EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ ^

[truthfinder9]

This will be interesting, a documentary movie by Ben Stein on the new wave of thought police and academic suppression in academia and science:

Ben Stein, in the new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

His heroic and, at times, shocking journey confronting the world’s top scientists, educators and philosophers, regarding the persecution of the many by an elite few.

In theatres near you, starting February 2008

Ben travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth…that bewilders him, then angers him…and then spurs him to action!

Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

To which Ben Says: "Enough!" And then gets busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.

***

At Big Science Academy we take our motto seriously: “No Intelligence Allowed.” And this year, we are proud to report that in every subject but Science, students and faculty are free to challenge ideas, and seek truth wherever it may lead.

But Science is different. In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. That is why we at Big Science simply refuse to allow it. Like dancing, “dissent” can lead to other things.

As Class President Richard Dawkins put it so well: “Shut up!”

As you know…last year we had the misfortune of “presupposition of design” rearing its ugly head, with several students challenging Neo-Darwinian materialism, and arguing incessantly for the right to examine Intelligent Design.

They were all Expelled, of course – but still: it just goes to show where academic freedom can lead, if not shut down immediately!

Sincerely,

Charles Darwin Principal, President, Admissions and Diversity Affairs Officer, Big Science Academy “No Intelligence Allowed”

[Shryke]

Sounds like you just lost an argument to a pinhead then.

[allmendream]

If you think teaching the predominant Biological theory in Biology class rather than teaching the Bible in Biology class is an “assault on religion” in our schools then I really don’t know what to tell you. Is teaching Geologic theory that the earth is a couple billion years old an “assault on religion”? Is teaching that Dinosaurs existed millions of years before man an “assault on religion”? How about teaching that the earth is not the immovable center of the universe? At one time teaching that was considered an “assault on religion”; luckily Christian leaders recognized that the truth of the universe cannot conflict with the truth of the author of the universe.

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas

[Pietro]

"The Wedge Strategy is a roadmap for a dishonest plan to push religion in the guise of science"

Nonsense. For your benefit I went back and reread it. No where does it proport to replace actual science w/ fake science. The strategy outlined is against "scientific materialism", not science. The two are not synonomous. I saw nothing there about destroying science.

The intention is to use the scientific method to defeat those advocates of a materialistic only understanding of our universe. Obviously there are cultural elements to the plan, but the establishment of a theocracy? If you believe that any serious person in the Christian community is trying to create a theocracy your tinfoil hat's on too tight.

Concerning whether evolution is true/not true I'm assuming nothing of the kind. But I'm not afraid of evolution if that's your point. I just don't want to see it used as a lever against religious faith, and let me point out that the acadamy's acquiesence in allowing it to be used in that fashion will reverberate badly for the academay. Its a bastradization of science.

[CottShop]

I guess you missed the point- designed elements lead to designed investigations of further elements- if someone doesn’t beleive in design, they aren’t going to pursue the idea that everythign has a design makeup and is interlinked with other designed systems

[[*You can dispense with the “science conspiracy” antics with me.]]

Sure- righton fella- right when they dispense with the “ID is psuedoscience” antics

[Pietro]

When the ACLU sues school districts all across the land and research scientists are denied tenure if they don't toe the line and when the grand pubah of cambridge university publishes an anti-religion screed that is farcial in its understanding of Christianity, I call it as I see it.

I'll stand shoulder to shoulder w/ you to defend truth, but I see precious little of that coming out of academia, politics, or the court these days.

[CottShop]

Coyote- enough with hte ‘wedge theory”- the wedge theory is NOT ID- comprende? ID has nothign to do with ‘pushing religion’ anyone with half an ounce of intellectual honesty knows this fact- Tell me something Coyote- Is Behe ‘pushing religion’? Demski? No- they investigate design- period- Are the agnostic scientists who study design pushing religion? No- So enough with the silly accusations

[[The only way to do that is to destroy science as it has been practiced for a couple of centuries.]

A bunch of bull- Evidently you aren’t aware of the sceince of ID to be making silly little statements like that

[CottShop]

[[Nonsense. For your benefit I went back and reread it. No where does it proport to replace actual science w/ fake science]]

He knows that full well- but feels that if you repeat false accusations enough times that it might eventually become true- Maligning is the only defense left against the science that is exposing hte serious problems with evolution though-

[CottShop]

[[If you go to a medical company with research that could lead to profits, you’ll be funded. I’ve read about all kinds of “frowned upon” ideas getting money for research, this is no different]

Mmm Yes- you might want ot tell all the scientists that were denied tenure, and tell all the scientists who were ostracised and publicly maligned for not towing hte TOE line then— somethign htis whole threqad was about to begin with- A little more severe than simply ‘frowned upon’-

[RussP]

The so-called “wedge strategy” amounts to using scientific truth in support of religion when appropriate. Gosh, I’ll bet that Newton, Kelvin, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, and Pascal, all Christians, would be horribly offended by such a “bastardization” of science, as Coyoteman calls it.

Coyoteman lives in his own little world in which he knows that he is safe because he is on the side of Political Correctness. He constantly regurgitates all the PC crud that the “secular progressives” (as Bill O’Reilly calls them) are using to subvert traditional religion and morality. But I get the impression he doesn’t realize what a “useful idiot” he is to them.

By the way, I suggest that everyone take a look at my FR homepage. I have placed a few of my favorite quotes on ID there.

[Shryke]

if someone doesn’t beleive in design, they aren’t going to pursue the idea that everythign has a design makeup and is interlinked with other designed systems

But you have many people at the Discovery Institute and other such places that do believe in a designer, and are (from what I read) steering their research as appropriate, correct? What have they come up with? What new branches of research has been opened? What new medicines have been proposed? Let's think about something here: there have been a large, LARGE amount of scientists and learned men who fervently believe in God for thousands of years, correct? That is a long time to produce "design-based" research, theories, etc. Yet, we still see nothing of that type. Why?

You have also missed an earlier point that *I* made. I'll repeat: are you suggesting that man, upon discovering God's design, could do anything with the data? Even comprehend it?

Sure- righton fella- right when they dispense with the “ID is psuedoscience” antics

If you cannopt falsify a theory, you cannot call it science. But, I am very willing to be corrected here. Just tell me how to falsify ID.

[edsheppa]

I was please when Coyoteman accepted my challenge, but disappointed when he tried to change the rules after failing to make the grade.

False. You permitted inductive reasoning and that's what he did.

[Shryke]

Mmm Yes- you might want ot tell all the scientists that were denied tenure, and tell all the scientists who were ostracised and publicly maligned for not towing hte TOE line then— somethign htis whole threqad was about to begin with- A little more severe than simply ‘frowned upon’-

Scientists being denied tenure does not mean they cannot obtain funding for research by private companies or, more likely, the various religious bodies that believe in ID.

Let's discuss that issue: why haven't these ID scientists been given funding from private corporations and/or churches? If there is potential there, why would it be ignored? Are you saying the Darwinists control every company and all the churches?

[CottShop]

[[Scientists being denied tenure does not mean they cannot obtain funding for research by private companies or, more likely, the various religious bodies that believe in ID]]

After all- being a ‘speudoscience’ doesn’t entitle them to public fundings liek ‘real science’

[[Let’s discuss that issue: why haven’t these ID scientists been given funding from private corporations and/or churches? If there is potential there, why would it be ignored?]]

They are being funded as best as they can be

[[Are you saying the Darwinists control every company and all the churches?]]

never implied that

[[If you cannopt falsify a theory, you cannot call it science. But, I am very willing to be corrected here. Just tell me how to falsify ID.]]

Boy howdy do I have good news for you then- ID IS falsifiable- Next objection?

[[But you have many people at the Discovery Institute and other such places that do believe in a designer, and are (from what I read) steering their research as appropriate, correct?]]

The Discovery institute, or even ICR are not the backbone of Intelligent design science- they are independent branches of hte hypothesis of intelligent design- their own personal beliefs OUTSIDE of the hypothesis of Intelligent Design is irrelevent to the hypothesis of intelligent design itself.

[[What have they come up with? What new branches of research has been opened?]]

I point you to both unccomondescent.com and creationsafari.com for more research and discoveries than you can shake a stick at- I also point you toward Behe’s site, as well as ICR and many others

[[That is a long time to produce “design-based” research, theories, etc. Yet, we still see nothing of that type. Why]]

Nothing? Lol- I guess your blinders don’t have peepholes eh?

[RussP]

“If you cannopt falsify a theory, you cannot call it science. But, I am very willing to be corrected here. Just tell me how to falsify ID.”

Please explain to me how the modern theory of abiogenesis can be falsified. Until you do, I’ll assume that you don’t consider it “science” (never mind how much tax money is spent on it!).

I guess you weren’t yet on this thread when I posted post # 101, so I’ll copy some of it here:

Also, as I said before, the problem is not just that science hasn’t “figured it out yet,” though evolutionists would have us believe that. The problem is that the random origin of the first cell would be comparable, as Fred Hoyle put it, to having a tornado in a junkyard result in a fully assembled Boeing 747. I use a slightly different analogy. It would be comparable to having the entire text of the Gettysburg Address show up randomly on some desert sands due to random winds.

I’ve also pointed out that the entire notion of a random origin of the first cell in unfalsifiable and hence, by the very definitions used by many evolutionists, unscientific. Think about it. Explain to me how one could prove that the Gettysburg Address never appeared spontaneously on the sands of a desert.

It can only be done by probabilistic analysis, but evolutionists routinely dismiss such analyses with a wave of the hand. Hence, the modern theory of abiogenesis is “unscientific” according to the very same criterion that evolutionists claim that ID is unscientific.

[Coyoteman]

Please specify exactle what "the modern theory of abiogenesis" states.

Are there any competing scientific theories?

[Shryke]

Boy howdy do I have good news for you then- ID IS falsifiable- Next objection?

I asked for "how". Please explain HOW to falsify it.

I point you to both unccomondescent.com and creationsafari.com for more research and discoveries than you can shake a stick at

Well, I went to Creationsafaris.com. There is a link there which cites "practical applications in the Christian life". They go on to list "fitness, wisdom, and Witnessing" as practical applications. I did not find a single ID discovery, unfortunately. There are multitudes of references to geological, biological, and other sciences, but I cannot find anything with ID as the source. Would you mind linking me something?

I think it's alot odd you cite Behe. He accepts common descent.

[Shryke]

Please explain to me how the modern theory of abiogenesis can be falsified.

I am unfortunately unfamiliar with this theory. I thought we were discussing the Evolutionary theory, which requires life to exist before it can work.

Hence, the modern theory of abiogenesis is “unscientific” according to the very same criterion that evolutionists claim that ID is unscientific.

You are referring to a hypothesis. And, until someone creates life from inorganic materials, that is what it will remain.

[RussP]

“You are referring to a hypothesis. And, until someone creates life from inorganic materials, that is what it will remain.”

You forgot something very significant. It’s not just a hypothesis; according to your own definition, it’s an *UNSCIENTIFIC* hypothesis.

By the way, I have a hypothesis too. My hypothesis is that one day millions of years ago, random winds blew the clouds in such a way that the words, “Life is intelligently designed, and anyone you can’t see that is a fool” appeared spontaneously in the sky. The words were absolutely crystal clear, and nobody who saw them could possibly fail to recognize them. Unfortunately, nobody was there to see it.

Go ahead, I challenge you to disprove my hypothesis.

By the way, the odds of that happening are far greater than the odds of a living cell falling into place at random.

[js1138]

Please explain to me how the modern theory of abiogenesis can be falsified.

Kindly reveal that the "theory of abiogenesis" is and what it states.

I follow this rather closely, and I'm not aware of even a hypothesis, much less a theory.

[js1138]

By the way, the odds of that happening are far greater than the odds of a living cell falling into place at random.

Probably. Now point to any recent or current researcher who thinks cells assemble in one step.