Theatrical Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

One first comment on the most-misunderstood part of "Expelled": Dawkins's point with the "Ultimate 747" argument: even if aliens had seeded life on our planet billions of years ago, that fact still would have done nothing to explain the origin of life in the universe. Anyone familiar with Dawkins's latest book would have known this (apparently, Ben wasn't).

This movie is an embarrassment: it doesn't stand up to a basic fact-check. The first red flag is that the documentary makers didn't bother to ... document ... their claims on the movie's website one must look elsewhere. Fortunately, it's Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed is well-written and well-documented. One learns about whoppers both superficial and fundamental from the film:

The Smithsonian worker who was allegedly "fired" from that institution NEVER EVER WORKED THERE. He had -- and continues to have -- a volunteer position at that institution.

Darwin's quote is grossly distorted the Wikipedia shows both what the movie "quoted" and what Darwin's actual quote.

The "lecture" that Ben Stein gave was a setup: its audience was almost completely extras. The "standing ovation" was staged by the film's producers.

The interviews of the biologists were arranged under a false pretense that they were for a documentary called "Crossroads." The producers of the film first claimed that the topic -- and title -- shifted to "Expelled" during the production. However, the domain name "expelledthemovie.com" was acquired BEFORE any of the interviews happened (and the site "crossroadsthemovie.com" was never acquired by the producers). This is documented by a web page on the delightfully-chosen name crossroadsthemovie.com.


IMHO, the stories of the other four "Expelled" really don't hold water, either. Consult the Wikipedia entry for summaries and references.

Some from the Creationist/ID crowd have claimed that Michael Moore's mockumentaries somehow justify this production. I categorically disagree: a dishonest and shameful manipulation by filmmakers on the left hardly justifies one by filmmakers the right.

Others claim that this film's theatrical BO make it worth seeing on DVD. I disagree. As the Wikipedia documents, the producers hired four separate marketing companies to promote it. They toured the film nationwide to generate "buzz". And they even paid certain communities to see the film. One cannot judge this film's Week 1 box office unless the producers openly disclosed how much they spent to market and promote its release. The week 4 BO estimates are out: this film has suffered week-over-week BO drops of 53%, 51% and 55%. These are not the numbers of a film that has generated any significant word-of-mouth recommendations.

If you do decide to see this film at home, I strongly suggest you use your pause button early and often while watching. Look up the cases of the "Expelled Five" while watching. Note the distortions of the Darwin quote. Note how it's difficult to understand Dawkins's "Ultimate 747" point because Ben's response that demonstrates that he didn't understand.

Finally, I suggest you pause while Ben is getting his "standing ovation" -- and see if you're upset to know that the whole "lecture" was fiction, too.

---

[Post edited by Thom on May 11, 2008]

Sounds like a Moore movie, except not entertaining. If you are gonna spread propaganda from the left or the right at least entertain your audience.

Not eveyone on the "right" is like Carrie's mom on the movie with the same title (I hope).

You would think, with Ben Stein as host/star, it would have been at least entertaining. It's not. He's maddening.

There's this vast conspiracy in academia against intelligent design, as Stein would have us believe. And my jaw still drops over the Darwin/Hitler link. I don't know what else to say about it.

Jason, awestruck

The term "Intelligent Design" acquired its current meaning in 1988. Imagine if the term had been in vogue and had its current meaning in the 1930s. How do you imagine Hitler would have used the phrase in that hypothetical world:

"The Aryan race was created by an Intelligent Designer to rule the world!"
"[Some other race] was Designed to be [...]"

The question: what exactly would this hypothetical Hitler's statements have meant about "Intelligent Design"?

ben stein is the real-world equivalent of an internet troll. what a chode.

If this were a Michael Moore movie, the review would be about how original this movie was and how he had brought about a subject that we all need to talk about. The U.S. is going to hell because we don't let Moore rule us with his infinit wisdom.

Quote:
If this were a Michael Moore movie, the review would be about how original this movie was and how he had brought about a subject that we all need to talk about. The U.S. is going to hell because we don't let Moore rule us with his infinit wisdom.

Oh, how you know me so very well.

When I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and reviewed it for my movie blog, I did note there was little attempt at being fair and balanced. Moore had an agenda. Duh. Stein does the same here and I called him on it. Moreover, I pointed out holes in the narrative which any critic worth half his salt should do. Sorry you didn't agree with it. Maybe you'd like to appeal to the creator do strike me down with lightning?

Jason, mildly amused

jason,

the creator will smite thee for the same reason that he's going to smite ian mckellan, bryan singer, liberace, etc.



eddie

Eddie,

Yeah, well, "the creator" might as well destroy the whole world because there isn't a single one of us who isn't broken at least one of the commandments.

Jason, at least I'll be in good company

The main argument here is the inappropriate linking of Darwinian evolution and Nazi eugenics. This appeared in 2006, long before Expelled was on the radar.

From the Afterword

By Richard Dawkins


IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.


Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University

http://www.sundayherald.com/search/display.var.1031440.0.from_the_afterword.php

Apparently Richard Dawkins thinks Hitler used Darwinian ideas....

jason,

i'm having fun at the other guy's expense, actually.

eddie, always on jason's side

Quote:
Apparently Richard Dawkins thinks Hitler used Darwinian ideas....

I never said or claimed Hitler didn't use Darwin as a foundation, if you will. What I have pointed out that he took the idea of natural selection to the Nth degree. He perverted weeding out "inferior" traits by nature to doing so by human hand, not to better the species, but to exterminate people he didn't want in the gene pool. That is not what Darwin advocated.

Moreover, if you take ANY idea and carry it to the furthest place it can go, it can lead to horrific consequences. To pin this solely on Darwin makes no sense.

By the way, have you seen the doc?

Jason, evolved

Quote:
By the way, have you seen the doc?

Unfortunately, no. I live in Canada and it won't be released here for quite some time. Perhaps never if the critics (read censors) get their way, like this specious lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono. I must say though, I am seriously amused by the antics of the films critics. As I understand it the film is about the intolerance of the "intellectual" elite towards any criticism of Darwinian evolution and the thesis of the film is adequately proved by the reaction of the "intellectual" elite to the film. As to the quality and content of the film I must confess total ignorance, but as to the buzz on the blogs I would suggest that it adequately achieved its goal of highlighting the culture of intellectual intolerance and persecution.

Quote:
As I understand it the film is about the intolerance of the "intellectual" elite towards any criticism of Darwinian evolution

That's about 1/4 of the finished film. The rest is the filmmakers intolerance toward people who disagree with them without having any evidence to support their statements.

Is it right people who disagree with the "establishment" (and I use that term loosely) are fired, if that is truly what happened? No. Is it right discussion is squashed, if that is truly what happened? Again, no. However, along with the very troubled and controversial production history of the film, nobody on the intelligent design side of the argument backs up their statements with facts. They are content to make fun of evolution and paint it in an evil light.

Near the end, Stein and Dawkins talk a bit about how life would have gotten to Earth if the 250+ proteins needed for life are nearly impossible to come together on their own. Dawkins says SOME people believe life may have come to Earth on the backs of crystals from outerspace or that a foreign civilization could have planted the seeds. Knowing what we know about the universe and science, are those theories any more outlandish than suggesting a supernatural superbeing known as "god" created everything in six days? Moreover, if Stein wants us to take the god argument seriously, provide evidence, anything aside from faith. He doesn't, while the scientists have evidence we can see, touch and examine.

BTW, a Canadian release is supposed to be coming this summer according to the website.

Jason, skeptic

Hopefully it's shown only in Alberta (Texas of the North)

*kidding* I know that not all Albertans are nut cases.

That being said, to be honest I have no idea where they'll find a market for this crap outside of a small minority of white southern Alabama folk. Because of its limited market potential, I doubt I'll see it near a theater near me.

Well to be honest I took this "film" as a joke. But the more I learn about it, the more scared I get. 9/11 type acts are due to this kind of fanaticism, and even if this junk is "preaching to the choir", the .001% of nuts who watch this could have it reinforce their hatred and fanaticism and start blowing up kids and researchers working at universities and labs. This kind of crap is more damaging to society than any kind of porn or violence IMO.

Interesting letter from Richard Dawkins: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins

Hello Jason

Quote:
Again, no. However, along with the very troubled and controversial production history of the film, nobody on the intelligent design side of the argument backs up their statements with facts.

Which "facts" would you find convincing? "Facts", in and of themselves, have no significance. They become significant when they are placed within an explanatory framework. For example, the "fact" of large bones discovered buried in the earth was significant of dragons buried in the flood until Charles Lyell and others popularized uniformitarianism. The same "facts" were then used to support the new framework, a framework that said there never was a flood. (I am not arguing for a global flood, simply pointing out a "fact" about "facts".)

Science progresses by building explanatory frameworks and fitting observed facts into the framework. If the facts cannot be fit into the framework the framework is either reconfigured or discarded. Recent discoveries such as DNA and cell biology, coupled with the difficulties that have plagued Darwinism from its inception have led some to question the efficacy of the explanatory framework.

But Darwinism is more than simply an explanatory framework. It is also a subset of another explanatory framework, that of philosophical materialism which holds that everything we observe of the universe can be explained by material causes. If philosophical materialism is true then, despite its flaws as an explanatory framework, something like Darwinian evolution must have happened. Based upon this philosophy there can be no other explanation.

The hypothesis (it doesn't qualify as a theory yet) of Intelligent Design suggests that there is evidence of design in the universe. The computer code structure of DNA, the precise engineering inside the cell, even the mathematical structure of the universe have been noted, and found inexplicable within the framework of materialist science... by materialist scientists. Many fo the discoveries of modern science appear to be the products of design and design is always the product of intelligence.

Quote:
Knowing what we know about the universe and science, are those theories any more outlandish than suggesting a supernatural superbeing known as "god" created everything in six days?

The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not the creationism. It merely claims to see evidence of design and does not dispute the established age of the universe, nor does it dispute that some evolution has happened. What it does say is the established theories of unguided, random, pointless, are an insufficient framework to explain what we have discovered.

More books are purchased per capita by Albertans than by people in any other province. If reading equates with ignorance then I guess Albertans qualify.

---

[Post edited by dgosse on May 14, 2008]

Quote:
Which "facts" would you find convincing?

Quite honestly, anything which suggests a higher power is at work. Anything. The creation of the universe can be scientifically explained by the Big Bang Theory, for example. Something verifiable with science and not simply on faith. Intelligent design, as shown in "Expelled," doesn't come up with any answer we can see in a lab instead, it says "here's the reasons your theory doesn't work" without giving any evidence as to how ID works.

Quote:
Science progresses by building explanatory frameworks and fitting observed facts into the framework. If the facts cannot be fit into the framework the framework is either reconfigured or discarded. Recent discoveries such as DNA and cell biology, coupled with the difficulties that have plagued Darwinism from its inception have led some to question the efficacy of the explanatory framework.

See, the issue with the movie (and I'm trying to keep the movie and my personal beliefs separate) is that Stein does not point out those inefficiencies in Darwin's theory. It says they exist, pokes fun at where SOME people believe life MIGHT have come from and that's it.

Quote:
The hypothesis (it doesn't qualify as a theory yet) of Intelligent Design suggests that there is evidence of design in the universe. The computer code structure of DNA, the precise engineering inside the cell, even the mathematical structure of the universe have been noted, and found inexplicable within the framework of materialist science... by materialist scientists. Many fo the discoveries of modern science appear to be the products of design and design is always the product of intelligence.

Again, "Expelled" doesn't make this distinction. It does show how complex the cell or life is, though never goes full tilt into it. The film tries to create a persuasive argument without ever refuting the other side or showing compelling evidence. Just because cells are incredibly complex does not mean they could not, 100%, be created on their own.

Quote:
The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not creationism. It merely claims to see evidence of design and does not dispute the established age of the universe, nor does it dispute that some evolution has happened. What it does say is the established theories of unguided, random, pointless, are an insufficient framework to explain what we have discovered.

No disrespect intended, but that's bullshit. ID sees evidence of design by an intelligent something or other. Be it a person, civilization, omnipotent superbeing...whatever. And if that intelligent "something" got life started in whatever form, it falls under a different form of creationism. A form used to get religion back into schools and science class where it has no place.

Quote:
Perhaps you should apply your skepticism to the orthodox dogma of materialism, you might be surprised at what you learn.... I know I was.

Thanks, but I see faith and religion as a massive cult based on centuries old fears which is used to discriminate, judge and ultimately make one group feel superior to another. I'd rather judge what I can see with my own two eyes as opposed to blindly believing in a fairy tale.

Jason, level headed

"...I guess I wouldn't believe in anything if not for my lucky astrology mood watch."

Hi Jason

Quote:
Quite honestly, anything which suggests a higher power is at work. Anything.

How about information theory
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm

Quote:
The creation of the universe can be scientifically explained by the Big Bang Theory, for example.

The Big Bang Theory explains what happened after the universe was created, it does not explain how it started. The theory stalls a short period before the beginning when all the "laws" of nature cease to exist. This point they call a "singularity." It is a mystery and cannot be explained in scientific terms (according to such lights as Stephen Hawking etc.)

Quote:
See, the issue with the movie (and I'm trying to keep the movie and my personal beliefs separate) is that Stein does not point out those inefficiencies in Darwin's theory.

Not having seen the movie you have me at a disadvantage. However, that said, it is a 90 minute movie the intent of which is to point out the intolerance of the "scientific" community to non-materialist thought.

Quote:
Just because cells are incredibly complex does not mean they could not, 100%, be created on their own.

You are absolutely right, complexity by itself does not prove that they were designed. Does that mean that we should limit our research to material causes only? Or should we investigate all possibilities?

Quote:
No disrespect intended, but that's bullshit. ID sees evidence of design by an intelligent something or other. Be it a person, civilization, omnipotent superbeing...whatever.

And if the universe was started by some "person, civilization, omnipotent superbeing...whatever." should we ignore the facts and pretend otherwise?

Dave, skeptic

Dave (good to put a real name with a screenname)...

Quote:
How about information theory
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm

I freely admit to not being science-smart. However, in order to make Information Theory work-as far as I understand it-presupposes there is a superintelligence as the ONLY answer to the question of where information comes from. It sounds a bit like science fiction, but life being planted by aliens sounds just as plausible knowing as little as we do about the universe.

Which leads me to another question: supposing Information Theory is correct and there is a superintelligence at work along the lines of the god construct and "he" is a being outside the story, how does this explain the bible story, in which Jesus is "his" son?

Quote:
Not having seen the movie you have me at a disadvantage. However, that said, it is a 90 minute movie the intent of which is to point out the intolerance of the "scientific" community to non-materialist thought.

Granted. However, as I'm already mentioned, intolerance of the scientific community is given roughly 1/4 of the run time. The rest has nothing to do with it. (And, as I've also said before, if the film had stuck to telling the story of the people supposedly fired from their jobs, there would have been no problem. But it doesn't.)

Quote:
You are absolutely right, complexity by itself does not prove that they were designed. Does that mean that we should limit our research to material causes only? Or should we investigate all possibilities?

All possibilities. I never said people shouldn't be allowed to research or discuss ID. I only said, right now, it has no place in schools. (Add to that, if we're going to investigate the idea of a superintelligence, then let's also investigate the idea of an alien civilization planting the seeds or an inter-dimensional time warp.)

Quote:
And if the universe was started by some "person, civilization, omnipotent superbeing...whatever." should we ignore the facts and pretend otherwise?

Absolutely not. What we have, in this discussion, is a problem of terminology. The superintelligence is being labeled god, a word carrying a whole host of issues. It is associated with religion, with jihad, with hate, intolerance, prejudice, war, superiority...you name it. People have perverted the original intent of the bible to meet their own needs over time to exclude certain groups, to wage war and the like. If we're going to allow ID into the schools, then we have to also allow in the crystal theory or even the aliens. If not, we stick to evolution.

Jason, loving the conversation

Quote:
However, that said, it is a 90 minute movie the intent of which is to point out the intolerance of the "scientific" community to non-materialist thought.

Huh? Are you seriously suggesting that they rewrite the definition and fundamental nature of sceince so that it is no longer empirically based? No more scientific method? I guess they could, but they'd have to rename the term "science" to "religion". And no more scientific human advancement, but we could come up with some great new hymns and prayers that will be sure to convert those with differing unempircal beliefs!

Doh! We don't need a movie to tell us this. Of course science has no tolerance for anything other than the empirical. It's what makes it science! If you start coming up with untestable hypothesis, which of your peers is going to test it? Your priest? How are we supposed to add to the human body of knowledge that way? We'd still be in the stone age, and burning witches at the stake.

My home theater setup wasn't the result of prayer, but painstaking research through the scientific method that has given us enough knowledge of the nature of things to build such wonderous devices. You may hate science, but I bet you darn well enjoy all the benefits its provided you and your family. Not to mention that knowledge in and of itself can be interesting, if not darn right humbling.

Quote:
However, in order to make Information Theory work-as far as I understand it-presupposes there is a superintelligence as the ONLY answer to the question of where information comes from.

Jason FYI: That link the guy posted has nothing to do with "Information Theory". This is a cute intro to real information theory, which has nothing to do with evolution versus whatever: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Tutorials/Info-Theory/

Of course, some religious fundamentalists decided like everything else to use the name as if it sounds "official" for their own made up theory - one which erroneously assumes that complexity and variability cannot increase without an outside "intelligent" creator. Of course this flies in the face of entire scientific disciplines whose sole existence is to observe, explain, and predict increases in complexity within natural systems without any such outside intelligence necessary.

Yes, people can be that gullible. This is why education is power. It can protect you from manipulation.

In my weirdly-wired brain, I can make a connection between the VERY little I know about Information Theory and evolution. But then, I can also connect Information Theory and gasoline, so...

Jason, ready for bed

Hi Jason

I'm enjoying the conversation too.

Quote:
However, in order to make Information Theory work-as far as I understand it-presupposes there is a superintelligence as the ONLY answer to the question of where information comes from.

Information Theory, which grew out of computer studies, is only the study of what information is and where it comes from. Experience (observation and induction) shows information is a product of mind. Information is like this sentence, a collection of arbitrary marks, symbols, or sounds, etc. that convey something other than the material they are made from. For instance, a page in a book has ink marks on paper, but the ink and the paper do not constrain the information that the marks convey. We could put random marks on a piece of paper (drips or scribbles) and they would not convey information. We could also take the information off of the page and put it into radio waves. The information content is neither produced by the matter in which it is conveyed, nor is it dependent on the matter that conveys it.

Quote:
Which leads me to another question: supposing Information Theory is correct and there is a superintelligence at work along the lines of the god construct and "he" is a being outside the story, how does this explain the bible story, in which Jesus is "his" son?

It doesn't. That is why Intelligent Design is not a "religious" position. In principle Intelligent Design theory could recognize an alien-designed-life-on-earth scenario as an explanation. The God and Jesus of the Bible are not part of the theory. Of course, we would then be justified in wondering where the aliens came from...

Quote:
I only said, right now, it has no place in schools.

Would you support teaching some of the known shortcomings of Darwinian evolution that have been acknowledged by evolutionists and documented in scientific journals?

Oh, and we do research aliens planting seeds, the universe as evolving mind, interdimensional time and/or space warps, multiverse (many universe) theories, the Gaia hypothesis (earth as living and aware entity) etc. Anything goes except a "superintelligence" that exists outside of the material time/space continuum.

Quote:
It is associated with religion, with jihad, with hate, intolerance, prejudice, war, superiority...you name it.

I have a lot of difficulty with this sort of statement, both because it is so demonstrably false and because it is a straw man. I could give you a list of atheistic "believers" who have persecuted and killed their own people en masse - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. (look up "democide") and you could write back with a bunch of "religious" believers who had done the same. The truth is that people tend to act "hate, intolerance, prejudice, war, superiority...you name it" no matter which belief system they subscribe to. I think the bigger question is "Why do we believe it is wrong to act with "hate, intolerance, prejudice, war, superiority...you name it?"

Is it because we are, by nature, moral agents? And if we are moral agents, then where does this moral knowledge come from? And how do we explain our almost universal failure to live up to our own moral standards?

Dave

---

[Post edited by dgosse on May 14, 2008]

Quote:
I think the bigger question is "Why do we believe it is wrong to act with "hate, intolerance, prejudice, war, superiority...you name it?"

Dave,

I know I'm skipping everything else you said to fixate on this one part, but my jaw is literally on the ground with this question. I like to think, through our history, we have seen the positives and negatives of acting with malice or out of spite for our fellow human beings. Granted, we're not a perfect civilization-such a thing doesn't exist-and you did hit it on the head: we are moral. What kinds of morals we ascribe to is a different story, but we have some sort of beliefs about how to treat other people.

(As for my connecting generic "evil" with religion, it comes because so much of the world's evil is justified through religion. The bible says this, Allah says that...and so on. It doesn't matter if these are the things religion stands for, religion is being used as justification. And that's what I object to. No one bothers to think faith through to see if it makes sense. To me, most of the time it doesn't.)

Jason, will get back to the rest tomorrow

Hi Skyhawk

Quote:
You may hate science, but I bet you darn well enjoy all the benefits its provided you and your family. Not to mention that knowledge in and of itself can be interesting, if not darn right humbling.

Actually, I have always been fascinated by science and I enjoy its benefits immensely. I don't read my minimum of a couple of books a week to remain ignorant.

Quote:
Huh? Are you seriously suggesting that they rewrite the definition and fundamental nature of sceince so that it is no longer empirically based?

I would like to see science be a little more empirical and less metaphysical. For example
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/2655/Default.aspx

Quote:
Of course, some religious fundamentalists decided like everything else to use the name as if it sounds "official" for their own made up theory - one which erroneously assumes that complexity and variability cannot increase without an outside "intelligent" creator. Of course this flies in the face of entire scientific disciplines whose sole existence is to observe, explain, and predict increases in complexity within natural systems without any such outside intelligence necessary.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho33.htm

Dave

---

[Post edited by dgosse on May 14, 2008]

"intelligent design" is either the ultimate example of "master of the obvious" or a back-door way of re-introducing religious beliefs (any mysticals, not just christianity or other monotheist constructs) into public schools. "intelligent design" has no place in public schools, which are funded by taxpayers' money. the last time i checked, the government didn't take taxes only from religious/obvious people to pay for schools.

dgosse...

First Darwin and evolution have nothing (read NOTHING) to do with abiogenesis. Secondly if all you're "reading" is the religious pseudo-science kind of material you're linking to, at least we can explain your limited understanding of the nature of science and the definition of evolution.

Keep your fanatical fundamental beliefs out of our science, and we'll keep our science out of your ... well ... whatever it is. And I admit, I have no tolerance for whatever it is you're into. In other words, I reserve my right to keep "it" away from my children and family, just as you have the right to "home school" your kids and keep them away from science and traditional education.

And if you or any other of your clan decide to hand out flyers through the fence around our kids' school yard, the police will be called. I think we've both made our position quite clear on this matter

Edit: BTW folks, I have nothing against religion or people who believe in God. In fact, even 100% of Muslims I know in Canada have no problem with science and evolution here in Canada, same with us Catholics. It's the nutter's I'm addressing here - a small minority found in every religion regardless if Christain, Muslim, Hindi, etc. ... you know, those dangerous people. But small minorities can do a lot of damage, as most of you know.

---

[Post edited by Skyhawk on May 14, 2008]

jason,

contact me. you may be interested in a proposal that i have (it has something to do with the guy who used to run startrek.com).

eddie

Quote:
Is it because we are, by nature, moral agents? And if we are moral agents, then where does this moral knowledge come from? And how do we explain our almost universal failure to live up to our own moral standards?

Oh I know this! It's because of evolution. You see, humans are social animals. This means that some sort of empathy (internally motivated) is important to our survival, and hence gives us the ability to pass on these alleles before dying. Cooperation among our species is extremely important to survival (even today). Those groups that do it best, tend to increase that allele frequency. There are many other social animal species that exhibit the same "moral" traits.

At the same time, social groups competed with other populations for food, territory, and other resources, and this is important for selection. Groups fought against groups, which in turn helped spur the groups that were more cooperative together in both substinance and warfare to survive against other populations. Even today, human kind has not rid itself from this evolutionary trait. We stand up for our group (whether country, state, or familial gang), and screw the outsiders.

It's rather interesting when you think about it... how really close we actually are to our primative evolutionary ancestors in so many respects. We've come a long way in technology, but biologically speaking we're still just relatively smart chimps.

---

[Post edited by Skyhawk on May 14, 2008]

Vatican says extra terrestrial life is possible.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/14/news/vat.php

Hmmm that's really interesting.
So anyway how about Megan Fox's tits

Bosshog,

The Megan Fox thread is thataway *pointing to the right*

Dave,

According to Wikipedia: ID is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science.

According to Webster's Dictionary: ID is the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

According to Encyclopedia Britanica: ID is an argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.”

As Skyhawk has eloquently pointed out, the schools are publicly funded. Public funding goes through the state. And the state can make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free expression of religion. Therefore, ID can not be taught in public schools-no matter how much the meaning might "change". If you want your children to learn about "god" and a bunch of fairy tales in the bible, send them to a catholic (or other religious) school.

Should researchers be able to investigate the possibility of ID? Absolutely, and without recourse, unless their contract or institution specially states they can not. Point out all the flaws in Darwin's theory you want to in classrooms. Let the kids make their own connections about what else might have happened.

Jason, anti-religion

Hi Skyhawk

Quote:
At the same time, social groups competed with other populations for food, territory, and other resources, and this is important for selection. Groups fought against groups, which in turn helped spur the groups that were more cooperative together in both substinance and warfare to survive against other populations. Even today, human kind has not rid itself from this evolutionary trait. We stand up for our group (whether country, state, or familial gang), and screw the outsiders.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this pretty much what Ben Stein said the Nazis did in the movie?

If this is an "evolutionary trait" then why should we want to rid ourselves of it? Isn't it "natural"?

Dave

Hi Jason

Quote:
According to Wikipedia: ID is

Perhaps you would like to read the proper definition of ID?

ID Defined
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

The criticisms of ID are not scientific, as the following passage from an article by Paul Davies PhD. Physics demonstrates.

Quote:
More recently, Stephen Jay Gould has linked a willingness to believe in the progressive nature of evolution with quasi-religious yearning.(33) Gould's own atheism urges him to resolutely deny any form of biological determinism, since it smacks of the guiding hand of God smuggled into science under the guise of a law of nature. I think both Monod and Gould are absolutely right to perceive bleak atheism in the scenario that life and intelligence are freak accidents, unique in the cosmos. But the flip side is also true. If it turns out that life does emerge as an automatic and natural part of an ingeniously biofriendly universe, then atheism would seem less compelling and something like design more plausible.

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/2655/Default.aspx

What of "truth"?

Dave

Genocide is not in itself an evolutionary trait, but feel free to spin "group competition as both an evolutionary trait and vehicle" any way you like to suite your agenda. Genocide would have negative consequences for a population's genetic health, as it would form a bottleneck leading to less allele variety and associated adaptability.

Only a crazy person with an insane agenda would blame Hitler's actions on science, as would a person be crazy to blame 9/11 on the belief of some higher entity. Even the "President Bush did it" nut cases are more grounded.

Quote:
Perhaps you would like to read the proper definition of ID?

Not particularly, since I listed three completely different definitions of ID from mainstream sources. Nothing from the Discovery Institute or the ID Network or organizations with an ax to grind.

Wikipedia might not be the BEST place for information, hence Webster's Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britanica. You can't change a definition because it no longer suits you, Dave.

Jason, trying to be technical

Quote:
The criticisms of ID are not scientific

Science has no need to criticize ID, nor anyone's belief in the Easter Bunny, nor people who think our universe is a dust speck riding on the trunk of an elephant. There is no need to criticize, because being unempirical, these beliefs have nothing to do with science. Science does not deal with tooth fairies or Santa either. Science's role is to gain an understanding of the natural world - not to support any set of beliefs that can never be substanciated one way or the other.

What scientists object to are those who peddle such beliefs as if they were a "science" in order to make their fanatical agenda more saleable to the masses.

Hi Jason

Quote:
Not particularly, since I listed three completely different definitions of ID from mainstream sources. Nothing from the Discovery Institute or the ID Network or organizations with an ax to grind.

Getting back to the movie... wasn't the whole point of the movie about the axe grinding of "mainstream sources"? I find it very useful, when I wish to know what someone really thinks, to go and ask them rather than ask the people who don't like them. So when I read that Richard Feynman said a particular thing I go and look it up to see if he really said it.

Dave, being technical right back atcha

Hi Skyhawk

Quote:
Only a crazy person with an insane agenda would blame Hitler's actions on science,

I didn't say that Hitler's actions were based on "science" I merely pointed out that his actions were not inconsistent with your own definition of moral agency. If you think your definition of moral agency is "scientific" then that's your problem. That particular definition of moral agency can be used, and has been used, to justify any behavior. See http://www.anusha.com/rapeevol.htm for an interesting example of this.

Or if you prefer Wikipedia as a source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape

Dave

---

[Post edited by dgosse on May 15, 2008]

Dave,

I'm not as sure it was about the mainstream sources ax grinding as it was the ax grinding against mainstream sources. Taken just on its merits as a film-and not the subject matter-it fails to provide any sort of persuasive argument for the ID side. It goes back to 8th grade English class (maybe earlier): take into account the arguments from the other side and dissect them. "Expelled" doesn't. It makes fun of them, but never says (outside the protein argument I've already mentioned) why Darwinism "doesn't" work.

Like I've also said before, if the doc just documented the cases of each of the people who were fired from their jobs, there would have been no problem. Give me a science doc that debunks Darwin in depth and we'll talk. Otherwise, propoganda.

Jason, totally forgot about the LOST thread...

Hi Jason

Quote:
Give me a science doc that debunks Darwin in depth and we'll talk. Otherwise, propoganda.

There are plenty

From Michael Denton is now an evolutionist (Denton wrote "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny".

Quote:
Denton proceeded to develop an evolutionary cosmology, the point of which is that there is abundant evidence for common descent and it is equally clear that evolution is directed and programmed. Indeed Denton affirmed two things--and this is apparently the thesis of his book now under contract at Simon & Schuster--that humankind literally is the point of creation and he is the end product of a divine design.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/theory-in-crisis.html
For a more technical analysis
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm

The mathematics of evolution explained for the non mathematician. An extremely readable introduction to probability theory and its implications for Darwinian materialism.

Quote:
In this book, the mechanisms of the living cell as revealed by modern biochemistry are described with enough detail to give some inkling of the mind-boggling complexity going on in even the simplest life. Then the question is asked, could this complexity, or even a fraction of it, have come about by chance? It's a good question, because that's all the evolutionist has to work with. Natural selection, the supposed miracle-worker of evolution, doesn't work until a cell can reproduce itself (and that requires tremendous complexity). Could chance build one of the hundreds of proteins needed for life? One gene of DNA? What are the chances of getting a whole set of genes or proteins for the simplest conceivable organism, even if we allow all possible concessions to make it easy for chance to succeed?

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_toc.htm

Quote:
Against this background, I turned to David Stove's Darwinian Fairy Tales with some interest. Unlike the other authors I've mentioned, the late David Stove was a philosopher (University of New South Wales) and not a scientist. In spite of the whimsical, jokey nature of his literary style - more akin in places to Jerome K. Jerome than to A. N. Whitehead - his intention is deeply serious, namely the philosophical absurdities in neo-Darwinian theory. In pursuing this intention he focuses particularly upon the work of Richard Dawkins, probably the most widely known populariser of neo-Darwinism. Before dismissing philosophy as being peripheral to science, we should remember that the popularisation of science depends to a great extent upon the use of terms and ideas that carry meaning to the layperson. These terms and ideas may have a powerfully persuasive quality when used by the popularisers of science, but if we look into them and find that words are misused, that the logic is faulty and that conclusions are incorrectly drawn, we can recognise the potential damage of the misinformation concerned.

http://www.scimednet.org/library/reviewsN66+/N68DarwinianFairyTales.htm

That should keep you busy for a while.

Dave, you asked for it

Oops - double posted

---

[Post edited by dgosse on May 15, 2008]

Quote:
That particular definition of moral agency can be used, and has been used, to justify any behavior.

Yes, you're right. The religous/spiritual definition of "moral agency" (whatever that is) has been used to justify any behavior. I hope you're not one of them. Regardless - keep your "ID" out of my science, and I promise not to impose science on your church, cult, or club.

And I doubt many scientific researches have been fired for simply holding beliefs that are non-empirical, provided of course that those beliefs do not alter their application of the scientific method and the objective interpretation of observational results while doing their jobs. (In other words, don't bring it to work with them - nor impose it on students). If they do, pack it in. And rightfully so.

Dave,

I obviously don't have the time right now to go through each of the links. Would it be fair to say you're not going to be convinced by me and I'm not going to be convinced by you?

ID is creationism in my mind and, more importantly, in the eyes of the courts. It can't be taught in schools. Until it is overturned, ID will remain in the purvue of the parents and churches to teach.

Jason, belief in evolution is better than superintelligence

~ Some humor...

Did I hear the word SCIENCE?

It's "out there" all right...

...cause she blinded ME with science! - as sung by Thomas Dolby

_____________
-JIMI McLovin (the Voodoo Child)

There's a site made by the National Center for Science Education about this movie.
http://www.expelledexposed.com

There also have been some good interviews about it on the podcast Skepticality (http://www.skepticality.com), the official podcast of Skeptic magazine.

Finally, giving this film a 1 out of 10 was very generous.

---

[Post edited by Skooter on May 22, 2008]