Sign in to follow this  
Over43

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Recommended Posts

I want to watch that movie actually to hear his arguments :)

It's Ben Stein, and if you're familiar with him and his sense of humor, then in a way, that permeates the movie. He spends a lot of time tracking down scientists who have been banned from academia in their mere mentioning ID at times. Richard Dawkins gives an ad naseum descritpion of how people who believe in ID, and religion, are stupid. (His words, not mine...) And, that anyone who is intelligent would never believe in such myths. (Apparently he never met Carl Eyring or James Talmage.)

It seems the biggest "threat" to evolution, that has been presented in the movie so far, I'm not quite done, is molecular and celullar biology. He interviewed several cellular biologists who believe Darwin's theory does not mesh wll with what they are learning about the cell, and the complexity of the cell. Some cellular biologists believe the chance of a cell being created "by accident" is a trillion, trillion, trillion. One doc called it "casino biology" if you believe in Darwin due to the odds.

The one question that none of the "intelligent" people haven't answered yet is, "How did life begin?"

Anyway, it's interesting. As someone who has read Origin of Species, and liked it, I'm not sure it will sway me one way or the other, but some of his guests have presented some good insite.

Anyway, take care.

O43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the movie I really liked it. It makes you question why does scientists still take Darwin’s words gospel when we have found out so much about life, like DNA, and according to the movie, we have found out a tremendous amount more about cells, I have to wonder how Darwin would think, if he lived today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched it about a week ago. Of course it's propaganda...but very effective and persuasive. Two particularly interesting aspects--Planned Parenthood was founded on the principle of Eugenics...wipe out a large segment of minority and poor babies. Also, the link between Darwinism and that deplorable science is too strong to ignore.

The other interesting clip was the National Science Foundation representative being asked about the Smithsonian scientist who was railroaded out, and all she can think of is, "You Intelligent Design folk sure are getting a lot of mileage out of that!" Nevermind that a man's career was sabatoged, because Darwinism isn't about the individual, is it? Eugenics may be descredited as a scientific system, but the remnants of group-think and survival of the fittest remain. Excellent movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched it about a week ago. Of course it's propaganda...but very effective and persuasive. Two particularly interesting aspects--Planned Parenthood was founded on the principle of Eugenics...wipe out a large segment of minority and poor babies. Also, the link between Darwinism and that deplorable science is too strong to ignore.

The other interesting clip was the National Science Foundation representative being asked about the Smithsonian scientist who was railroaded out, and all she can think of is, "You Intelligent Design folk sure are getting a lot of mileage out of that!" Nevermind that a man's career was sabatoged, because Darwinism isn't about the individual, is it? Eugenics may be descredited as a scientific system, but the remnants of group-think and survival of the fittest remain. Excellent movie.

In Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" Dawkins continually discusses the issues of religion and suffering, and that religion has caused many wars and suffering thourghout the last several thousand years. To which most of us would agree. However, he offers science as an answer to the suffering of mankind.

Apparently he either refuses to recognize, or is historically ignorant of science's role in many attrocities over the last several hundred years: eugenics of course is one, practiced by National Socialists in Germnay. But the Soviets, Japanese, Maoists, and yes even Western democracies have used scientific notions to experiment on their populations causing quite a bit of harm and grief.

So, Dawkins does share some realities of religion, but refuses to be honest about science.

O43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over, I'd suggest that Dawkins is wrong about religion. It is not the inspiration or guiding force for wars and evil in the world. Rather, wicked men use religion to their own ends. Faith itself is nuetral. It can be used for great good or ill. (I'm not saying God is nuetral, but rather 'religion').

It is perhaps true that Christianity has been manipulated for evil over the centuries. However, in less than 100 years, humanism (or atheism, if you will) was misused to kill tens of millions in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia--not to mention the death of one-third of Cambodia's population in the killing fields of anti-religious fervor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My memory of schooling on the subject of biology began in about 3rd Grade when our teacher explained that it was once believed that burning a bail of hay produces lizards, snakes, mice, and other small animals as it appeared evident by their running out of the flaming mass. She outlined the superior understanding that later prevailed as science demonstrated that these organisms were only reproduced by the natural means: the propagation of the species. Even in my youth I doubted the likelihood that man ever believed the notion of snake birth by fire.

It was my great shock that only a few short years later the same educational system would attempt to tell me that the origin of all life was theorized to be in some event similar to the striking of lightning or some other natural spark that set off the first organic life from once non-living material.

I was also told of the folly of man in once believing in all sorts of myths that gave way to higher knowledge such as the four elements of earth, water, wind, and fire. To me, it made sense that man had made such estimations.

It would seem that with all the schooling man has advanced over all these years science is still trying to vindicate the old birth by fire story and it now tends to hide the fact that it once disbelieved in the four phases of matter as it teaches solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.

-a-train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who watched "Expelled" I found the most telling flaw of the evolutionists was when Stein had that discussion with the Darwinist who looked like he needed a bath. Stein asked him, "Tell me how life started?" Dr. Needs a bar of soap answers, "On the back of crystals." Stein replies, "Yes, thank you, but how did life start?" Dr. NABOS answers, "I told you, on the back of crystals." Ben Stein asks a third time: Yes, but how did life start? "I have told you, on the back of crystals."

In all of its shortcomings, the dialogue between the two was actually quite funny as I watched it.

O43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over, I'd suggest that Dawkins is wrong about religion. It is not the inspiration or guiding force for wars and evil in the world. Rather, wicked men use religion to their own ends. Faith itself is nuetral. It can be used for great good or ill. (I'm not saying God is nuetral, but rather 'religion').

It is perhaps true that Christianity has been manipulated for evil over the centuries. However, in less than 100 years, humanism (or atheism, if you will) was misused to kill tens of millions in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia--not to mention the death of one-third of Cambodia's population in the killing fields of anti-religious fervor.

I think he is fundementally wrong also. I do think he does have a valid point about the violence of religion in the past (and present), but I do not think he is being intellectually honest when he plays one hand against religion, and then ignores the scientific communities culpability in many scientific "disasters". Whether it be a purposeful "attack" on mankind (Hiroshima) or accidental (Chernobol). I think, bottom line, Dawkins suffers from a fundemantal lack of honesty.

O43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is fundementally wrong also. I do think he does have a valid point about the violence of religion in the past (and present), but I do not think he is being intellectually honest when he plays one hand against religion, and then ignores the scientific communities culpability in many scientific "disasters". Whether it be a purposeful "attack" on mankind (Hiroshima) or accidental (Chernobol). I think, bottom line, Dawkins suffers from a fundemantal lack of honesty.

O43

Lets not forget that fantastic science of Eugenics! Perhaps I will live to see the day when Eugenics advocate John Maynard Keynes is completely laid to the dustbin of folly with his phony theories of economics too. I can't forget W. K. Kellogg who also supported Eugenics and whose brother publicly advocated circumcision as a cure to masturbation, at least they gave us the corn flake.

-a-train

Edited by a-train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not forget that fantastic science of Eugenics! Perhaps I will live to see the day when Eugenics advocate John Maynard Keynes is completely laid to the dustbin of folly with his phony theories of economics too. I can't forget W. K. Kellogg who also supported Eugenics and whose brother publicly advocated circumcision as a cure to masturbation, at least they gave us the corn flake.

-a-train

:lol: Really? I'll never think of circumcision again with the same attitude.

Eugenics is a very vile approach to human life. I assume it is related somewhat to Princeton University's professor Peter Singer who teaches a "doctrine" known as Specie-ism. Singer's belief is that no species is anymore important than another. That is a very fundamental definition, but I have never taken the time to look into it more than the very fundamental.

I guess believing that there is something special about being human is a fading thought in many intellectual circles.

O43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess a quick addition should be "added" here by me. When I write about scientific inpropriaties I am certainly not try to discredit the scientific community as a whole. In the same light, when I have touched upon religious mistakes of the past I mean that in a general sense, not being directed at any one religion, and I do understand that religion has been manipulated by individuals throughought World history for personal gain.

As with religion, I appreciate science and the progress it has made in my lifetime. When I was 5 I remember watching the moonlanding on a black and white TV and we had 4 stations. Five if you count the fuzzy UHF station from San Francisco. Now I have 200 stations and watch soccer live from England. And we have reusable spacecraft. My wife is alive today because of medical science. I have seen my 89 year old grandfather survive multiple heart attacks, lung cancer, and 4 aneurysms (sp) because of very skilled doctors. All of whom were very adept at their craft. Plus he's really tough.

So, when "critisizing" individuals who have pushed the evolution envelope to the edge I do so with a healthy respect for science and the individuals involed in the many facets of science that I only have a cursory knowledge of. Just as certain religious zealots of the past (and present) didn't get it right, some scientists in the last century haven't gotten it right either. It is a shame that a scientist as brilliant as Werner von Braun was caught up in something as horrific as the V-1/V-2 project. On the other hand Einstein was kept off the atomic bomb project because of his pacifist feelings.

Brigham Young once wrote that (and I paraphrase) it would be improtant for the Latter Day Saints to study their religion and philosophy, mainly because science would become the realm of savants and that our study of religion and philosophy would help us seperate the "good from the bad" in its relation to science.

I guess we take it all for what it's worth and do the best we can everyday.

O43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwinism is a religion. If you don’t think so, think about this:

Einstein was forced to recant his theory that the universe was expanding, not because there was no evidence it was, but because all the other scientists BELIEVED that the universe was static (or was always one size, and always will be one size).

Alternatively, how about the Big Bang theory, it took scientists a long time to accept it, with mounting evidence scientists were forced to accept it. Why did it take them such a long time to accept the Big Bang theory? Simple, it would force scientists to say there was a start of the universe, which would mean they would be extremely close to saying that there was a God.

This movie didn’t ask the question, but I will; what if God is Nature? Several Eastern religions believe that God is in all nature, and if you take a close look at Darwinism, this is what they believe as well, without God, of course.

Science knows how perfect nature is, but they don’t want you to realize it. They will gloss over the evidence, as they did in the movie, making the average person not realize that there is more than one theory of the start of life, and to other major theories. People want a simple answer, and one answer, and the scientists are more than happy to give us just that.

Religion has its share of Martyrs, but so does Science, Galileo is one off the top of my head. Religious martyrs are understandable, but why does science have theirs?

Faith=Theory

Theory=Faith

Edited by rayhale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really was fascinated by this movie. It wasn't about glorifying any religion really it was more about our freedom to pursure truth even in the face of science. I also liked that it wasn't an anti science movie either,It showed alot of respect for science and the men who helped discover its important factors. It was wrong so wrong what happened to those men and women who simply wanted their god given right to free oppionion. It was almost scary seeing how much power those universities and organizations have! I never knew their influence was that steep. This was a very eye opening movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess a quick addition should be "added" here by me. When I write about scientific inpropriaties I am certainly not try to discredit the scientific community as a whole. . .

Brigham Young once wrote that (and I paraphrase) it would be improtant for the Latter Day Saints to study their religion and philosophy, mainly because science would become the realm of savants and that our study of religion and philosophy would help us seperate the "good from the bad" in its relation to science.

I guess we take it all for what it's worth and do the best we can everyday.

O43

I must point out that not everything called science is science.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy

trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of

science falsely so called:

1 Timothy 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the

faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Bro. Rudick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this