic ideas so they have some context to work with (and some way to understand the ideas and positions under debate) apparently got cut out of the film in the final edit.
In other words, this is not a film written by even someone like Michael Behe, who at least understands the basics of evolutionary theory and evidence to some extent. It’s a film written by pop creationists, who virtually never have the first idea what evolution is, how scientific evidence works, and so on. Instead of any serious discussion of biochem, genetics, or anything else, it looks like we get a heap of phony outrage generated by flat out lying and misleading the audience about cases like Richard Sternberg.
Fair warning though: one unfortunate part of the review is the discussion of junk DNA, which is just too simplistic to be anything other than misleading.
Note: My own final and detailed review/fisking here, finally. And there’s a whole host of much more in-depth Expelled-related content around here than you’ll find in just this short post.
Related: Another review casts more detail on the Hitler-happy nature of the film, as well as Ben Stein’s history of celebrating crazy conspiracy theories.
More: One of the best and most comprehensive accounts of the film, along with my debunking of one of its bizarre claims. And a review that sums up the film in a single picture. You should also check out Expelled Exposed, the official NCSE response site to the film’s claims, and I, of course, have plenty more to say on the subject.
March 19, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Saw it last night, great film, really makes the obvious point that evolution is a theory that should have been thrown out years ago. Growing up in a family that worked for all the U.S. National Labs in the world, I can tell you, scientifically, evolution does not stand up. And yes, it is a dangerous philosophy. There totally expose Dawkins when Dawkins himself starts talking about intelligent design. No words were put in his mouth. I couldnt stop laughing at how absurd that man is. Anyways. Go see it folks. 4 stars. Again, you can prove god in an athiest, if god didnt exist theyd be indifferent and not defiant.
March 20, 2008 at 8:22 pm
[...] They’ve screwed up on several occasions: accidentally inviting actual movie critics… who then refused to leave, refused to sign their “non-disclosure” gag orders, and then p…. [...]
March 21, 2008 at 2:33 am
Matt,please first check facts then bash.
ID is ultimate joke.Or what is happening with virusees and bacteria????
How does it come that we have DIRECT evidence about our ancestors,like Homo habilis?
No ID should be expelled as the name of movie suggest…
March 21, 2008 at 5:34 am
Matt, you are a rational human being, are you not? This comment “Again, you can prove god in an athiest, if god didnt exist theyd be indifferent and not defiant” is the most fatuous absurd nonsense I have ever heard in my life. Yes, I am looking forward to the proof of God or Gods, as so far it is totally zero, and is nothing more than wishful thinking. When you have some irrevocable evidence of your supernatural entity, then please submit it. Asinine nonsense such as the comment above, obscurantism, and an army of straw men is NOT proof. If you believe that the pseudo science, misinformation and the blatant religious propaganda evidenced in this appalling film do your cause any good, then you are grossly and sadly mistaken.
As for evicting PZ Myers, what a colossal own goal by the producers of this film, particulary as he was actually
March 21, 2008 at 6:28 am
“”Growing up in a family that worked for all the U.S. National Labs in the world, I can tell you, scientifically, evolution does not stand up.”"
As if THAT qualifies you for anything! My dad worked as an auctioneer, would you let me sell your house? It is perfectly clear that you have never read a book about evolution, so you plainly don’t know what you’re talking about.
G.
March 21, 2008 at 7:02 am
Expose him how? Expose the fact that he is willing to speak hypothetically about possibilities and how they could play out?
Dawkins was giving an example of how design could be made testable, and hence scientific. Apparently the producers either mangled the context, or simply relied on viewers not being capable of understanding the idea of hypotheticals.
March 21, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“Again, you can prove god in an athiest, if god didnt exist theyd be indifferent and not defiant.”
That statement is interesting for two reasons:
1) Since Christians are defiant of all gods except their own - to the extent that they feel compelled to travel around the globe, persuading other people of the wrongness of non-Christian beliefs - does that constitute proof that all gods except for the Christian god exist?
2) It’s interesting that you feel this statement is insightful enough that it bears repeating “again”.
March 21, 2008 at 5:52 pm
What does this mean exactly anyway: what labs? All of them? Are there some labs known specifically as “U.S. National”?
But as I keep trying to explain to people, you can’t just tell us: i.e. just make a claim. Claims are nothing. It’s making the actual argument: exposing it for all to see, that matters. I could claim to be the queen of england. Who cares?
This movie is exhibit A in not understanding that concept. As far as I can tell, there is virtually nothing of substance in it: it doesn’t even really explain what the arguments of ID are, specifically, not even to defend them. It just makes a bunch of tissue-thin claims: ones that have been debunked a million times before. And yet it offers nothing new to any of those old debates.
March 22, 2008 at 5:44 am
It’s amazing how much is being written about this.
Isn’t it what the IDiots want?
Seems to me that by letting Prof Dawkins get in and denying PZ Myer’s entrance, it would certainly create lots of controversy and they knew it.
DO NOT DO ANY MORE ADVERTISING TO THE ROYAL MORON BEN STEIN AND HIS PATHETIC MOVIE
March 22, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Betty: to some extent, you’re right. This is what they want. But on the other hand, they’re going to be loud and capable of promoting their ideas regardless of us. Perhaps not quite as loud, but still loud enough.
As they say, the only way forward is through. We can’t go back. The key is, I think, to make sure that criticism of their efforts doesn’t play into their persecution narrative: that it takes care to point out exactly the core flaws in their case for ID as science, and the judgment of ID as poor science being some sort of check on free expression… rather than JUST calling them stupid, religious, or whatever else.
March 24, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Matt- to say Dawkins embarrased himself shows your colours. I am not a big fan of the man but the point he was making was perfectly valid. You are a propagandist, just like the fools who made one hell of a boring documentary. And for you to say it should have been thrown out years ago. Well I have a test for you.
ALL THE VACCINES AND MEDICINES ESTABLISHED ON THE PREMISE THAT EVOLUTION IS INDEED A FACT……WILL YOU STOP TAKING THEM?????? You are a fool clouded by his slavish subordination to his religion!
March 24, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I think it’s now even more clear that words were put in his mouth, through the film creatively forgetting to include the context and the whole of his discussion on this subject. His explanation in his review of the film follows pretty much exactly how I expected that they had misrepresented him on this point.
For the record, I don’t think creationists need to stop taking medicine because they don’t believe in the principles that underly it. To them, it just works, and that’s reason enough to use it.
April 14, 2008 at 1:09 pm
At risk of putting my own head on the chopping block, it seems you guys are a little hard on Matt. I do not have a PhD in biology, but I do have a strong background in science (post-grad Nuclear Engineer). I have studied evolution and creation arguements and dating methods back and forth for some time. With both there is a point were philosophy and science start to meet. When science starts to touch on origins your personal worldview does affect your bias to theories. Absolute evolution is based on a purely naturalistic worldview, and absolute creation is typically based on a biblical-world view, and there is every iteration in between. Society must make room for these discussions where science touches on philosophy; and it should be done in a mutually respectful way; though all views have historically failed at this at some point. I think, though possibly to an extreme, the ID worldview is simply struggling to be allowed to speak without being insulted and judged strictly on alternate worldviews. Philosophical views that impinge upon the edges of science should never be viewed as a threat to real science and the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, observe, demostrate), which should be the heart of science education.
April 14, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I don’t agree, largely because science doesn’t have some big scary label “origins” for questions on how life began and so forth. This is just another attempt to carve out some special protected place for subjects some people don’t want science to look at. But science just examines what the facts are.
While no one can claim to be unbiased, science is a means for fighting bias, and does about as good a job as we can expect anything to do. However, if you start to explicitly let a “worldview” influence your account of the evidence, then you’ve left the realm of science.
I don’t know what you mean by “absolute evolution.” We don’t teach “absolute evolution” in schools or work on it in academia. We teach evolution as the best scientific understanding we have about the diversity of life on earth, and other scientific ideas about other areas (including questions on how life started, etc. that we don’t have any single solid answer to).
People are more than welcome to have philosophical discussions: who the heck is preventing people from discussing things? This is simply a red herring. What the ID camp is pushing for is not freedom to discuss, which they already have, but rather freedom from anyone’s professional judgment about the scientific vacuity of their specific claims. Science has standards. The ID camp wants to claim the prestige and benefits of being called science, but without having to meet those standards or playing by any of the rules. And the scientific method is a perfect example of this: their refusal to offer a means by which their ideas can be construed as a testable hypothesis makes just about any real science impossible.
When ID people complain that universities won’t support their research, what they are really complaining about is not that they are being prevented from speaking or explaining their ideas, but that no one will pay to support their ideas. What they want is affirmative action.
Also, I’m not sure if you meant anything by the order, but “observation” is one of the first steps in the scientific method, not the second to last. I mention this because quite a few people have the misconception about scientific experiment and knowledge that it is “observation,” often meant quite literally with eyeballs, which determines our ability to judge a hypothesis against the evidence.
April 17, 2008 at 6:25 pm
This is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen! you say they do not explain evolution in the film well i have only seen a couple of trailers and they have and the audience is informed of evolution because they teach it in schools now which is absurd.
Your saying the man who wrote speeches for the leader of our country has no idea about science and how it works? this review should be the one being criticized in this so called blog
April 17, 2008 at 9:57 pm
You’ve only seen trailers, and yet you claim you know better than what people who have actually seen it say it covers?
They teach integrals in schools too: how many people remember how to do those? Regardless, you haven’t really addressed the specific omissions people have noted, or why they are important.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Stein has demonstrated his lack of understanding, and I’ve explained it extensively. Do you have any substantive response?
And writing political speeches is hardly a qualification for understanding science. In fact, it might even be something of a disqualification. :)
And yet, you fail to raise even a single point of substantive criticism.
April 18, 2008 at 7:51 am
Help us fight the oppression of Avian Transportation Theory by the scientific Big Sex establishment!
Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM
April 18, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Evolution is a theory. . . the lack of a fossil record is enough to break the theory.
As for intelligent design, I do not know enough about the ID to bash or agree with them. I will say this, and it’s a statement that goes back a long long way.
That the interaction of our ecosystem is such that plants use the waste of mammals (CO2) to create waste that is used by mammals (O2) shows either incredible coincidence, collaborative natural harmony (it works that way because it works that way, and if it didn’t work that way it wouldn’t work that way), or “design”.
A creation has a Creator. Whether it’s a watchmaker, an architect, what have you.
To think that something is created ex nihilo, out of nothing, requires far more faith than believing what is most logical.
So, if the anti-ID people will at least have the intellectual honesty to declare that their believe in evolution is, in itself, a religious faith (a belief in an explanation as to how things came to pass, and as such dictates their personal interaction with this world), they probably wouldn’t be seen as the angry little youth that they are.
If the ID people would simply say “you don’t know the truth, i don’t know the truth, so this is the truth I’m going to subscribe to”, they’d probably get more converts too.
April 18, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Word to the wise: starting off a critique of science with the “a theory” trope is not a good way to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. Nor is saying that there is a “lack of a fossil record.” We have a fossil record, and it conforms as expected to the very specific pattern of common descent, and matches up with all the other sorts of evidence and lines of ancestry we can derive by other means (i.e. genetic, matching up with ancient geological movements, events, etc.) It’s incredibly rich and revealing: far more so than anyone in the 1800s would have ever expected it to be.
All the evidence points to it happening over time as various ecological niches were filled. In fact, the system you describe was not always that way. Nor is it anywhere near complete or that simple.
This merely begs the question you are trying to answer. We don’t know if existence is a “creation” of something or not.
Except that a) no biologist suggested anything “ex nihilo” b) you snuck the question begging word “creation” in there again c) you don’t offer any logic to consider the reasonability of your proposed alternative (which, as far as I can tell, hypocritically just involves creation ex nihilo via a being magically capable of simply doing that: creating a far bigger mystery than the one we set out to solve).
The belief that it’s a religious faith must surely be a comforting idea for you, but it’s little more than a lame accusation, not a fact. It’s certainly not very intellectually honest of you to backhandedly accuse people you disagree with of being irrational and having no sound evidential arguments.
And it doesn’t make much sense in light of all the religious people who have no problem with evolution as science.
Subscribing to this or that is not what science is about. It’s about the evidence: what does it show, how does it stack up against this or that claim about the world? The more you keep avoiding that process, the less and less you can claim to be doing science.
April 18, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Vaal this is an email to you, but like most Darwin believers you are to a close minded religion all to your own. Proof of God is very easy lets start with theArk of the Convenat please go to-http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/arkintro.htm-and take a look. Lets go to proof of the Red Sea Crossing-http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/redsea.htm-not enough? Lets take a look at another, Jesus tomb-http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/jesustomb.htm-I want to add to this saying it is a historical fact that Jesus walked the earth and dies on the cross that has been proved by even the most liberal people. The arguement is if he was raised from the dead or not. Lets look at Sodom and Gomorrah findings-http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm- one more. Noahs Ark-http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/noahsark.htm- I have more if you would like. After researching a little about the Bible and than looking for proof even a fool can find evidence all over the earth. However the smartest man in the world cannot find evidence to which he has predetermined is not true. It is my prayer that you take that to an open minded heart.
April 18, 2008 at 1:53 pm
If it makes you feel better that I refer to the Theory as a watermelon, I’d be happy to. It is not now nor has it ever been the Law of Evolution. Nor will it ever be.
Rich and revealing, and yet not proof positive? See lack of Law of Evolution.
A long explanation of ecological niches will never take place in this forum, however, your statement is factually wrong. ALL THE EVIDENCE only points to it if you assume that ecological niches were in fact filled. Again, as I do not know what the ID folk state, I’m assuming they’re response would be that the filling of niches is, by definition, proof of design (i.e. a niche needs filling). And of course what I stated was not complete. . . only evidence that an interaction does in fact exist, and would beg the question, who defined the interaction? Chance? Or a Creator?
That’s silly. . . seriously. I may as well state that an automobile exists, therefore we do not know if it was created. Can you deny the Earth is, in fact among other things, an object. An object is a creation of either a Creator, or, to satisfy the other side, Not a Creator.
This is sounding very much like the OJ Simpson jury saying “I know the DNA says he was there, but it’s not enough evidence.” I would imagine that a man of science would have to be open to the idea that if something like a god of creation in fact exists, the ability to create would not be considered magical. And yet you use the term as a pejorative. . .
Magic? Like flying in the air across the ocean? Charles Darwin would have scoffed at that as magic or science fiction at best.
I would simply say any magic that was involved in creation is simply something we do not understand. Unless you’re willing to say we DO understand. . . in which case all the monies spent to find out more about our creation is simply paying for the comfortable lives of people with no real practical skills.
It is a religious faith. That the theory after all these years has never been accepted by the scientific community to the status of a scientific law means that some folks believe, others do not.
You have accused me of hypocritical comments, backhanded comments, lame comments, and being intellectually dishonest, and yet I’m the one saying neither ID nor evolutionists have a complete explanation of creation/existence.
I’ll leave it to the readers to see who of us is the emotional, evangelical, shall I say, zealot with religious fervor. . . and which of us is simply conversing.
Now who’s being intellectually dishonest. I’ve worked in my share of university labs. . . it’s not about evidence, it’s about proving a theory true and finding evidence to back that up. . . go review any research university and then tell me the scientists involved do not have an agenda before they got funding for their research.
Incidentally, I never claimed to be doing science, but neither are you. No religious person claims their faith is an exercise in science and nothing more.
But science has in recent years become more and more religious. Global warming is pure religion, with it’s own Eden, it’s Fall, it’s penance and it’s Messiah. Evolution has it’s faith based doctrines, to be sure.
Noone argues that a circle has 360 degrees, each of which has 60 minutes. It’s simply fact.
But going from T-Rex to a chicken takes faith.
And if you ask a person who believes in a Creator why the similiarities, I’d guess the answer would be. . . they had the same Creator, why wouldn’t there be structural similiarities and genetic similarities.
April 18, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Ok Bad lets take a look at some of your responses to Tom. You tell him it is not wise to start his debate with “theory”. I guess you never turned that mirror around on yourself. You keep talking about proof for this or that but never give any proof. You keep stating things that have black holes and gray area but you state them as fact. You say we have a fossil record, yes we do but it has many gray areas that could prove something different than the evolution process. The something came out of nothing debate is really not a debate at all whether you are an evolution believer or a creation believer. It is a simplistic explanation but yet a true one. Unlike your responses I will show you proof. I could use other examples from what you responded to as completely fabricated. Please let me know and I will post them on here and make you look very ignorant. It comes down to a couple of things, evolution is only a theory and the reason it is a theory is because of the holes and inconsistencies associated with it. There is not debate there or else it would be fact-I hope you see that and don’t mock Tom for stating the obvious of which you look right past. You are a prime example of evolution being more than science and almost religious in nature.
Biblical Proof:
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/noahsark.htm
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/redsea.htm
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/mtsinai.htm
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/arkintro.htm
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/jesustomb.htm
The proof in that I just gave you is more consistent than any proof I have ever researched for evolution. It has more evidence than any lecture in undergraduate or graduate classes teaching “Big Bang THEORY” or “Evolution THEORY”.
Even a fool can see proof of the Bible right in front of them on earth. However the smartest man in the world cannot believe in something no matter what the evidence supports if he has already predetermined it to be false. I hope those words open your mind to other possibilities.
April 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm
That’s quite true: but not for the reasons you seem to think. Theories never become laws. In fact, theories often are made up of, amongst other things, laws. Theories in science are bodies of explanation that are then tested against the evidence, and retained based on how well they stack up.
Science doesn’t do “proof positive.” What it does is to say that the fossil record exists and it, as evidence supports the evolutionary explanation and set of facts. Period. You said that there was a lack of a fossil record. You’re simply wrong.
And I can’t “see the lack of Law of Evolution” because there the concept doesn’t make any sense. Again, the theory of evolution will never turn into the “law” of evolution. Laws aren’t explanations, they are observed universal regularities, relationships, etc.
It’s not an assumption, it’s a conclusion, based on physical evidence.
There is no reason to assume that anyone “defined” the interaction. That doesn’t even make any sense in this context. The interaction happened because, well, stuff in reality affects other stuff. That’s what an interaction is.
Again, you’re not making any sense here. What I said was that we cannot simply assume that, for instance, the earth was created by anyone. So therefore to say that “this is a creation, and therefore it must have had a creator” is simply to assume your own conclusion.
It’s not a matter of being “open” to it personally or philosophically. It has to do with the pragmatic constraints of science. AS science, magic is outside of the scope of explanation, almost by definition. If I want to resort to magic, then I can explain anything instantly without the need to even check and see if I’m right. In fact, you can’t prove me wrong, because magic can be endlessly creative in explaining away all attempts to discount it. This is why its not part of science.
That’s not what you’ve said though. If it were that would be fine. But you’ve said that it’s a “Creator.” That’s simply jumping to a conclusion.
We most certainly don’t understand everything. No one is more up front about this than scientists doing science. What we can and do understand, however, is so far whatever comes from looking at the evidence and seeing what it shows or does not show.
As I’ve already explained, you are deeply confused here. Theories do not become laws. Even in mathematics, where all the elements of theories can be deductively proven from their axioms, we don’t call “number theory” “number law.” That’s because laws are simply statements, while theories are large bodies or frameworks. Saying that a theory is somehow less than a law is like saying that an apple tree is less than an orange.
And in each case I’ve actually explained why those comments are as I characterized them. Here’s another: your last sentence here is a “straw man.” No scientist has claimed to have a “complete explanation” of all existence. However, scientists do claim that some things are well established by evidence, including evolution. Which, apparently, is not to your liking.
Again, no one claims that individual scientists don’t have biases. That’s not the point. The point is that this is what shakes out of the evidence after a process in which lots of different people with lots of different biases all try to compete on the strength the evidence. Now, if you can show that there is a bias that has illegitimately messed up some piece of evidence, go right ahead. That’s part of what science is all about: constant criticism. Unfortunately, uninformed criticism, starting with a lot of false assumptions about what it is criticizing, ceases to be useful.
This is what I mean about being uninformed. T-Rexes are related to chickens, but they did not “go to” them. And the evidence of this relation is based on all manner of evidential analysis, not faith. You’d like it to be faith because that would make it easier to dismiss without you having to do any of work required to find out what that evidential case is, in specific. Easier to simply dismiss the entire enterprise by falsely labeling it faith.
Sorry, but this still doesn’t fly. The issue isn’t simply similarity, but specific patterns of similarity and difference that are very specific to ancestry, along with genetic changes and relations amongst modern animals that support not just ancestral connections, but the same pattern of them. And these, on top of that, all match up with various things we know about the past history of the earth.
Now, you could always assert that all powerful magician simply arranged all this to specifically make it look like ancestry, when it’s not (and, no mistake, they’d have to intentionally make it look like ancestry, failing to do any of the things you can do if you ignore those constraints). But then, you can say the same about China. An all-powerful magician could fool us both into thinking that China exists when it really doesn’t, manufacturing all the evidence or even our memories. Again, falling back onto such explanations is pointless, because they can explain anything and support just about any conclusion at all. It isn’t following the evidence.
April 18, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Wow… Lots of bashing happening here.
If you want to make a point, be nice, OK? No one cares what you know until they know how much you care. People who stoop to bashing are often the same very people you ignore.
“Matt,please first check facts then bash.
ID is ultimate joke.”
“Matt, you are a rational human being, are you not?”
“As if THAT qualifies you for anything! (…)”
A generalization, too:
“For the record, I don’t think creationists need to stop taking medicine because they don’t believe in the principles that underly it. To them, it just works, and that’s reason enough to use it.”
More insults:
“Isn’t it what the IDiots want?”
“As I’ve already explained, you are deeply confused here.”
It looks like someone hasn’t been very nice to Matt and Tom Moore…
April 19, 2008 at 12:05 am
A lot of fancy talk here.
At the end of the day, you can’t prove God doesn’t exist.
So your saying to yourself. “Ok, prove he does exist, smart guy.”
Me proving God exists isn’t my job, or anyone else’s. Here’s my point.
Assume for a minute, God exists.
Creator of the universe and all of that.
You would have to accept the idea that you are an intellectual infant compared to Him.
(For this scenario, you would be in agreement so far, correct? For you to disagree would mean you won’t accept this premise, for arguments sake. For you to call me names, and tell me I‘m confused would show your not interested in this scenario.)
Back to this assumption-
Being Intellectual infants compared to Him, one might say “Then why doesn’t He just tell everybody that doesn’t believe, that He exists?” I submit, the Bible. But for arguments sake, set the Bible aside.
(remember the scenario)
He doesn’t have to “tell” us anything.
And how are our demands met by the Master of the universe? Who
are we to say that He thinks like us? Nobody, that’s who we are.
And because of fossil records, or lack there of, tells us nothing.
And because a non-believer attempts to make an argument, tells us nothing.
And for a believer to not experience the joy of converting a non-believer, tells us nothing.
It is God who is watching us in all our secret places.
It all comes down to faith. What’s faith?
Faith is an indescribable bond with God.
Now assume God wants our faith.
If He sent an angel down to explain everything to the next non-believer reading this, then you would believe, but you would no longer need faith.
Then you wouldn’t be able to give to God what He wants.
There’s something about bending the knee in prayer that humbles us. It’s saying “I realize, I’m not the center of the universe.”
Maybe we should all pretend we’re not for a minute.
April 19, 2008 at 12:23 am
Never define evolution or intelligent design?? What about when they were talking about how evolution can have two definitions, then quoted the exact textbook definition of evolution. Also, even if they hadn’t it would be safe to assume that anyone interested in a documentary has even the slightest understanding of the topic at hand.
April 19, 2008 at 7:06 am
The film’s main point is not to push ID or creationism, but to point how intolerant and afraid dogmatic evolutionists are of the true scientific method: which is to let the facts lead where they may, despite pre-conceived notions. It is utterly amazing to see the hatred and outright fear that evolutionists have of anything that does not fit their pre-conceived notions. The same is true for some of the critics here. The references to Nazi Germany are fitting. Along the same lines, “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg points out which political view fits the historical definition of fascism. What are you evolutionists so afraid of? Let the science lead where it may, without imposing your heavy-handed hatred on those who disagree with you. Reminds me of the flat-earthers.
April 19, 2008 at 8:03 am
I give five stars (that is 5*s) to the moview EXPELLED. To all the proponents of the intelligence design movement, we can see the evolutionists and athiests are on the run. They are using abusive language, reactionary tactics etc, instead of using some amount of intelligence (hopefully they still CAN think).
When even their god, Richard Dawkings, admits that he sees the design on this earth does call for intelligence, but then is stupid enough to say that it could have been seeded by a higher intelligence…. DUH…. shooting himself in the foot. I have heard him say, like an high school student might say… if God designed everything.. who designed God… well the arguement that another “evolved intelligence” seeded life on earth is plain a moronic idea. Now to all the other people who are athiests and argue here, who can not even, with and open mind study what this is all about, who accept statements of their gods like Dawkins, without thinking… THINK folks… it might prove healthy, and might improve your mind somewhat. Mathmatically, it has been proved that evolution is not possible, even evolution of a single DNA strand, let alone a cell, is mathmatically impossible (or with such a low chance that given the so called 13 billion years, if changes occured at the rate of several billion everysecond, even then the chance of even a single strand of DNA to come about would be in coceivable). Now, you can not argue that this is not necessary since this is “life” which does not behave like the rest of the universe. DNA is not life so it is absolutely necessary.
That is not even the beginning of life. You have far greater problems afterwards of explaining how this can then make a cell and subsequently make all the varied species. Until you have REASONABLE explanations about the mechanism of how all this happened, you should SHUT UP. This is a challenge to all you who think you are intellectually superior, while in fact unable to even think foryourselves, and let arrogant people like Richard Dawkings think for you.
To Richard Dawkins if he ever gets this. I heard what you said about what you would say to God if, after you died, you would confront him. You said that you would ask God why he was hiding himself from the world. The answer to this is very very simple. If God were to show Himself to you in the Power that He posseses, then that would mean that He just took your “free will” away. How, you ask, does He take away my free will? Well, when you realize how little power you have and how much Power God has, you realize that you HAVE TO DO exactly as God wants, or else He has the Power to annihlate you. Alternatively, if God tells you that He is not going to punish you WHATEVER you do, then what kind of a God would that be.
Secondly, God has NOT Hidden himself at all. He is manifest in this very creation that you study and attribute to this “Evolution” as being so beautiful and elegant. You are just missing one step sir, and that is giving glory to where glory is due. If by some chance, you get to read this sir, or anyone who thinks in a similar manner, gets to read this, try this experiment.. it is not hard. Just be a little humble and say to God, please show me the truth, and be sincere about it. God will show it to you if you say it from your heart. After all, no matter how big your brain is, compared to the UNIVERSE, we all are pathetically small, and compared to God who created the UNIVERSE, the UNIVERSE itself testifies to this… please study the extraordinary large library of material on videos and in print and on the internet that is available on this subject.
Evolution is a BIG LIE and all of you who have been infected by this BIG LIE, have a rough time understanding what I write, since you think in a different manner, However, let us seek the truth. At least be honest and recognise that ID is NOT THE SAME as Creationism.
ID claims to scientifically find the EVIDENCE of INTELLIGENCE from observation. THAT IS SCIENCE. Be a LITTLE open minded and not just chant the mantra of people who have an agenda to protect evolutionary theory.
April 19, 2008 at 8:36 am
Amen to Ashok! (I’m sorry if the word Amen offended anyone. Maybe the “tolerant” intellectually superior elitists will have to outlaw that word like they try to outlaw everything else they disagree with).
April 19, 2008 at 10:26 am
I think I was as nice as was warranted for a civil discussion. When someone makes an assertion that’s deeply confused, I think it needs to be pointed out as such. This isn’t the same as cracking wise about ones momma. And at some point, the complaint that by criticizing something I’m being too rough just becomes an easy excuse to dodge all substantiative criticism as needed.
April 19, 2008 at 10:33 am
Mike: you are basically attacking a straw man here. I’m not trying to prove that God doesn’t exist. And no, I’m not going to assume, aside from the sake of argument, that God does. For the sake of argument, your story about God is just one of millions of possible stories one could tell. So what?
None of these constitute knowledge about anything. And, strangely enough, none of them are marks of humility. Assuming that you know something like exactly how the universe began better than everyone else, all without any evidence to lead you there, is not humility.
Science and reason are humility, personified. They admit that they are of limited scope. They admits being restricted to evidence and rationally intelligible ideas. And then they force people to confront the evidence, to lay their ideas bare for criticism, and have to make an argument for something.
What’s more humble than that? Waving it all off by calling it “fancy talk” and then just asking everyone to assume what you believe is true, and then simply dismissing out of hand any possible evidence to the contrary?
April 19, 2008 at 10:47 am
That’s the story the film tells. But if you’ve read this site, you’ll know why I think this is a gross misrepresentation of reality. It’s a bait n switch. Science IS about letting the facts lead where they may. But the key word there is facts. That is, science isn’t just a “everyone states their opinions, then walks away, and that’s that.” Science demands that we put those ideas to the test. And sometimes, those ideas either fail to match the facts, or they aren’t even testable by facts, making them worthless as science.
The charge of fear is almost comical here. This entire movie is all about basically running away from debate. It constitutes Intelligent Design and creationism proponents giving up substantive debate, and embracing a message of content-free victim-hood. As I and others have documented, nearly every accusation of “intolerance” in the film is grossly misleading, leaving out key facts that contradict the stories being told and make it clear more was going on than merely people not liking religion or ID.
And it runs away from the larger point, which is that in the REAL scientific method, ideas fail. They get ruled against by evidence and argument. Creationism and ID have failed over and over and over. But this doesn’t deter them as it would any normal scientific idea that fails. It doesn’t even make them change their arguments to find better ones. Instead, they do things like make this film: try to turn it into a political issue, to demand affirmative action for their ideas outside any judgments of merit.
Again, this is just nutpicking: a lazy way to avoid the substance of criticism by pointing to intemperate or rude people you’ll encounter on the internet, or focusing solely on the fact that people have a very low opinion of ID and ID tactics, and say so, as if merely the fact that ID people are considered to be dishonest proves that they are honest. Trying to claim that criticism is “fear,” rather than strong disagreement, is just another rhetorical tactic.
We see right through it. We know which side of this debate is willing, has been willing, to hash out the details, to stand on the evidence. Who is running away from substantive debate? How many interviews has Stein had with critics?
Nah: as already explained many times, they are absurd. They are based on a logic that Stein and others only apply to evolution, not to other influences on the Nazis, like Christian antisemitism.
Funny you should mention that. By your logic, scientists are “scared” of flat-earthers because we don’t pour money in research grants into their ideas, or that geology departments don’t have equal representation of flat-earthers amongst their staff.
The hole in your logic is that science and academia have standards: standards of merit. Ideas that fail to live up to those standards, or, like ID, don’t even want those standards to apply to them as they apply to every other scientist, don’t get much attention or respect because they really don’t deserve it.
April 19, 2008 at 10:48 am
I would say that this sort of paranoia is probably more than a little silly.
April 19, 2008 at 11:21 am
Creationists have been declaring evolution to be on the very verge of collapse, or its supporters on the run, for around 160 years now. These sorts of declarations don’t seem to be very reliable.
That’s not, in fact, what he says or argues: even in the film’s presentation. Nor is he anyone’s “god.”
It’s high-school student level to point out that creationists do not apply their logic consistently?
No, it’s not moronic (since life exists here, it might exist somewhere else), but there isn’t any evidence for it, and it seems highly, highly unlikely as far as we can tell, which is why Dawkins doesn’t believe it. If you thought he did, I’m afraid you were rather misled.
Where is “Being Civil” to call you out on this pointless, purely insult-laden passage? :)
I’m afraid that you’ll have to show your work here. What is not possible, at least in the present day, is doing the calculation you describe. No doubt the calculation you are referring to is one of the many confused attempts to model biochemistry without including anything relevant to the way in which atoms and molecules work. This makes such calculations meaningless.
These two statements aren’t intelligible, you’re going to have to explain what you mean here more clearly.
No, I don’t think we will. We do have reasonable explanations for the origins of species. They may not be complete in every detail, and there may be many specific things we’ve gotten wrong. But we do know quite well that the varied species are all related by common descent, and seem to have changed in ways consistent with natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms. And we’re going to continue to look at the evidence to see if we can refine that picture further, learn more, improve things, or even find out if we are wrong.
But we can only do this by doing science. Ditto for the origin of life. We don’t know exactly how life began (though, as I’ve pointed out before, not knowing everything is not the same thing as not knowing anything.) And actually, the major problem we face is not too few possibilities for how it could have happened, but too many, with not enough evidence yet to help select between them.
But it is only by going out and looking some more that we are likely to figure it out. You, on the other hands, apparently want us to throw up our hands and just declare that it’s pointless to go and look, or we should just assume it happened some way that you prefer.
Who, exactly, is demonstrating a willingness to think for themselves here?
Do you often mail letters to your relatives addressed to random people in the country? I’m not Richard Dawkins, and it is vanishingly unlikely that Richard Dawkins reads the comment threads of this website. He does have his own website and even an email address though if you are really interested in asking him something.
I don’t see how this takes away anyone ability to choose. First of all, if a God exists, that would be really important information. Asking people to make choices without pertinent information restricts their freedom by restricting their understanding of what it is they are actually choosing. Second of all, I expect a fair number of people would think such a god to be morally monstrous regardless of whatever threats or bribes it could make. Nothing about knowing it exists takes away their free will. But let’s for the sake of argument assume that you’re right, If so, then this makes no sense:
By your logic, he would be a God that actually respects “free will,” unlike the god described above.
So, let me get this straight. To determine whether or not God exists, one must first believe that God exists in order to ask God if he will show them that he exists… and subsequently, they will believe that God exists?
This is like saying that a good test of whether throwing an apple at a brick wall can make it rain is to wait until it rains, and then throw an apple at a brick wall.
Oh, but people have studied. They just aren’t very convinced by your arguments. And this includes vast number of Christians who have no problem with evolution as good science.
Not quite the same, but there is a huge amount of overlap, and arguably, not a single ID argument has been made that isn’t just a standard creationist argument re-framed so as not to mention God directly. I mean, I hate to keep harping on it, but the first ID textbook was just a creationist textbook that someone ran a find/replace on, replacing the word “God” with “designer” and “creationist” with “intelligent design proponent.”
Claiming and being are not the same thing. What is the evidence? How do you use this evidence to test and see whether ID is true or false, or not?
As opposed to… you. With no agenda… other than demanding that we “test” ourselves by first believing what you believe, and then afterwards agreeing that we do in fact believe it.
April 19, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Most people are so angry one way or the other, they still don’t grasp what this film was about. The reason there wasn’t evidence for ID, Creationism or Darwinism is that is isn’t about any of them. What it is about, is the lack of Darwinists, who largely control the academic theater, are banning any approach of ID, in funding or exploration. The tie to racial supremacists is that they use Darwinism as proof that ridding the world of inferiority is truly helping us all. His contention isn’t that you should follow any one belief, but that we should have the freedom to explore what we want rather than being corralled by popular belief. Something that even Darwin had to face.
April 19, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Bad,
Maybe I am paranoid, but I see liberals to be very intolerant of others views. They constantly try to shut down dissent through the courts and though academia. Maybe you’re not one of these, but I believe many liberals would try to outlaw the showing of this movie if they could. They are already trying to shut down talk radio through the fairness doctrine. Democracy is about being tolerant of views not your own, even if you think others’ views are inferior to yours. Liberals only seem to apply that standard one-way. For many liberals, not all liberals: Anyone who disagrees with them has to be shut down.
April 19, 2008 at 4:15 pm
If it seems like “liberals” (I think you mean intelligent people both liberal and conservative) are intolerant of these views it’s because those views have been addressed a million times already but people still seem to think they have some new and improved version of creation to put forward that will turn science on it’s head. WHY should anyone waste time educating people over and over and over when they refuse to be educated? It’s NOT new info or new ideas here…it’s same old same old with new names. I got frustrated explaining things over and over to my kids when they were toddlers but I understood that would pass….this “ID is science” crap isn’t going to pass as long as fundamentalists exist. I’m sure you can see the problem here. There isn’t enough time in the world to deal with it. And no, nobody wants to “outlaw” this movie. This movie is going to do more to expose the faults of ID than anything else that’s happened to date.
April 19, 2008 at 5:06 pm
The problem is that this contention makes no sense if you think about what he’s really arguing for. No one lacks the freedom to explore or say anything they want. Not one of the people in this film has had their free speech abridged in the slightest (indeed, most of their stories of persecution are simply phony: the film grossly misleads its audience to spin its tale of nightmarish conformity that bares little relation to science as actually practiced).
Instead, what they are complaining about is that scientists don’t take their ideas seriously, or that people think that they are dishonest, or not really doing good science.
But before we can go any further, this demands we first address the question of whether ID is good science, and whether the attacks on evolution are legitimate or not. You cannot side-step this issue, as you and the film seem to want to do. Otherwise, you are basically saying that any view, utterly regardless of merit, should get equal billing in science.
And you know what that view is? That’s relativism, not science.
April 19, 2008 at 5:11 pm
You’ll have to cite some representative examples, because in my experience, the cases in which people claim involve shutting down dissent aren’t that at all. Often, in fact, it’s the opposite, as with all the times its claimed that the ACLU is trying to repress religious belief, when in fact it defends private expression of religion all the time, and actually opposes government claiming the authority to weigh in on religious matters (which is always an abrogation of the rights of the people).
That’s true, and I not only think the fairness doctrine is stupid, but government regulation of the airwaves period.
I think you could change the word “liberal” to “conservative” and make almost exactly the same argument. The reality is that people in general argue and put pressure on views they don’t like. But it’s important not to criticize, as this film does, criticism with persecution, and failure to fund as a means of oppression.
April 19, 2008 at 5:39 pm
That’s not what I said: I said never really define what ID is, and never really explain what evolution is.
This isn’t the same as explaining what evolution is or is all about, let alone the evidence for it.
Given the number of silly things the producers and fans of the movie have said about matters scientific, I would say that it’s not safe to assume that at all. Evolution is not, in the end, a simple subject that you can grasp in two seconds: you need to know a decent amount of things about a bunch of different disciplines and a number of different principles and so forth. Not that it cannot be explained, but pointing at “evolution means blah” isn’t going to cut it for people who’ve only had high school bio at most.
April 19, 2008 at 6:26 pm
The arguments for evolution and against intelligent design (ID) in this movie are pathetic, holding little fact and relying on the argument that my brain is bigger than your brain. Scientifically these are both theories, having no connection to faith. To connect the theory of ID to creation in a meaningful way requires a blessing from God that is only given to those that have faith and truly believe. All others will never see the light of absolute truth. This movie points out the disappointment much of the upper crust scientific community would suffer if God were to stand right in front of them . They would still reject that he is the one and only, true living God no matter what miracle they were shown. In the blink of an eye they would be weighing what they saw and skewing the facts of what really happened to support there own self-centered mindset. I believe it is because the majority of them have the desire of one day becoming little gods themselves. I wish them all luck. That would be a bigger miracle than the day when the first of a massive amount living cells were design and assembled to populate the earth. They will never believe if they continue to see themselves as their own deity.
April 19, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Loved Expelled! Academia has a complete strangle hold on the core religion - you have to at least bow down to Darwinism…then you can be a Christian, Jew, whatever. So much at stake in just money for Academia that the coming scorched earth fear campaign from Academia will cause sensible people to backlash at them on a huge scale. It will be just like the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, that big…look out!
April 19, 2008 at 9:17 pm
PS One other thing: Evolution is such a light theory. With “just so” stories making up the main “science” part - just read Darwin, one “just so” story after another. And it just so happens that 150+ years later not one of his “just so” scenarios have a leg to stand on. No one has ever improved on the Darwin model, he only has imitators with their own “just so” stories.
And this theory is so light that it would float away were it not for the billions of bricks that make up these huge universities across the world, with all the heavy egos inside, and all the $$$$$ that the biology departments need.
April 19, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Nick: your argument seems to be 100% inventing nasty things you imagine people who don’t believe as you believe and 0% any sort of coherent argument as to why ID is legitimate science that has been wrongly treated in academia. And plenty of the “upper crust” of the scientific community already believes in God so…
April 19, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Nope. They are two separate things, and you can be both a scientist and a believer at the same time. Or not. But the key issue isn’t whether you believe in a God or not, it’s whether your science holds up or not.
Sounds like the movie has you really pumped up! On the other hand, creationists have been insisting that evolution is about collapse any second now for more than a century. They’ve got people like you believing that there are all sorts of really strong arguments against it, that it’s only held up by dogma, and so forth.
But meanwhile, science chugs along, we learn more and more, and evolution has only become more sophisticated and well established.
This is what’s sort of amazing about Stein (and now, apparently you): he really does seem to think that this is so, that Darwin was some sort of towering pinnacle of evolution’s exceptionalism, and nothing much has happened since then to aid his ideas. But this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Darwin’s original work was one long argument, with countless examples used to build a case for his idea. But all of this was just groundwork: the spark that set off a new field of exploration. And since his time, we’ve learned whole paradigms worth of new information, all expanding, cross- confirming, and improving upon the basic idea. Anyone that’s actually read a journal of evolutionary biology would find virtually nothing recognizable in your claim that it’s all “just so” stories. To be sure, some specific ideas about ancient ecologies and adaptions do begin as such stories, but that’s simply the beginning: where the insight of a new explanatory idea comes from. The real meat comes when these ideas are tested against evidence, and either succeed or fail. That’s how actual evolutionary biology is done.
That must be a comforting belief indeed: most of all because it relieves you of any burden of learning what you are talking about. You can just claim it’s all a conspiracy and then… well, the master plan sort of trails off there, but at least you stuck it to those biologist jerks!
April 19, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I am 100 percent believer. I don’t think it is possible to believe a little of God’s Word. If it is His inspired Word why consume just parts? You have to eat the whole fish. I also don’t think people who don’t believe are nasty, as you say. If you don’t believe God, there’s probably nothing wrong with wanting to be God at least for this moment. I believe them to be misled by a fallen angel, Satin. It’s evident to me in many of the arguments from the Darwinist/Atheists represented in the movie. There is a lot of anger unknowingly directed at God by Richard Dawkins and some of the others. I really think they want to be god, just like Satin.
If you think I’m not making a coherent argument, I’m okay with that. There is zero proof for the root of either of these theories. I think I have read the truth about the beginning and the end of this creation and beyond. I don’t need science to confirm what I think about evolution or ID. Everything we see was created in six days from nothing, I don’t think we can possibly comprehend how that happened. Time will allow everyone to understand the truth. For many the truth will come too late. This discussion is just one more step toward the end or the beginning, however you choose to look at it. If all you want to do is argue intelligent design vs. evolution, you have really missed the point. Is there one living God that created everything or isn’t there. You probably should decide if the Word is true,a fairytale or A Bad Idea.
I hope you find the truth.
April 20, 2008 at 2:13 am
Satan, chief. Satan. Satin is a fabric. Satan has its roots in a Hebrew word meaning “adversary”, and in the first written book of the Bible, Job, this is exactly the function he serves - subservient to and in regular communication with God.
Here’s something for you - where in this 100 percent of God’s Word does it say, explicitly, that Satan is a fallen angel?
And if you can’t find it anywhere, what else have you been eating?
April 20, 2008 at 2:24 am
Uh, no. All it requires is a lexicographer tracing the publication and draft history of a book called “Of Pandas and People”, the primal intelligent design textbook on the market currently.
Surprisingly, it seems that shortly after the state-sponsored teaching of creationism was outlawed, as being in violation of the establishment clause, the book underwent a miraculous transformation. Overnight “creator”, “creationism”, and “creationists” vanished from the pages of the book, replaced with “intelligent designer”, “design theory”, and “design proponents”. “Cdesign proponentsists” was left behind in the book as, if you will, a transitional fossil.
And there’s the connection, plain as day.
Or you could read the “wedge document” put forward by the Discovery Institute. That’s a pretty good link too.
Intelligent design is no more than creationism with the serial numbers filed off, and as such government dollars should never be used to fund its research or propagation.
April 20, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Even the poison sacs?
Well, that’s just silly.
People who make this argument always seem to forget that they cannot keep the implications trapped up in their own cramped theology. If reality is so far beyond what we can comprehend and so far off from what evidence can show, then that affects god beliefs just as much as anything. Maybe you aren’t comprehending the reality of the Bible, which was meant to be read backwards in an alien language, and tells the true story of the two great beings that rule the universe. Or maybe it was all a trick from Loki. Or maybe… and the maybes trail on into an infinite number of other possibilities, all equally beyond comprehension, each exactly as likely as any belief you might insist is so.
That’s the price of doing away with science and empiricism: not victory for your views as the only alternative, but complete epistemic chaos where anything goes, and your beliefs are as quaint as science was beside the range of infinite brain in jar scenarios one could imagine.
April 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Bad, you seem to be the most active in your responses. So I am directing this to you.
My dad once told me a story about his brother, Bob. Bob was driving home from work down a windy road in southern California. It was around 1:00 am. and he had picked up two hitch hikers, they seemed to be possibly boyfriend and girlfriend. When my uncle Bob got out of town a ways along the windy road that he would take home from work, the guy who was in the back seat grabbed my uncle around the throat and while holding him down against the seat the girl pulled out a knife and stabbed my uncle over 40 times in the chest. They pulled the car to the side of the road and dumped him over and down the hill.
I say “windy” for a reason and thats because the road he was on had angled drops of an average of 50+ feet down. Now for the best part of the whole story…
They left my uncle for dead at the bottom of the hill. He was still alive, barley. After laying there for a minute or so a large and strong man showed up. Told him he was going to be OK and picked him up and walked him up the hill and laid him in the middle of the highway. The man said he would go get help and just disappeared, not literally. Right then a car approached and stopped to help him to the hospital.
My uncle was barely alive and could only remember the details and those being:
1. He was stabbed
2. Kicked out of the car down the hill and he could see that the street was way up the hill and that there was no hope.
3. A large and strong man just “appeared”
4. Carried him up the hill and laid him on the road.
5. A car approached.
Now “Bad”, you have to do one of two things, without nitpicking sentences and pulling bits and pieces here and there I want you to discuss what I wrote and your reasoning on your decision.
I believe it was an angel that came and helped my uncle.
Please don’t expel this comment out of the blog. I would like everyone to read the story and respond if they want to. Or they can disregard(expel) the story and not respond :D because they have no “scientific” evidence.
April 20, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Isa 14:12-17
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(13) For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
(14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
(15) Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
(16) They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
(17) That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
I have been eating my wheeties, have you? That was an easy one!
April 20, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Well, it is my blog, so I’d hope that the host is good and responsive, within reason. :)
I’m not sure what you mean about my “decision.” Decision on what?
Ok. Sounds like a good Samaritan to me that ran off to get help, and when he came back, your uncle was gone. No matter what you believe about this incident though, I’m not sure what this story has to do with:
a) the validity and accuracy of the accusations made in Expelled (which do not rest on the existence or non-existence of angels)
b) the scientific validity of evolution (which do not rest on the existence or non-existence of angels)
and so on. If there was anything mysterious about the incident that pointed to some sort of non-natural powers that the mystery man had in either finding or helping your uncle, why would we jump to the conclusion of an angel? Maybe it was. Or maybe it was an alien. Or maybe it was a ghost. Or maybe a deamon (your uncle having some part to play in Satan’s designs). OR maybe an agent of Vishnu. Or maybe a psychic superhero. Or maybe your uncle, suffering severe shock, hallucinated going down the the hill and the man carrying him back up it.
Or maybe it was just some guy. I have no idea. If it’s an important family belief that it was an angel, so be it, but I’m not sure what it has to do with anything in particular.
I try not to delete any comments except those that violate the policy I’ve set (which is mostly to avoid encouraging spam or offtopic promotional claims).
April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm
John Locke once asked this question:
“What came first, mind or matter”?
For the materialists who do science, the answer is a forgone conclusion. Mindless matter came first and everything from the universe, to evolution to your decisions and actions are mind-less matter in motion. And anybody who presents factual evidence that suggests otherwise is just a toothless, “backwater”, snake-handling, creationist idea who also probably believes in fairies, gnomes, hobgoblins and that all leprecons are gay. (I happen to know that it’s true that the leprecons do have a strong gay community, but most are in fact strait. Elves on the other hand….)
Today they don’t burn you at the stake, but they do burn your reputation and career at the stake for even questioning materialism.
This documentary exposes modern materailists for what they are: puppets to there belief system. And by asking simple, direct questions Ben Stein shows his deftness as a masterful puppeteer.
Go see this documentary. It’s hilarious!
April 20, 2008 at 5:16 pm
At 1:00 am in the morning? We both know thats highly unlikely. Considering it was at least 5 or so miles out of town in pitch black conditions.
You are absolutely right! I’m just trying to get you to think outside the box. What I mean is that you don’t fight fire with fire. The whole point of the movie was to show everyone that if you:
a) Question evolution your going to be aggressively refuted and/or be fired from whatever institute, job, etc you currently are applied to.
b) Creationism is to be separated from schools and institutes.
The idea of an “alien” is ludicrous. We don’t live in a science flick, we live in reality. A demon, as far as history, the bible, fables, or whatever teaches, is that demons are evil, bad, angry, anything and everything that is negative…it would be a negative aspect to rescue my uncle…catch my drift? A ghost, aren’t those guys made of vapor or mist and hang around graveyards and haunted houses? The rest of the “maybes” that you mentioned were simply out of ignorance. No harm intended. My point is, considering all the possibilities AND the hundreds of thousands of stories of people being saved from near death experiences by large and strong men who never mention there name, appear out of no where, and disappear as fast as they appeared implies that there are angels.
I’m not here to argue, or cause problems. I just wish that those who are in the science/evolutionary field could not hold so strongly to physical evidence as a starting point of a belief. There is a spiritual battle that going on neither I nor you can see. I understand that you will have a hard time believing that last statement I made because I have no scientific evidence to back it up. My starting point is the bible. Which is why there will always be a great gulf split down the middle between views and will never be removed….
April 20, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Uh, no. That would be “Helel bin Shahar”, literally “son of the dawn”, which has snuck back into that translation as “son of the morning”. “Lucifer” is a rough Latin approximation of the original Hebrew, and may have been used by St. Jerome in his Latin translation to further his own notable feud with a bishop named Lucifer.
Yes, there’s a St. Lucifer. He opposed forgiving repentant heretics, which is why Jerome had a bone to pick with him.
Helel bin Shahar was a Babylonian god - well, an Israeli name for a Babylonian god, at any rate, and you’ve conveniently forgotten to include Isa 14:4: “you shall take up this taunt-song against the king of Babylon”.
Yeah, Isa 14 is basically “our God kicked your god’s ass”. Satan the adversary doesn’t have much to do with it - well, unless you’re a doctrinarian in the early Church using to make up a cosmology and ignoring what the Jews might have to say about your interpretations.
Good try, though!
April 20, 2008 at 5:54 pm
A demon, as far as history, the bible, fables, or whatever teaches, is that demons are evil, bad, angry, anything and everything that is negative…it would be a negative aspect to rescue my uncle…catch my drift?
I guess if you can only look at things in terms of one-degree cause-and-effect. Of course, in terms of highly malleable mythology, it’s not hard to spin the motivations of nameless hypothetical entities to fit the story. Maybe down the road your uncle saves the life of someone who grows up to be oh-so evil and wicked. Or maybe he helps a start-up company become successful and sometime down the road its resources are used for “evil” purposes.
For someone who preaches thinking outside the box and fair representation of ideas, you’re pretty aggressively dismissive.
April 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Actually, “they” hunt you down in the street and beat you for PROMOTING materialism. The same “they” who were doing the stake-burning originally.
Science confines itself to methodological naturalism for a reason: when you’re trying to understand the world, you can’t use the supernatural to explain it because the supernatural by definition cannot be understood. This doesn’t mean there is no supernatural. All it means is that theories involving the supernatural are useless, because a supernatural force can do anything and so the theory can be used to apply any interpretation to any observed phenomenon.
Also, where do you get off saying that matter doesn’t have a mind? I’m made of matter, and I have a mind.
April 20, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Not sure where you get your translation information from, but you might need to re-check, but simply put. the word “Lucifer” is translated from the Hebrew word: hay-lale’ and the Shahar which is properly translated: shakh’-ar. The verse is explaining the past, which is that lucifer used to be the son of the morning, hay-lale’ shakh’-ar, and wanted to ascend higher then God therefore God cast him to the earth. Hence “fallen angel”. Which correctly answers your question:
Isa 14:4 has nothing to do with Isa 14:12-17 which is why I left it out. Generally you have to read from left to right, top to bottom. Our educational system in the United States still teaches that, thank God. But as for Isa 14:4, that is part of a group of verses consisting of Isa 14:1-11 which is speaking of the FUTURE, and the king of Babylon in Isa 14:4 is lucifer, satan, the prince of lies, etc…which, again, is speaking of the future. Simply put Isa 14:1-11 is future and Isa 14:12-17 happened in the past of when this verse was recorded.
April 20, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I’m confused: why is this highly unlikely? 5 or so miles out of most towns still gets decently heavy traffic even at 1am in the morning, and seeing someone get dumped out of a car and rolled down a hill attracts a heck of a lot of attention.
The thing is, I can think way way farther outside of the box than what Stein and company want to present as an alternative to science. They don’t seem to understand that once you toss off the need for evidence and empiricism, that anything goes: not just their own special theology.
But as we’ve already shown, this accusation is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
Correction: religious beliefs are to be separate from the method of science, teaching how to do science, what the government teaches, etc. That doesn’t mean that schools can’t have religious studies subjects and so forth.
This doesn’t seem very “out of the box” of you. Like I said, you don’t seem willing to acknowledge that once you basically get to propose possibilities that are far outside conventional observable reality, you can’t very well run around objecting to other possibilities that do the same. If we want to appeal to things that are outside of our current knowledge, then what’s so crazy about shapeshifting aliens?
Again, not very out of the box here. Demons could ONLY be the way YOU imagine them? Period?
That’s one idea of what a ghost might be like. But if you think out of the box…
Oh, I don’t take offense, I just think you’ve missed the point. None of those things are any more or less plausible than angels as something to appeal to outside of the known natural world. If you want people to accept the possibility of an angel, then to get there, you basically have to open up the door to all those other things. You can’t shut them out and only get back the one option you most like or are culturally comfortable with.
Honestly, I don’t know of that many “large strong men” stories similar to this one. But even if there were, wouldn’t the most plausible explanation be, I dunno… all the large strong men living all over the world? Coupled with the fact that not everyone always sees where every person they meet in a stressful situation comes from or goes to? You’d have to do a lot better at ruling all the perfectly conventional possibilities like this than “another human being out and about a 1am in the morning, inconceivable!”
Why not? That seems to be the best way to keep people honest. It’s not that there couldn’t be things that are immune to evidence, but if there are, it’s a huge and perhaps even insurmountable problem to know what they might be, specifically. How would we ever know for sure, or demonstrate it to anyone else?
I suppose. The difference between our starting points is that mine doesn’t presuppose answers to all the basic and central questions right off the bat, before we’ve even gone out and looked.
April 20, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Not at all. We see minds, and we see matter. As far as we can tell, minds require a very specific sort of matter (a brain functioning in a very specific sort of way), and cannot seem to exist without it. That’s what we know. We don’t know which “came first” or if that question even makes any sense to ask in this situation. Though we certainly don’t see minds existing prior to brains in any specific case, so there’s that.
We’re just looking at the evidence. What do you have to offer?