Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Expelled, Important and A Highly Enjoyable Movie To Boot
From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 4/18/08 | Purple Mountains

Posted on 04/18/2008 4:04:57 PM PDT by PurpleMountains

I just returned home from seeing the premiere of Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed". I was amazed that such an important movie that addresses serious questions would be so enjoyable and have such great entertainment value. The movie exposes Darwinism and the crushing of scientific inquiry going on in this country. Darwinism is the foundation science of modern liberalism, and just as liberalism is a failed philosophy and imposes political correctness to stifle debate, so is some of Darwinian theory wrong, and scientific study and debate about it is simiarly stifled. I urge everyone to see this movie and spread its messsage.

(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Society
KEYWORDS: benstein; brentbozell; expelled; moviereview; richarddawkins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-252 next last
To: tokenatheist
Why are you leaving out 150+ years worth of advances in evolutionary science?

It's not much of a "science" if it consistently avoids the tough questions.
The theory has advanced, surely, but the gaps and the issues avoided by its adherents has also multiplied.

I find it strange that the most advanced geneticists and molecular biologists simply marvel at the statement that the advancements in the complexities of living things happened randomly, or in conveniently packaged mind-boggling complete "packages", and always toward improved complex systems.

21 posted on 04/18/2008 4:51:39 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist

“Maths deals with proofs - not science.”

Not true. Consider Davy’s electrolytic isolation of new elements, Hales’ work on the circulation of sap in plants, or the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.


22 posted on 04/18/2008 4:51:41 PM PDT by JHBowden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thulldud
Would anything constitute "proof" in your eyes?

Just the usual scientific evidence. Please describe the features and characteristics of the designer you hypothesize about and suggest an experiment that would validate its existance. Also explain how a designer can evolve from nothing.

23 posted on 04/18/2008 4:52:30 PM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Offer some direct evidence for ID or shutup.


24 posted on 04/18/2008 4:53:37 PM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist
The isn’t maths. Maths deals with proofs - not science.

I agree with you. It is the evolution religionists who insist that science has "proven" their theory; and that the ID crowd has not.

25 posted on 04/18/2008 4:54:16 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

You’re not doing the Darwinists any good with that nasty mouth. That’s the point of the movie, as far as I can tell from the commercials. It’s about academic freedom, not yelling “shutup” like a 2-yr old begging for a spanking.


26 posted on 04/18/2008 4:57:40 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Offer some direct evidence for ID or shutup.

Why should you have the right to make a fool of yourself as an undisciplined boor, but not I?

I will do neither until you explain Darwin's personal reservations about his own theory.

You have read it and his subsequent comment on the controversy haven't you?
You can read, can't you?

27 posted on 04/18/2008 4:57:50 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

The ID crown doesn’t want to support their theory - if they did they would not spend money on movies. Instead they would spend that money on research.

But the do not, they fund next to no research. Why is that?


28 posted on 04/18/2008 5:00:19 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

That’s bullcrap.


29 posted on 04/18/2008 5:00:30 PM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

What were ‘Darwin’s personal reservations ‘ about his theory?


30 posted on 04/18/2008 5:00:44 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

No - that is factual correct material.

If I am incorrect please show my the error of my ways.


31 posted on 04/18/2008 5:01:26 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

Before you judge, see the movie. They aren’t pushing for anything but a chance to be heard. Their main concern is that freedom, your freedoms are being compromised. Truth is not a one way street. When intolerant orthodoxy becomes truth, we all lose.

Oh, and one of the anti-intelligent design heroes is on film in this movie explaining his own version of the “origin of the species”. According to him, humanity may well be the intelligent design of aliens? It may be truth but then again it may not be. Why is that any more plausible than the existence of God?

As a trained biologist, I have never seen anything that prevents me from believing in both evolution and intelligent design. All I ask is that you do not equate simple creationism with intelligent design.


32 posted on 04/18/2008 5:01:41 PM PDT by mort56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mort56

Which deity do you consider ‘God’?


33 posted on 04/18/2008 5:02:47 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist
They explain how it may possibly have happened.

This does not prove that it happened that way, nor can this be replicated in any experiment.

That is, they cannot take a cell without a Krebs cycle, give it the initial starting conditions, then wait through several generations and then end up with a cell with a Krebs cycle. The term "opportunism" in this case is simply a synonym for "something magic happens".

34 posted on 04/18/2008 5:03:56 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

I Have been to the ID sites and looked in vain for an ID scientific theory. I can get no ID proponent to offer a scientific theory. You offer nothing. This is not a surprise. ID is just a lie. It is a legalistic boodoggle to inject Genesis into the classroom.


35 posted on 04/18/2008 5:06:14 PM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Just the usual scientific evidence. Please describe the features and characteristics of the designer you hypothesize about and suggest an experiment that would validate its existance. Also explain how a designer can evolve from nothing.

This raises a couple of questions for me, which I would like answers to:

1) Do you recognize any limits on the ability of what you call "science" to establish an absolute truth?

2) Why does a designer need to "evolve" from "nothing"? I could as easily ask you how the universe itself "evolved" from "nothing". Or are you going to insist that it is eternal and self-existent?

Btw, if you undertake to answer #2, remember that "nothing" must be really "nothing". Not a "something" that we agree to CALL "nothing", because I won't agree to it.

I'm just askin'....

36 posted on 04/18/2008 5:06:31 PM PDT by thulldud (Insanity: Electing John McCain again and expecting a different result.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: thulldud

Can religion “establish an absolute truth”?


37 posted on 04/18/2008 5:08:33 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist
The ID crowd doesn’t want to support their theory - if they did they would not spend money on movies. Instead they would spend that money on research.

There is no ID theor except that "complicated things need a designer". There are no experiments. There is no literature. It ain't science, it's religion.

38 posted on 04/18/2008 5:09:05 PM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thulldud
Why does a designer need to "evolve" from "nothing"? I could as easily ask you how the universe itself "evolved" from "nothing". Or are you going to insist that it is eternal and self-existent?

Logically if a virus requires a designer, then a designer requires a designer. You ultimately come to a first designer that arose from nothing.

39 posted on 04/18/2008 5:11:55 PM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

ID may be crock, but the sort of 19th century brand of darwinism that’s taught to children (i.e, before they get to college), is well known to be equally uncientific nonsense that no serious geneticist or biologist accepts today. The paradigm today is punctuated equilibrium, which frankly, is nothing like the sort of simple-minded “survival of the fittest” doctrine that hacks with education degrees foist on children.

Survival of the fittest isn’t even a darwinian notion, it’s a social idea taken from Herbert Spenser, but I digress. Punctuated equilibrium suggests that a) evolution takes place at the cellular level primarily—not the level of the species; and b) that “evolution” is a reaction of cells to external events such as disease, viruses, comets, etc. Only when you get massive external change does a species “evolve”, or rather mutate. Those mutations that survive pass on their genes, those that don’t die out.

Despite the efforts of academia, the reality is that conceptually speaking, at least, punctuated equilibrium is not incompatible with creationism. And I would not equate creationism with ID—the former is a legitimate religio-philosophical construct, while ID is basically an attempt to take such a construct and force it into a scientific framework. “God in the gaps,” as such a theory is known in religious studies ciricles, is poor theology and poorer science.

Anyway, those who design the curriculum of public schools are blissfully unaware of the fact that pure darwinism is as passe as marxism.


40 posted on 04/18/2008 5:12:44 PM PDT by Ilya Mourometz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-252 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson