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]

It is the naturalistic assumption that science's ignorance about non-coding DNA meant that it was 'junk' that delayed real scientific advancement for decades.

Junk is still junk. A tiny fraction of non-coding DNA has some function.

Feel free to name the creation scientists who discovered this, and feel free to describe how this supports supernaturalism.

[GourmetDan]

"To undercut this investment with other philosophies that do not produce any practical results is wasteful."

See my post to metmom where I explain that 'other philosophies' were the genesis of the scientific revolution and that the assumption of naturalism has actually slowed scientific progress.

[gondramB]

>>See my post to metmom where I explain that ‘other philosophies’ were the genesis of the scientific revolution and that the assumption of naturalism has actually slowed scientific progress.<<

When do you think naturalism was widely adopted?

[GourmetDan]

" Were science based on the assumption of ID nobody would have bothered to look. Why bother, when the answers are all "known" already."

That actually runs counter to our actual historical experience wrt the beginnings of the scientific revolution.

But why bother when you get to change the answers at will?

[js1138]

I never said what you are implying. You are still trying to equate technology and 'after the fact' story-telling.

All theories describe and explain things that have been observed. They also predict things to be expected and suggest things to look for.

What research is suggested by the assertion that an unspecified entity or entities having unspecified capabilities, limitations and motives, did some unspecified thing or things at unspecified times and places with unspecified results?

[js1138]

See my post to metmom where I explain that 'other philosophies' were the genesis of the scientific revolution and that the assumption of naturalism has actually slowed scientific progress.

I'm still waiting for the digital watch designed using supernatural science.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Sounds to me like a closed-world mindset. I don’t accept such thinking.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I understand what you’re saying. If the idea of ID is so bankrupt, then people will be able to see it. So the notion that those who believe in it should be silenced is a bit (quite a bit?) Orwellian/Stalinist.

Let the notion be considered by others, and it will stand or fall on its own.

[js1138]

But what are you asking? If unproductive ideas can get into science curricula for political reasons, who prevents every crackpot with a million followers from demanding equal time?

You would like ID given consideration in science classes? How about Scientolgy? How about Christian Science? How about Mormon theories of early Jewish migration to the New world? How about Velikovsky? How about Uri Geller? Jim Jones? Tell me how you make the cutoff?

[RobRoy]

I sometimes wonder if, at the root of the shootings we have in schools, we have VERY intelligent students acting out after years of boredom.

[RobRoy]

>>I don’t think intelligent design is science.<<

Um, I would agree with that.

Then again, a Corvette isn’t a tractor. It doesn’t mean it won’t go fast. And it don’t mean the tractor is better than the Corvette.

Then again, it all depends on what you mean by “Science”. From much of what I have read, evolution aint science either.

[RobRoy]

Public schools are, quite literally, obsolete.

[RobRoy]

In her job, my wife sees Mr. Stein quite a bit. In person he is a genuinely nice man. He also makes some very salient points in his writings.

[RobRoy]

Without helping hijack this thread too much, If you REALLY want irreducible complexity, check out DNA and the JCL it runs on.

NO reasonable explanation has been forthcoming. And “if we study it long enough, we will figure it out” is not a statement coming from a scientific mind. It is a religious statement.

As a computer developer myself, I know designed software when I see it.

[js1138]

The quickest way to become bored in school is to be too ignorant or stupid to understand what the teacher is saying, or to come from a family that doesn’t respect or support education.

A lot of that is going around.

[RobRoy]

>>Darwin and his finches are a lot like Ben Franklin and the Kite.<<

Except Ben was on the right path.

I compare Darwin more to Ptholomy and his model of the solar system.

[BlazingArizona]

Along with Al Gores little flick, perhaps it should have a “PP” rating (pure propaganda).

Ann Coulter disappointed us in this area too. "Godless" was a prime opportunity to tee off against liberal junk science. Instead, it turned into a creationist rant.

[RobRoy]

>>The quickest way to become bored in school is to be too ignorant or stupid to understand what the teacher is saying, or to come from a family that doesn’t respect or support education.<<

Actually, both as a studen and as a parent of students, I have found that those that act out the most are almost ALWAYS the inteligent ones - with rare exception.

The proof for many of them is what kind of careers they ended up in - Slacker in school, but highly successful in a very competitive environment in the real world.

[js1138]

As a computer developer myself, I know designed software when I see it.

Then you will have no trouble with this.

Sequence 1: attatcacaa aatggtgtga tcttatcaat agcactactt gcttaactag ctaatgtcgt gcaattggag tagagaacac agaacgatta actagctaat ttttttagtt ggatggcaat tgttggaatt cacagctttt tagttggaat tttagttaat catcaaacac ttaaaataag taaaaagtat gttattttag gttcgatttt tccaattatg gcattaacaa atactcttgt

Sequence 2: gatagtagtg ggtggaatag tgaagaaaac gaagctaaaa gtgatgcgcc cctaagtaca ggagggggtg cttcttctgg aacatttaat aaatacctca acaccaagca agcgttagag agcatcggca tcttgtttga tggggatgga atgaggaatg tggttaccca actctattat gcttctacca gcaagctagc agtcaccaac aaccacattg tcgtgatggg taacagcttt

Sequence 3: attatcacaa aatggtgtga tcttatcaat agcactactt gcttttttta gttggatggc aattgttgga attcacagct ttttagttgg aattttagtt aatcatcaaa cacttaaaat aagtaaaaag tatgttattt taggttcgat ttttccaatt atggcattaa caaatactct tgtaattaga aaaaaattaa aagctttatt aggagagggt aaggttcaaa aaggactcaa

Sequence 4: agtagtgggt ggaatagtgt taactagcta agtagaaaac accgaacgaa ttaattctac gattaccgtg actgagttaa ctagctaaaa gaaaacgaag ctaaaagtga tgcgccccta agtacaggag ggggtgcttc ttctggaaca tttaataaat acctcaacac caagcaagcg ttagagagca tcggcatctt gtttgatggg gatggaatga ggaatgtggt tacccaactc

Sequence 5: ttttatttgt ttaatagtta aaaaaagcgt taactagcta atgcataaac gacatcgcta atgactgtct ttatgatgaa ttaactagct aatgggtcga tgtttgatgt tatggagcag caacgatgtt acgcagcagg gcagtcgccc taaaacaaag ttaaacatca tgttatgttt tatctatttt attagttaaa aaagttttga atttttatct atttttagtt aataaaagtc

Sequence 6: ggagggagat catcagatca aagtaataaa ttcaccaagt acctcaacac caagcaagca ttggaaagga tcggcatctt gtttgatggg gatggaatga ggaatgtggt tacccaactc taccaaccca acaaggtgaa aagtggtcaa tatcaacaaa ataacaccta caacaggtta attgagcctg acaatgcaac aagtgcagcg agcagcatga ccagcttgtt aaagctgttg

[Recovering_Democrat]

I would say that unproductive ideas without merit will fail under scrutiny. Isn't discovering "what works" and "what doesn't work" part of science? I think so. Some seem to reject the idea of Intelligent Design right out of hand. Maybe it is a horrid idea. I don't think so, but I am willing to let others listen to that idea.

Ideas rise or fall on their own merit, that is how. The fact is some reasonable scientists think ID is a valid explanation for our world, and they believe they are being purposely shut down for expressing that opinion.

From what I understand, the theory of evolution was introduced into schools in much the same way. It was opposed by the "power structure" of the time, but those who wanted it to be part of the curriculum won, in large part, by persuading people to at least give it a chance.

Now it appears the academic descendants of those educators are trying to stifle any opposition to their point of view. History is repeating itself, only this time on the other side.

I think we share a reasonable expectation that discussions of origins should be respectful on both sides, though, and that is encouraging.