Super Trailer to Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed"

Premise Media Corporation ^ | In Theaters Spring 2008 | Kevin Miller, Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan, Nathan Frankowski

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

...For most of my life, I believed the answers to these questions were fairly straightforward. Everything that exists is created by a Loving God. That includes rocks, trees, animals, people, really everything. All along I had been well aware that other people, very smart people, believe otherwise. Rather than God's handiwork, they see the universe as the product of random particle collisions and chemical reactions. And rather than regard humankind as carrying the spark of the divine, they believe we are nothing more than mud animated by lightning...

Trailer requires Shockwave Flash:

Super Trailer
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

More trailers here:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php

IMDB page:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

 

 

[js1138]

They simply cannot admit that their beliefs are based on the philosophy of naturalism as that makes it clear that the battle is between competing philosophies and the reasons for choosing one philosophy over another are... philosophical.

No, the reasons for choosing empiricism are utilitarian. Science delivers the goods. Science can transmute lead into gold, and it can tell you why this isn't going to produce wealth. Science can produce the Internet, which allows geocentrists to expose their private delusions to the world.

[doc30]

A movie made for morons, by morons. I thought Ben Stein was more intelligent than this to be associated with the Purveyors of Unknowledge.

[doc30]

“It conflates evolution with atheism, when the majority of Scientists in the U.S.A. are Christian (as am I, both a Scientist and a Christian).”

That version simply turns god into a gardener.

A literal interpretation of Genesis is held by a minority of Christian denominations. The people pushing ID and creationism are at war with not only science and the Enlightenment, but also most Christian churches.

[doc30]

Really. So there is no desire to shut down scientists who think intelligent design has merit, eh?

I bet those who have been subject to the wrath of Darwinists would beg to differ.

The problem isn't believing in ID, The problem is accepting it as science. As a scientist, I will say that anyone who thinks ID is science is ignorant of science. ANyone claiming to be a scientist who pushes ID as science has more in common with scientologists than scientists. Obviously, they need a new career.

There is simply no scientific merit in ID. None. Not a single IDer has been able to generate a single test that can falsify ID. Their only claim is this 'irreproducible complexity' argument which, in essence says that things are too complicated to understand, hence goddidit. They have given up on the very idea of research and wish to ascribe natural phenomena to a mythical sky god rather than actually producing any research.

Ben Stein should be ashamed for selling out his integrity likt he has. As should any other scientist claiming ID is science.

[doc30]

I'd say you aren't paying enough attention. The point that science is based on the philosophy of naturalism, has it's own belief structure and is not any more empirical than the intelligent design position is the key to understanding the issue.

This coming from a guy who beleives that the sun revolves around the Earht and who touts the medical benefits of shoving coffee up one's arse. You are a quack.

[js1138]

I think the coffee enema aficionado is someone else, but it is difficult to keep this kind of thing straight.

The producers of Ben’s film have so much confidence in it they are willing to pay schools ten dollars a head to send kids to see it. I wonder if health insurance covers asurgical lobotomies.

[MacDorcha]

No, I was asserting that the “guiding hands” and “fiscal planners” really had no real control and lose money as often as they earn money.

Again, boats follow the tide, they do not make it.

[allmendream]

Sorry, I am a professional Scientist and I don’t see the same gap that Behe insists is there. His irreducible complexity turned out to be very reducible and now he is off in search of a different example.

So I do have an empirical basis for my belief in evolution, indeed there is no more basis for it than the evidence of the senses, and nothing we can see or measure has contradicted it.

Naturalism has filled many of the gaps in human understanding of the basic principles of the universe. GODDIDIT has insisted that it is God there in those gaps, and that we need look no further. It is an empty and soulless endeavor that has produced nothing and explains nothing.

[js1138]

When you say that experts have no real ability to steer the economy or any consistent ability to predict or take advantage of the market, you are confirming Adam Smith’s assertion that markets are self guided.

[kublia khan]

I couldn’t agree more, I don’t know why you would have concluded otherwise from what I wrote. Evolutionary theory has abandoned Darwin for the most part but it still takes as much if not more faith to believe in Evolution as it does to believe in Creationism. Contrary to what many posting here apparently believe there are many gaps in the scientific record that must be filled before Evolution can move from a theory to an established fact. Many leading Scientist ( the real kind not the chemistry set in the basement variety) who strongly support the theories of Evolution will admit that research is still in it’s infancy in that field and little progress has been made in identifying the mechanisms whereby one species would evolve into another. Some of the scientific discovery’s of the last twenty years have been devastating to the theories of Evolution. The mapping of the Human genome was so devastating that it caused some of the greatest proponents of Evolution to say that they were going to have to start over from scratch. Vast parts of the DNA polymer have functions that are still not understood or may in fact be useless molecules in the chain. Even though some parts are still not understood DNA and RNA appear to be absolutely inflexible at this time. Without a change in DNA structure no species may bring forth an entirely different species. The mapping of the Human Genome now requires that mechanism other than mutation at birth be found to explain Evolution.

If you or others are offended by what I wrote in my previous comment or in this one I apologize, as my first comment indicated I will not be participating in these discussions any longer.

[allmendream]

And I agree there is an intelligence behind the complexity of creation as well. I just think the intelligence is a lot more intelligent than Behe gives credit for.

Randomness is a feature of reality throughout the universe from a quantum to a celestial level. This doesn’t mean that God is not in control and needs to correct the random parts that didn’t break HIS way. It is shoddy theology and it is not Science.

[allmendream]

Theories do not move from a theory to established fact. They remain theory. That when you drop something denser than air near sea level on earth it falls down is a fact. The theory of universal gravitational attraction explains that fact.

Some people just don’t know Science. Moreover, they do not want to know.

Keep getting your Science from a Geocentricist and see where that gets you.

[MacDorcha]

Thus my praise of your earlier statement. I’m not sure why you seem to be trying to clarify my stance...

[allmendream]

A majority of Scientists in the U.S.A. are Christian (as are a majority of Americans as a whole).

It is obvious then that the majority of Scientists in the U.S.A. do not tout the line that Science supports atheism.

Maybe if you didn’t think Scientists were your enemy, and bought the creationist/ I.D. line that Scientists are all atheists; you might realize that the majority of us here in the U.S.A. are Christian. You cede a lot of ground to the atheists if you let them claim all of Scientific advancement and knowledge as their own without any justification other than that much of this knowledge contradicts what you think you know about the age of the earth or the history of life on earth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God (67%).

[metmom]

Naturalism has filled many of the gaps in human understanding of the basic principles of the universe. GODDIDIT has insisted that it is God there in those gaps, and that we need look no further.

So what really IS the difference between naturalism is the answer or God is the answer then? If both are the answer, then why do you consider that one leads to further investigation and the other doesn't? If the answer is arrived at, regardless of what it is, then either one should have the same result.

It is an empty and soulless endeavor that has produced nothing and explains nothing.

Great explanation of naturalism there.

[Old Professer]

There is no place in science for a god except to look over its growth; perhaps spectator is a better word than gardener.

[MacDorcha]

I don’t think scientists are my enemy (why do you capitalize that word?) I think that not enough scientists are being honest in their assertions about evolution and it’s logical leap into abiogenetic beginings.

The crowd insisting “God does not belong in our equations” is the same crowd that states that scientists are not using faith to make their points.

Now, as for the 2/3rds bit of information- it would sure help the scientists to reach the evangelicals if they would make this little tid-bit more known. Would help in discussions and debates. Mostly, it would foster trust, which is key to listening.

[AndrewC]

That when you drop something denser than air near sea level on earth it falls down is a fact. The theory of universal gravitational attraction explains that fact.

I don't think that the theory of universal gravitational attraction mentions air. "helps explain that observation" seems to be more proper.

[allmendream]

If God did it then there is no underlying principle or equation to be discovered that is applicable to reality as a whole; it happened because it was God’s will. This tells you nothing about how something can happen, or what might happen the next time.

The idea that there might be something that explains it has lead to all sorts of knowledge about the fundamental principles of the universe. We have equations that explain motion, waves, particles, energy, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong force. If someone thought that the earth circled the sun (sorry Geocentricists, it does)because it was God’s will that it be so and nothing more, then what is there to investigate?

I believe the earth circles the sun because it is God’s will as well. But I also know that it does so because of the fundamental nature of reality that God created.

Do you see the difference? One thinks that it is Angels pushing planets around and we cannot measure Angels. The other supposes that God had spiritual things for Angels to do and created a reality that is complete unto itself and doesn’t need Angels to push things around.

One approach has lead to advancement in human knowledge. The other is a dead end. It explains everything and nothing. It has no utility.

[metmom]

All of which has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings of science.

Science with a naturalistic philosophy is not inherently superior to science with a non-naturalistic philosophy. It’s just preferable for those who wish to keep God out of the equation and think they have something to use as evidence that He doesn’t exist or isn’t necessary.

Following the scientific method for running an experiment will produce the same results whether the scientist or science has a naturalistic philosophy or not. Whether one believes that GODDIDIT or ITJUSTHAPPENED, will not affect the laws by which the physical world operates.

All the medical advances and technology that we enjoy to make our lives easier and more comfortable could have happened under either system.