Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Trailer

Expelled-Intelligence-Stein.jpgExpelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a new documentary by Ben Stein that dares to look at the other side of the Darwinism vs Intelligent Design debate. He takes a very unpopular stance in this film, and I can’t wait to see it.

Although I am no longer religious at all, the notion of pure Darwinism has never sat right with me. I’ve also been amazed at how many scientists dispute fundamental Darwinism, non-religious scientists, and yet are quickly silenced.

To me, the real issue in this documentary isn’t Darwinism vs Intelligent Design, but rather an issue of free speech. We like to believe in our society we encourage open thought, open discussion and the comparison of ideas… but the cold reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. In our society, we only believe in free speech and the value of different ideas if we agree with them… which ultimately makes us no different that cold war communism or the nazis.

Much like in the old days when pro-creationism folks ruled the scientific establishments and silenced anyone with different ideas… today the reality is the pro-Darwinism folks are ruling the establishments and silence anyone with different ideas. And from that perspective, I’m dying to see see this movie.

Having an “open mind” doesn’t mean not having an opinion. But it does mean being willing to entertain and engage other ideas, even if they are opposed to the ideas you currently hold. That is something our culture sorrily lacks, and something I hope a film like this (regardless of it’s subject matter) can expose a little bit.

But there will always be ignorance, and people on both sides of every issue will decry anything put out by the other side as “propaganda” or “manipulation”, and no one just sits down to talk anymore or seems capable of understanding they MAY be wrong. Yay us!

So agree or disagree with darwinism or intelligent design, this movie looks fascinating to me:

45 thoughts on “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Trailer

  1. Lets see here….

    1.God took a rib from Adam to create Eve. YIKES

    2. One day (no more than 6000 years ago)God got so mad at the world he flooded it, drowning everyone living on it except a lone family. This lone family is what every race in the world is now a descendant of.

  2. What interests me in this debate is the fact that some of the most educated theologians I studied under in seminary believed in evolution.

    Pope John Paul 2 announced evolution “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)

    In fact, theologically, creation is not that big a deal. The first 2 books of Genesis deal with creation the next 10 are about adam, eve and lineage; the remaining 38 are about Abraham. Genesis is about God’s covenant with Abraham.

    Intelligent design is a long winded argument using scientific terms to say “god did it”. This is the realm of theology and Genesis pretty much summed it up on a page. If you think you can do a better job than the author of Genesis – be my guest.

    If anything these intelligent designers run the risk of blasphemy by trying to force their viewpoints and assumptions upon the Genesis narrative. So not only are they shunned by the scientific community, many in theological circles see them as a peculiar animal that are bastardizing theology in order to deflate the theory of evolution. This is like blowing up a mountain because you need a rock to throw.

    I believe the theory of evolution is as true as the theory of gravity but that is not the reason I disagree with the ID camp. I disagree with them because I am a theologian and their tactics are insulting to millennia of theological discourse. I am now most certainly a godless hedonist, but I owe it to my professors and education to stand against such nonsense.

    If this is to be a balanced documentary, the inclusion of theologians that oppose Intelligent design is a must.

  3. lets remember who ben stein is….a staunch right winger who has just a strong right wing agenda as micheal moore does a left.
    this documentary will be nothing more than another way to help push this notion that “intelligent design” a.k.a. creationism should be taught in the science class room which it shouldn’tt.

    by all means teach it as part of a religious studies program alongside the studies of islam, budhism, christianity but leave it out of the science room as it has zero place in there.

    to try and pass this bogus idea off as science is just another way to try and sneak forced religion into the class room plain and simple.

    it is amazing to me that scientologists are dismisse das wackos when you think about all the things other religions believe….scientology is no weirder..its just newer.

    keep ID where it belongs and thats not in the science room…..

  4. It’s also worth mentioning something I forgot to raise above – that the filmmakers went to considerable lengths to hide the real nature of this project from at least some of the scientists they interviewed, and of course are denying it vehemently now. Just one description of their tactics can be found here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

    That’s the kind of people we’re talking about, and that’s yet another reason I don’t need to see the entire movie to know it’s made by lying bottom feeders and is probably not worth my time.

  5. The problem with all of you defending “Expelled” and urging us to just be “open minded” is that, assuming you’re all sincere, you’re coming from at least a couple of utterly incorrect assumptions:

    1) That this film might present anything new and eye-opening. I’ve been following news about it since its making was announced a long time ago, I’ve read stories about it and interviews with Stein about it, I’ve seen clips from it. So far all I’ve seen are years-old and in some cases decades-old evolution-denialist talking points, stale as last week’s donuts, plus a heavy dose of melodramatic martyr posing. Those of us who’ve followed this “controversy” for years have heard it all before 468 gajillion times.

    2) That the people behind this film, and IDists more generally, are basically honest and straightforward (even if maybe mistaken) and interested in doing science or honestly discussing it. ID is a political and religious movement that uses public relations tactics and a pseudoscientific veneer to target the scientifically untrained public with disinformation. This is the one thing you must always remember with regard to IDists – it explains everything they do and say. Its leaders and spokespeople don’t do any science – most of them aren’t even trained scientists, and they have no research program and have published not a single original research paper despite about 20 years on the scene and millions of dollars in funding per year. They constantly tell whoppers about the state of scientific knowledge and research, distort and quote out of context the work of real scientists, and dissemble their own motivations. Catch them with their guard down a little – for example, in front of one of the religious groups they often speak to – and their motivations are pretty clear: to beat back the rising tide of secularism and promote their conservative conception of God, in education particularly. Google “Discovery Institute” and “wedge document” to read it in their own words.

    Nobody in science is hurting ID proponents or blocking their careers. They’ve abandoned real scientific careers by refusing to follow the rules all the other scientists do (devise testable hypotheses and test them in the lab and the field, submit original research to peer-reviewed science journals and conferences, etc.). Instead they put out lots of press releases complaining about their mistreatment and attacking evolutionary scientists. Their big shots write popular press books aimed at laypeople who don’t have the knowledge to see through their distortions; edit “textbooks” aimed at high school students even less prepared to do so; and charge thousands of dollars a pop for speaking engagements with religious and political organizations. They have comfortable careers, voluntarily chosen, as professional martyrs for ID.

    Open mindedness, tolerance, etc., are of course vital values central to a healthy culture. These values do not require us to avoid calling people with a record of obvious dishonesty “liars,” or calling ideas unsupported by any evidence “wrong.” That’s not open-mindedness, that’s lazy thinking and lack of discernment. These filmmakers and the people they champion are not honest or honorable and don’t deserve your credit.

  6. Hey Eric,

    Actually, he’s not being taken out of context. As for the validity of those in the trailer, I absolutely 100% agree with you! That’s my whole point… the film, and the arguments made therein need to be observed and considered before passing praise or judgment on it. Seems like everyone (pro and against) seem to have made up their minds already about it.

  7. Oops, by “repacking” I meant “repackaging”.

    @John, based on just the trailer, it does look like scientists who raise legitimate questions are being told to “shut up”. But, without more information than just the trailer, it’s impossible to judge how accurate that impression really is.

  8. @John,

    Any scientist will readily admit that there are many legitimate questions left to be answered. In fact, if there were no questions left to be answered, there would be no point to being a scientist. However, the ID crowd are not raising legitimate questions. They are attacking a caricature of evolution, and repacking questions that have been asked and answered long ago. Your out-of-context quote from Dr. Pilbeam illustrates the dishonesty employed by the ID camp. Pilbeam was commenting on certain hypotheses about the hominid family tree, not casting doubt on the theory of evolution as a whole. Btw, Pilbeam is the Curator of Paleoanthropology at the Peabody Museum, not the Boston Museum of Natural History.

  9. Hey Oliver and Ipeca

    Correct me if I’m wrong here, but to me the trailer looks like people in the scientific community who raise these questions and are being told to “shut up” (to quote the one guy in the trailer).

    I think we need to just see the thing, hear the arguments and then decide if it should be dismissed out of hand. it strikes me that a lot of people are wanting to have this sort of project dismissed without a hearing. This, is the danger I’m always worried about.

  10. You know, it’s very easy to believe in God and science, and even evolution.

    I personally believe in God, and believe that he helped form the universe. Believing that the Bible is absolutely true and infallible isn’t going to fly.

    But believing that an intelligent being has nudged or pushed things to go the way they want? Not that farfetched. What would it look like for God to say “Let there be light?” Would it look like the Big Bang? Doesn’t that make sense?

    That’s what this documentary is suggesting. If you refute it as nonsense and flat wrong, then you aren’t LISTENING to what people are saying. You’re assuming they’re saying that the world was created exactly as the Bible depicts it, and most Christians I know are very clear on the fact that Genesis is a STORY.

    In short: if you’re open minded, God and science are not mutually exclusive. Not in the slightest. But you have to be willing to really listen, and really think. Most people don’t seem willing to do either.

  11. That’s more like it John! A movie about the holes in Darwinism, the mysteries of evolution, the areas that need work and the work than is and could be done in those areas from the perspective of science, and enlightenment would be far better that this kind of movie I think.

  12. Audioout, evolution doesn’t address the question of how the universe began. Doesn’t claim to.

    John, two things. I’m like you, no scientist. I don’t know the answer to those questions either. But I strongly suspect an evolutionary biologist could answer them. I don’t understand quantum physics either, on what basis should I reject it? And even if evolutionary theory doesn’t answer these specific questions yet, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Even less does it mean that Intelligent Design is right.

    Second, quite a bit is known about the people who put this movie together. They didn’t set out to tell a balanced story. They have a religious agenda that aims to push creationism into public schools. That’s what this is all about. If you hope to see a balanced, fair telling of scientific discovery and freedom of speech, prepare to be disappointed, because you won’t see it. What you’ll see is a bunch of spin trying to make the Discovery Institute look like a bunch of heroes trying to slay the poor, dogmatic “Darwinist” scientists who are oppressing them.

  13. @Mykrantz
    I cited Wiki for these reasons:
    1. It explains very succinctly the mistake that IDers are making when they make this claim.
    2. If I found and referenced 10 or 20 or 500 websites that demonstrate my point, I might as well be writing a book, instead of posting in a forum.
    3. Even if I did, a true believer will still post some negative comment with fallacious logic such as: “you’re dumb, phhhttthbpp!” while forgetting to enrich the conversation with any useful information themselves.
    4. The wiki page also pointed out that religous (lets say pro-ID people) use this as an argument tactic when it is in fact an invalid fallacy. I think that Wiki can predict forum behavior is funny.
    5. And the best for last: It is correct.

    @ GBG: Nice.

  14. I’ve actually been very interested in the theory of evolution for a very long time and done a lot of reading on it (much less than some of you I’m sure, and more than some others. I’m no scientist… just an average guy who has had these sorts of questions since I was pretty young).

    The reason I remain a non-darwinist is simple lack of answers.

    There are several glaring gaps and weaknesses in the evolutionary theory that no one to date have been able to honestly give me answers for. Without boring you with the details, the basics are:

    – Complexity of blood clotting and mammal immune and repair systems.

    – Reproductive symbiosis without prior pattern. In other words, the notion that two radically similar, yet different variations of the same species with perfectly compatible and functioning reproductive systems emerged at the exact same time (this is actually a huge one to me)

    – While GBG suggests that fossil records that refute rather than supports current theories are nonsense, the fact of the matter is that for many, even within the scientific community acknowledge it is a large problem. Dr David Pilbeam, of the Boston Natural History Museum actually changed his whole world view based on this weakness, and later commented that the whole neo-darwinism system is: “our theories have clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data”.

    – Existing glaring gaps in the various ideas of how proteins first formed in light of our current understanding of the behavior of amino acids.

    Look, I could go on and on and on… the point is I’m not trying to tell anyone what they should think, or that they’re stupid for buying into evolution at all! I’m simply laying out why, as a rational human being (just like my friends who have a different opinion on this matter) I can’t buy into darwinism at fact value, and why a movie like this one, I believe, is important.

    I love the discussion and the various points of view. I just hope that darwinists are open minded enough to view a film like this and acknowledge, even if it doesn’t change their minds, that there are legitimate questions being asked by intelligent rational people, that darwinism currently doesn’t (it might in the future) have honest answers for.

  15. Tell me mighty net scientists…how was the Universe began?

    Also, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

    Can’t we admit we may not know (and never know) certain things?

    By the way, fyi, I don’t believe in God.

  16. In this comment i am going to clear up a few things about evolution and try to set the record straight, Explain a few misconceptions that creationists have and expose a few of the lies they tell.

    Evolution is just a theory.

    How many times have you heard this? A lot of creationists assume, Wrongly and probably intentionally, That a theory is somehow less certain than a fact. They assume that a theory is on a lower rung of the hierarchical ladder of certainty that eventually leads to fact.

    In science “theory” has a different meaning than the general word “theory”. When most people say theory they mean a guess or speculation. In science a theory is simply a way to explain facts. A theory doesn’t eventually become a fact, It explains facts.

    It is a fact that animals change, Over time, Based on natural selection. The theory that explains this fact is the theory of evolution.

    Evolution Doesn’t Explain The Origin of Life

    That’s right, It doesn’t. But then, It never claimed to and it never intended to. History class doesn’t teach you how to play a trumpet, Does that mean all history is wrong?

    Darwinian Evolution only ever claimed to explain the origin of the species, That’s why he called the book “the origin of the species”. Evolution starts when the first life forms came about and natural selection became a factor. There are sciences that explain how cells could have first formed and how life came about, But Evolution isn’t one of them.

    Irreducible complexity Proves a Designer

    Well it would, If creationists could find a real example of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is a phrase that Michael Behe came up with to describe a characteristic or mechanical part of an organism that requires all of it’s parts to be intact from the beginning for it to function and for natural selection to have something to favor. The trouble is, For Behe, That every time creationists think they have found something irreducibly complex evolutionists point out that it had a beneficial function at each stage of it’s construction and thus had something for natural selection to favor.

    Ken Miller used the mousetrap to explain this. A mouse trap can only function as a mousetrap when all of it’s parts are intact. If, for instance, we only have the base, The spring and the arm of the mouse trap it can’t kill mice and doesn’t function as a mousetrap. But it does function as a tie clip. It still has a beneficial function and as such has something for natural selection to favor.

    We Should Teach All Theories And Let Students Decide

    No, We shouldn’t. We need to teach children the truth at all times. Everything that is taught in a classroom has endured the scientific process that leads to it being taught. If intelligent design can get through this process then it is more than welcome in a science class, If it can’t get through this process it is going to have to stay where it belongs, In theology.

    The process that all other sciences goes through is;
    Claim > Research > Peer review > consensus > Text book.
    The process intelligent design wants to go through is;
    Claim > Political pressure > Text book.

    If intelligent design is a fact let us see your research. let us see what kind of experiments you do to test your hypotheses. If you can’t produce these and can’t get through the scientific process you have no business being taught in a science class.

    There Are No Transitional Fossils

    The trouble with refuting this claim is that when evolutionists are asked to present a transitional fossil they aren’t seen to be refuting the claim made by creationists, They are seen to be producing two more gaps where transitional fossils are missing.

    It’s a dishonest tactic used by creationists. It is simply impossible for evolutionists to comply with this unreasonable request without presenting fossils of every animal species on the planet at every stage of it’s development.

    As evolutionists find more and more fossils they rightly believe they are adding to the fossil records and adding to our understanding of evolution. But in the illogical mind of the creationist they are simply creating more and more gaps in the fossil record because each gap we fill by finding a fossil creates two gaps either side of it.

    Suffice to say, There are transitional fossils that show characteristics and traits developing over time. All we need now is for creationists to develop the integrity and courage to accept them.

    Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism

    The only difference between intelligent design and creationism is the spelling. We know that the name change came about in an attempt to get it taught in a science class and to trick people in to believing it’s an actual scientific theory, And not religious mumbo-jumbo.

    This is evident by looking at a draft of the intelligent design text book “of pandas and people” where the phrase “cdesign proponentist” was found when a sloppy editor didn’t correctly replace “creationist” with “design proponent”.

    The titles of the drafts alone are evidence that ID is creationism. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.

    http://godbegone.blogspot.com

  17. Intelligent Design — can be about 5% proved

    Darwinism — can be about 90% proven

    ill take Darminism

    Also dont feel sorry at all for those “scientists” Mr. Stein talks about. Why dont they just go and teach at Liberty University!!

    oh yeah i agree Rusty….but good for you John on starting a debate..cheers dude

  18. Campea, are you serious? This is a new low.

    IDer’s are viewed with suspicion in the scientific community because they have publicly stated that they’re strategy is to circumvent the scientific process via political stunts; they want to advance ID Creationism by appeals to popular opinion. In other words they think we should vote on what the scientific evidence says.

    http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

    And that’s the problem. If you’re voting you’re not conducting science. Science is a dictatorship where the Truth is the dictator. Let me rephrase that; science is a truth worshiping cult.

    If you hold a position that is in the minority among the scientific community then go do research and publish papers. That was good enough for the evolutionary scientists but it’s not good enough for the creationists. Instead the ID creationists sue schools, publish press releases and produce documentaries about how they’re a discriminated minority.

    IDer’s throw millions at public relations groups like The Discovery Institute (which is chaired by Philip Johnson who despite ID propaganda is a garden variety young earth creationist, as is William Dembski) but they don’t fund research.

    @Mykrantz – I’m not assuming anything based on a trailer. I’ve heard Ben Stein describe what this movie is about and I take his description at face value. Advocating more time for ID in the science class room is not a neutral position. Nor is it an acceptable compromise. The “problems with evolution” are irrelevent to the validity of ID creationism.

  19. @Krintina

    That is certainly an important topic. I believe in open mindedness, not dismissing things because they don’t fit with your current point of view. That’s what I love about science! This film will probably undermine science, and spread ID ignorance. There are some creationists who approach the topic with intelligence and some semblance of sound logic, but I doubt there are any in this, I’ve certainly seen no evidence of it!

  20. I think a lot of people on this board have proved John’s point. They’ll say “There is no evidence to support another theory” and then when people approach with evidence that may point in another direction, plug their ears and yell “I can’t hear you I can’t hear you”. Then proceed to say “I still haven’t heard any contrary evidence”.

    I’m with Mykrantz on this. The real issue is how people react to ideas that aren’t their own. In and of itself this makes this documentary needed. I’m looking forward to it

  21. I love how people are jumping to the conclusion that the movie advocates ID based on a 5 minute trailer. Perhaps the movie ends up showing through a fair amount of debate that ID has no basis as a valid theory.

    The point of the trailer isn’t really the debate of Darwinism vs Intelligent Design (I hate this term, because it makes it sound like they support theories other than Jesus’s dad created man). The point seems to be that even bringing up the question in a scientific way is blocked, scientists won’t even entertain the idea that evolution MAY be flawed in some way.

    I think Creationism is just a myth created to help establish the original form of government (i.e. – religion), but evolution still has flaws in it as well.

    The movie looks interesting, and it is always nice to see someone stand-up for free speech, even though I usually disagree with what that person has to say…

    P.S. – The Flying Spaghetti Monster rules all the universe!!!!

  22. John, just like opinions, not all scientists are created equal, either. Firstly, there is no system for qualifying a person as a ‘scientist.’ A scientist is merely someone who claims to practice science, which is simply the method of discrediting or verifying ideas and predictions through experiment, and then passing those conclusions off to other scientists to repeat. If the results cannot be repeated, the ideas and predictions are falsified, and the scientist should move on to other avenues of learning. If a scientist is being ignored or shunned, it is because the scientist is clinging to bad science to the point where they are annoying their ‘peers.’

    As for the micro/macro rebuttal calling me voluntarily ignorant, I decided to educate myself and wow! I was surprised to learn that micro and macroevolution have two distinct Wiki pages, and then I read this:

    “Criticisms of macroevolution

    While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the “fact of evolution”.[5][6] Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science[7].

    When discussing the topic, creationists use “strategically elastic” definitions of micro- and macroevolution.[1] Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being “just microevolution”.[1]”

    This exemplifies ID debate tactics. No real information, just bickering, annoying bickering.

  23. There’s no silencing of scientist in this case, because ID isn’t science. To be scientific, a theory has to fulfill certain criteria. ID violtes at least half of them, such as falsifiability, consistency, empirical testabilty, etc.

  24. I suspect it’s a few isolated cases, after all we’re dealing with people here, there’s bound to be some bullshit cropping up. I’m not even saying it never ever happens, but science as a whole is based on foundations and principles that work in the complete opposite way to this ridiculous “silencing” idea and it’s heartbreaking to see it so poorly represented, to have everything it stands for just pissed all over with ignorance.

  25. As a true pastafari, I think it’s a shame that those wimpy Darwinist “scientists” with their completely unproven theories don’t accept the true omega reason for this earth: The Flying Spaghetti Monster. And no one, not even Ben Stein, stands up for us :(

  26. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read John’s comment up there. The level of ignorance is dumbfounding. How dare you attack scientists who are in the solely in the pursuit of truth, who would LOVE NOTHING MORE than to be disproved and who are constantly asking for their ideas to be challenged and challenging others. Science isn’t like other trivial areas of life, the object is to prove a theory is not true. If it can survive that, then it can live on. All this non-sense about “silencing” is ignorant misunderstood dramatizing by people who have absolutely no clue.

  27. Batman wins. There, I hope my contribution brings new light to your darkened, primitive minds. Honestly, both sides need to stop bitching at one another. I’ve had this debate, this argument, hundreds of times between the pool table and classroom and it always leads to someone insulting the other or dismissing another’s intelligence. The debate is about who is right, not which theory is correct and, frankly, I find it childish. Who cares which is correct? Does it help you? Are you enlightening the ‘other side?’ No, you’re either destroying a peoples’ faith system, which does have merit, or showing those DNA-sniffing white coats that they don’t know everything, which they very well may know everything and you should ask them why your kid doesn’t look like you.

  28. The trailer looks very interesting.

    I think the troubling part is when the science journal publisher says “All I want to do is follow the evidence to where ever it leads”. If there is indeed a movement in certain scientific circles to denounce conclusions based on evidence, and to hide and suppress findings and theories, then it really is sad.

    Contrary to what another poster said, there is a strong difference between micro and macro. Blurring the lines between the 2 is voluntary ignorance.

  29. People who blindly support evolution make me laugh. Most of them have absolutely no knowledge of science, but talk as if they do.

    For a real exposition of the issues from a bio-genetic point of view, check out the book “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”

  30. To further what Ipecac was saying, John, the IDers have failed even in court (Dover, Colorado) to demonstrate any scientific theories or even hypothesis that might explain a mechanism for ID. What this means is that they have no evidence, they have no theory, they have no substance what so ever to claim any scientific grounds for their beliefs. That means that ID is not science, cannot compete with science, and people who understand this do not need to pretend that to ignore further arguments does not constitute a disrespect for free speech. Everyone is entitled to your opinion, but that does not mean that opinions are all created equal, opinions based on evidence and reason are superior.
    And please, please stop using the word Darwinists. There are no Darwinists, literally. There is no group of people, even in the most loose sense of affiliation, that refer to themselves as Darwinists. That is a name created by the ID movement to manufacture an opponent which they can then pretend to battle, and they do this because all they have left is the insistence of controversy.
    Yes, scientists are hostile to Intelligent Design, but not because there is some powerful cabal of scientists that control scientific opinion from the top down. That is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. The reason scientists are hostile towards ID or any snake oil salesman is because they are annoying, they are irrational, and they slow down progress by confusing people.
    And Ben Stein tries to make himself seem as a tempered mediator of truth and debate, but only evidence in contradiction that idea. He was a presidential speechwriter and a political pundant. His job has always been to package opinion, not to debate.
    I love you guys and your site, and it really bothers me that you might stray from movie opinion into science.
    Oh, and scoville, macro and micro evolution are the same thing. The terms come from a complaint raised by ID to confuse effects of evolution you can witness in your lifetime and effects that takes longer. Its just evolution.
    Here is a good podcast explaining what happened in Dover:
    http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcast-122105.html

  31. The rub is Intelligent design doesn’t hold up to scientific method.

    Does that mean its right or wrong?

    Intelligent design is based on accepting that there are things in this world you cannot possibly define or understand, and thats divine power and influence.

    Science by its very process and nature seeks to define and understand everything under the microscope.

    Its not so much that one is right and one is wrong, or that both can’t be right and both can’t be wrong… its that the very thinking that leads to both of these ideas is so fundamentally different that theres no means of comparison.

    I enjoy open debate on this subject, but it has to be with someone who accepts that unless given the ability to see the full course of history or have divine intervention, you’ll never really know for sure because its completely impossible to know.

    At least, in this life, I believe in evolution. Beyond this, I may find myself very, very wrong. But its a wrong I’m willing to live with since I can only believe and know what I can see and understand.

  32. I love this.

    Seriously; this is the wrong site to be having any sort of discussion that goes beyond the fan-boy arm-wrestling that results from a favourite comic book’s adaptation, or the artistic merits of ‘Cloverfield’. Still, always good for a howl or two.

  33. Sorry, John. The fact that you keep using the term “Darwinist” betrays where you’re coming from. Scientists don’t use the term to describe themselves as they know that we’ve come a long way from Darwin’s basic theories.

    Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution — genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. — is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. (Talkorigins).

    You can accuse scientists of being close-minded and not following the evidence. But creationists and their Intelligent Design cousins ignore the mountains of evidence of evolution found in historical and modern research in anthropology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, paleontology, and other scientific disciplines.

  34. Hey Ipecac,

    Actually, you’re incorrect. Evolution, according to most darwinist scientists, is not a “fact”. My their own admission, is is simply what many of them believe to be the best working theory they have.

    Also, the point here is, that when many scientists do produce theories and facts, and ask to just simply follow the evidence to wherever it leads, they get silenced.

    Many people start with the incorrect scientific assumption that unless evidence leads to where they already want it to go, they dismiss it.

    The problem is that people refuse to sit and listen to anything that doesn’t already fundamentally agree with your preexisting ideas.

  35. John, there is no scientific controversy here. There is no “other side”. Ben Stein’s position isn’t “unpopular”, it’s just flat out wrong. If there is any scientific merit to the intelligent design position, all they’d have to do is show some research, some evidence. That’s how science works. There’s 150+ years of supporting evidence for evolution. The ID folk have nothing, not even a workable theory.

    Evolution is scientific fact. The evidence is overwhelming. Those who deny it do so for religious reasons, not scientific ones. Those pushing the “theory” of intelligent design are doing so to push their religion into public schools.

    To dismiss intelligent design is not being close-minded any more than dismissing those who believe the Earth is flat. If ID brings some evidence to the table, ANY evidence, it will be given its due.

    For an excellent summary of the “controversy”, read the Dover decision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *