Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[MemeBuster]

Thankfully, science is not ruled by mobs, so this movie will not make any difference at the end.


MB.

 

[Naraoia]

Thankfully, science is not ruled by mobs, so this movie will not make any difference at the end.


MB.

It's not science where the difference has to be made either. And I wouldn't underestimate the power of the mob coupled with some support from above. I recall the Cultural Revolution in China was a rather unpleasant thing. And I seriously hope those 'above' have better sense than to unleash something like the Red Guards again.

 

[Vainglorious]

However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests. Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance. We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it. And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Why do you think that video was an accurate representation of reality?

 

[Nitron]

It's not science where the difference has to be made either.

Yeah, but what if you teach the kids intelligent design in school and then put them on ICR programs in uni? More and more scientists will accept creationism even though it has never been scientifically substantiated.

 

[[serious]]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, not their own facts.

Creationists have very little to work with in the facts arena even when filtered through a very selective creationist lens. As far as testable hypothesis, they have struck out.

 

[flatworm]

Thankfully, science is not ruled by mobs, so this movie will not make any difference at the end.
MB.

The problem is, the mob has long since abandoned the idea of establishing their ideology in the scientific community.

They know they cannot compete with real science on a level playing field, so they are creating their own, parallel edifice.

It starts with private religious schools and homeschooling programs parallel to public schools and teaching nonsense repugnant to all science and evidence.

They discovered some time ago that the graduates of these programs are left horribly ill-prepared to enter secular universities or other institutions of higher learning. Therefore, we now have a slew of explicitly religious colleges and universities where adherence to ideology is the only virtue.

They then discovered that graduates of these institutions got absolutely creamed by 'mainstream' graduates when it came to things like, say, defending a scientific thesis or arguing a legal case.

In the former case we now have ideology-driven journals that call themselves scientific. The mob's solution to the latter case, however, it the more distressing. You see, it isn't so easy to create a 'parallel' court system. What authority would such a court have? Better indeed to seize control of the existing system of government and force it to bow to the mob's ideology. Hence we have the direct pipeline from Regent University to jobs in the Executive branch, and recent selections for supreme court justices.

 

[BrainHertz]

However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests.

Agreed with the first part. But what are we supposed to say to those who are in fact doing pseudo-science and asking for it to be treated with equal weight to evidence-backed science?

Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance.

Excellent. As such, we can rule out the Bible or revelation as a source of enlightenment here.

We must remember that evolution is a theory...

Ok, stop right there. This is PRATT numero uno. Not wanting to sound snide or anything, but do you know what "theory" means in this context?

...and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it.

Absolutely. Have at it with whatever evidence there is.

And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo.

Well, that sort of depends on whether their arguments are ridiculous. If they are, there's no issue with them being ridiculed.

Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Academic freedom is alive and well. It doesn't require that people who are continually and insistently wrong and never correct their errors should continue to be taken seriously.

 

[sbvera13]

Pre-screening of Expelled reviewed here: (thanks to the Pandas Thumb for spreading the word)

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html

How do you re-package that tried, untested and untestable faith-without-facts warhorse, "Creationism" after its nearly-annual beat-down by an increasingly exasperated scientific community?

After you've tried renaming it "Intelligent Design," I mean.

With comedy. Mock your "Darwinist" foes the way comics, thinkers, scientists and educated people everywhere have been mocking creationism since Scopes took that monkey off our back.
...
They're marking this movie, which they had said, earlier, they'd open in Feb. (now April) the same way they pitched The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia, said Paul Lauer of Motive Entertainment, who introduced Stein.

In other words, a stealth campaign, out of the public eye, preaching to the choir to get the word out about the movie without anyone who isn't a true believer passing a discouraging judgment on it.
...
It's a movie that uses animation, archival documentary footage, interviews with outraged people of science who want ID on the table, and "atheists" who see that as a step backward to make its case.

It just isn't particularly funny. Or the least bit convincing.

I lost track of the number of times Stalin's image hit the screen, and in the ways the movie equated science with Darwinism with atheism with Hitler or Stalin. Subtle, it's not.

 

[Promethean]

Ok, stop right there. This is PRATT numero uno. Not wanting to sound snide or anything, but do you know what "theory" means in this context?

The creationist response to finding out that evolution is a fact and theory is like the Mudd robot women when Spock says to the identical robots: " I love you, but I hate you"

It makes their brains shut down

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests. Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance. We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it. And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?

Wow, was I wrong!

 

[Loudmouth]

Wow, was I wrong!

Do we get the full mea culpa?

What were you wrong about? What are your thoughts looking back at your posts from 7 years ago?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do we get the full mea culpa?

What were you wrong about? What are your thoughts looking back at your posts from 7 years ago?

To be honest, I had completely forgotten that this thread even existed. Out of curiosity, I searched for "all threads by Archaeopteryx" and rediscovered it. That search yields many interesting (that is, embarrassing) results, like this one.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

On the topic of what I was wrong about... I was wrong to take "Expelled" seriously, as I later learned. I was also wrong to suggest that evolution is "just a theory" and to imply that it's just a "popular notion of truth" (what does that even mean?) I implied that there was evidence against evolution, which was being ignored or suppressed, but I never bothered presenting that evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

To be honest, I had completely forgotten that this thread even existed. Out of curiosity, I searched for "all threads by Archaeopteryx" and rediscovered it. That search yields many interesting (that is, embarrassing) results, like this one.

I wouldn't feel embarrassed if I were you. What you said was fair, if naïve. If there is evidence against a theory then it should be heard. If people have solid science that questions evolution then they shouldn't be discriminated against. The only thing you are guilty of is trusting professional ID/Creationists to be honest about the state of ID "science" and evolution in general.

 

[sahjimira]

[QagreeTE="Archaeopteryx, post: 43256574, member: 194332"]

Note that I am not a creationist. If you look at my CF profile you will notice that I have listed "Theistic Evolution" under my Origin of Life view. However, I find that it is unfair for scientists who question evolutionary theory to be labeled as pseudo-scientists or theocrats, and I find it unfair that such scientists are either not taken seriously or discriminated against as this video suggests. Appeals to authority should not matter, only appeals to evidence should hold substance. We must remember that evolution is a theory, and yes, there is evidence for it, but that does not mean that we should dis-consider or exclude the evidence against it. And we should certainly not ridicule scientists who question the status quo. Whatever happened to academic freedom, or should we just prostitute ourselves to popular notions of truth?[/QUOTE]
I agree and truthfully I believe the more they discover is further proof of God. I love that aspect!

 

[crjmurray]

On the topic of what I was wrong about... I was wrong to take "Expelled" seriously, as I later learned. I was also wrong to suggest that evolution is "just a theory" and to imply that it's just a "popular notion of truth" (what does that even mean?) I implied that there was evidence against evolution, which was being ignored or suppressed, but I never bothered presenting that evidence.

.............(slow clap)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

.............(slow clap)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree and truthfully I believe the more they discover is further proof of God. I love that aspect!

You are expressing agreement with a post I made over 7.5 years ago. As I clarified a moment ago, I no longer hold the view expressed in the OP.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree and truthfully I believe the more they discover is further proof of God. I love that aspect!

If you agree that there is evidence against evolution and discrimination against solid science, then all we would ask is that you present it.

 

[DaisyDay]

Wow, was I wrong!

For a moment, I thought you were just trolling, it being you and all. People grow and learn.

Good for you for not deleting or editing it! Takes guts.