Re: Theatrical Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

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 - CDT 9:55 AM]

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