Should be a good documentary. I love the data about design, although I’m not pinning the God-did-it label on it. But the evidence about the complete complexity of the cell and how it’s made up of little engines and machines transforms how humans now have to think about the little guys, our cells.
What evidence exists to support ID?
The film’s endeavor is to respond to one simple question: “Were we designed, or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?”Big science doesn’t like that question because they can’t answer it.
Yet.
(A yet! A yet! My kingdom for a yet!)
I saw the movie last night. Very well done, and though it pokes some gentle fun at some of the atheistic dogmatics of Darwinists, Stein also has a reflective and caring moment regarding one man who is a vehement atheist but is also suffering from a brain tumor.
Stein has made a good film.
A very interesting couple of related works I've seen, just in case anyone is interested:
I read it on the Internet therefore it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Bible says so too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........
I just got home after going to see the movie. This is a “must see” movie. It’s the best conservative movie I’ve ever seen!
Richard Dawkins has a neat, funny parody at
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2478,Sexpelled-No-Intercourse-Allowed,RichardDawkinsnet
Also, see Eugenie Scott’s site
www.expelledexposed.com
This film belongs on the must see list.
ID Ping!
bump
Just saw it. Loved it. I highly recommend it.
The intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.
If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.
The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.
The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who believe Jesus rose from the dead because of the testimony of others who witnessed it. They claim that their witness cannot be trusted because1. something like that cannot happen,The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?
2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and
3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.
The answer to the above is, of course,
1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;
2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,
3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.
* or observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?
Saw it this weekend. A superb movie, and even entertaining. Stein is the perfect spokesman: mild-mannered and humble, yet wise and passionate. Stein gives Darwinism’s leading lights a little rope, with which they proceed to blow themselves up, and the bridge behind them. There really is nothing like dogmatic empiricists. An epochal film, which will be as influential as “Inherit the Wind,” except in reverse.
What the hell is wrong with this doofus?
Tagging a group as "big science" is as stupid as liberals who talk about "big oil" or "big drug" or "big tobacco".
Does he think insulting biologists will make him viewpoint more scientific? Is this his big plan to get modern biology and genetics taken over by the Discovery Institute?
