Expelled(Ben Stein Documentary)

[ZANYMASTER]

Saw this today on Showtime during the Giants game.Comes on again tomorrow at 9pm on SHO.Interesting stuff.



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

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

Thanks, looks like something I will enjoy watching.

Alfred

 

[Slamajamajama]

"intelligent design" = theory
"evolution" = proven fact

 

[ZANYMASTER]

Darwinism will be debated for ages and it's just a theory.I keep a open mind about everything including religion and science.

 

[Slamajamajama]

well thats exactly what this ongoing intelligent design/Darwin debate has always been REALLY about. religion vs science, its NOT science vs science

 

[ZANYMASTER]

Exactly.Bible belt states wouldn't hear of science taking place over religion.Nothing will ever shake my faith and science is not intended to shake the foundation of it either.I just like to hear both sides.

 

[e.muehlbauer]

Evolution is a scientific theory. That means it is more than just an idea. In colloquial use, a theory is an idea, not much more advanced than a hypothesis. In science, a theory is supported by consistent evidence and proof, and is accepted as being as close to fact as can be. Evolution is consistently supported by the evidence, and fulfills all criteria for a scientific theory. Nobody ever questions the theory of gravity....nobody makes a big deal over the teaching of the cell theory, although that has more holes in it than any other theory. Intelligent Design is a philosophy, and there is nothing wrong with teaching it in a Philosophy class. It is not a scientific theory, and has no place in a science class. I highly recommend the Nova program Judgment Day (available on DVD)..about the Intelligent Design trial in Dover, Pa...also a book, 40 Days, also about the Dover trial (written by Darwin's great grandson). I'm currently reading Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins...explaining how evolution can be proven. Interestingly enough, he has toned down the anti-religious rhetoric and joined forces with major religious figures who support the acceptance of evolution. There is no reason for why evolution has to be incompatible with religion...even my son's friend, a Hassidic rabbi, accepts it. its only those that insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis who find it incompatible. But then, that means that they also have to reject all other religions as well.

 

[ZANYMASTER]

This show with Ben Stein covers all those subjects and even a interesting interview with Dawkins and the Dover trial.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

Not at all. The idea behind intelligent design is that life as we know it shows signs of having a designer.

There are MANY theories. In fact, the evolution theory itself has "evolved" by leaps and bounds. Evolution is a theory. What is not a theory is that organisms "evolve" within a species. After many generations in a harsher environment a particular (large for the sake of this argument) breed of dog may develop a thicker coat. But we have not seen any links which show one species changing into another. In fact, the dog with a thicker coat will still be able to breed with a chihuahua if it had the chance...

The problem with this whole "debate" is that science has taken on the characteristics of a religion when it comes to certain topics. The simple (and humbling) answer is that for most things we just do not know.

As far as life goes, there is very compelling evidence that complex life forms display many of the signs of intelligence in their design. Just look at our DNA. DNA in and of itself is incredibly complex, but recent (well, not so recent, but recently they have discovered just how complex it is) research has discovered something referred to as the "epigenome" which EASILY doubles the complexity. (Studies into the epigenome may prove to unlock the mysteries of disease and abnormalities- why does one identical twin develop diabetes/heart problems/kidney failure/etc. and the other does not? Why did little Johnny have autism or develop a brain tumor? Why did I get fat while others I have grown up with remain skinny?)

I do not see a problem with Intelligent design being "taught" as one of the many theories. As long as it is not preached as gospel and it is described as a theory. Now, if they ever decided to teach that the earth was created in a literal seven days or some other religious teachings, this I would have a problem with, whether or not I happened to believe what was being taught.

Alfred

well thats exactly what this ongoing intelligent design/Darwin debate has always been REALLY about. religion vs science, its NOT science vs science

 

[Slamajamajama]

listen, the bottom line on intelligent design is that GOD made or "designed" organisms that way thats just wrong. its just another way of reviving religion. the belief of what the religious community views as religion being swallowed up by science. The more science reveals the less religion or god plays a part on how we came to be.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

Actually, another argument can be made that the more we learn about how things actually work the more complex we realize "life" is and the more it appears to have some intelligence behind its design.

Science and athiesm are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would love to know when science became a belief system. Science simply defined is the seaking of knowledge (or truth) and comes from the Latin word scientia which means knowledge.

Alfred

listen, the bottom line on intelligent design is that GOD made or "designed" organisms that way thats just wrong. its just another way of reviving religion. the belief of what the religious community views as religion being swallowed up by science. The more science reveals the less religion or god plays a part on how we came to be.

 

[Slamajamajama]

Actually, another argument can be made that the more we learn about how things actually work the more complex we realize "life" is and the more it appears to have some intelligence behind its design.

Science and athiesm are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would love to know when science became a belief system. Science simply defined is the seaking of knowledge (or truth) and comes from the Latin word scientia which means knowledge.

Alfred

i agree with this, but thats not what this documentary and the trial are about.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

Slama-

I have not seen the documentary yet and can not comment, I am commenting on the statements made concerning science, intelligent design and evolution. You originally wrote:

"intelligent design" = theory
"evolution" = proven fact

Based on the real quick read through of the website for the documentary I do know that scientists are quite often blackballed for going against the "flavor of the month". Whether it is intelligent design, evolution or whether or not the world is flat, human nature prevails in that it vigorously resists challenges to orthodoxy.

By the way, just because something is orthodox does not make it the original idea or right. It is just the prevailing belief. Science should not be based on feelings or a "belief system", it should be fact based.

Alfred

 

[ZANYMASTER]

Even Hitler based his ethnic cleansing on Darwin.He thought he was doing good by eliminating Jews.The show elaborates on that.Nothing wrong with having our beliefs and our own religions even though they say it's irrational behavior so say the Atheists.Even I don't believe the Genisis explaination of creation and I'm catholic.Science was involved of course but it does not mean I don't believe in god.I keep an open mind about science and I love science by the way.Reefing is a science-lol

 

[e.muehlbauer]

There are many examples of intermediate species. Dogs are a bad example, as they are basically a man-made species derived from the wolf. However, among plants there are many examples of speciation in groups in which there are many examples of intermediate species. In fact, taxonomists now shy away from any hard and fast definition of species because there are so many intergradations. (For example, among orchids..specifically ladyslippers, there are groups of evolving species..Paphiopedilum malipoense group, the lowii group..that are basically in the process of evolving into different species.) Evolution is science, and as such it can and should be questioned. There are many facets of evolution, and aspects of it are continually being modified. However, evolution as a whole has been continually supported by scientific studies, never refuted. Intelligent Design can in no way be treated as a theory, as there is no way to prove its process. Evidence presented by ID'ers has been continually refuted (i.e. the bacterial flagellum), and besides, so much of evolution involves unintelligent design. There is a tremendous amount of inefficiency in organisms and their design...just look at sea turtles that risk their lives, and more importantly, the lives of their offspring, by returning to land to lay eggs. Even the example of DNA as something so perfect that it had to have been designed can no longer fly...evidence now points more strongly towards RNA as the molecule involved in the earliest stages of life. The very concept of "design" is a purely human one. Humans have the need to see design in everything, but the universe has existed for about 14 billion years without humans and our ideas. Now, I have no objection to the philosophy that there is intelligent design behind the process of evolution, as long as it is accepting of the idea that it is a philosophy and not scientific evidence.

 

[ZANYMASTER]

I love the complexity of it all.

 

[Slamajamajama]

Slama-

I have not seen the documentary yet and can not comment, I am commenting on the statements made concerning science, intelligent design and evolution. You originally wrote:

"intelligent design" = theory
"evolution" = proven fact

Based on the real quick read through of the website for the documentary I do know that scientists are quite often blackballed for going against the "flavor of the month". Whether it is intelligent design, evolution or whether or not the world is flat, human nature prevails in that it vigorously resists challenges to orthodoxy.

By the way, just because something is orthodox does not make it the original idea or right. It is just the prevailing belief. Science should not be based on feelings or a "belief system", it should be fact based.

Alfred

sorry Al, it didnt read right.

 

[Alfredo De La Fe]

I actually chose dogs because of man's "design". Regardless of the thousands of years man has been selectively breeding dogs, a chihuahua can still breed with a wolf.

Alfred

There are many examples of intermediate species. Dogs are a bad example, as they are basically a man-made species derived from the wolf. However, among plants there are many examples of speciation in groups in which there are many examples of intermediate species. In fact, taxonomists now shy away from any hard and fast definition of species because there are so many intergradations. (For example, among orchids..specifically ladyslippers, there are groups of evolving species..Paphiopedilum malipoense group, the lowii group..that are basically in the process of evolving into different species.) Evolution is science, and as such it can and should be questioned. There are many facets of evolution, and aspects of it are continually being modified. However, evolution as a whole has been continually supported by scientific studies, never refuted. Intelligent Design can in no way be treated as a theory, as there is no way to prove its process. Evidence presented by ID'ers has been continually refuted (i.e. the bacterial flagellum), and besides, so much of evolution involves unintelligent design. There is a tremendous amount of inefficiency in organisms and their design...just look at sea turtles that risk their lives, and more importantly, the lives of their offspring, by returning to land to lay eggs. Even the example of DNA as something so perfect that it had to have been designed can no longer fly...evidence now points more strongly towards RNA as the molecule involved in the earliest stages of life. The very concept of "design" is a purely human one. Humans have the need to see design in everything, but the universe has existed for about 14 billion years without humans and our ideas. Now, I have no objection to the philosophy that there is intelligent design behind the process of evolution, as long as it is accepting of the idea that it is a philosophy and not scientific evidence.

 

[e.muehlbauer]

And regardless of millions of years of separate evolution, a lion can still breed with a tiger...a zebra with a horse, and corn snake with a milk snake. And yes, frequently those offspring are fertile. The old high school definition of species, that they cannot interbreed with other species and produce fertile offspring, does not really hold much of the time. That is why taxonomists refrain from giving specific (pardon the word choice) definitions of the term "species". Hybridization is a known mechanism of evolution....many North American azalea species are products of hybridization, and hybrid swarms comprising the genes of at least 3 species are found in many areas of the Appalachians. the fampus "amazon" molly, Poecilia formosana, originated as a hybrid between sphenops and latipinna. Now they are reporting hybrids between brown bears and polar bears in the arctic, and it has recently been discovered that virtually all "bison" in the US contain cattle genes.

 

[Quang]

This website is a response to the documentary:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

My main point of interest in this whole debacle is that we still don't know how life began (I especially like the suggestion in the movie by evolution/darwinism proponents that the first life form(s) probably came to earth hitchhiked on the back of a meteorite, implying life on earth came from an alien life form somewhere out in space...really?!).

So aliens do exist? Fox Mulder was right, the truth is out there.