Expelled, the movie (It's about censorship)
Many of the scientists who were interviewed for the soon-to-be-released movie, Expelled, are claiming that the film is an argument for Intelligent Design and against evolution. It appears that the working title for the movie was "Crossroads: the intersection of religion and science." Some of the people interviewed are claiming that they would have said something different if they had known the true name and subject.
However, I don't think any of them have seen the movie yet, and the website blog and trailers seem to focus on the treatment of "rebels" with in the science community, especially those who question "Darwinism."
According to the producers:
Here's what the interviewees are saying:
Richard Dawkins
PJ Myers on his blog, Pharyngula
The New York Times
Then, there's this and this from Bioethics.net, the blog of the editors and pseudoeditors of the American Journal of Bioethics.
However, I don't think any of them have seen the movie yet, and the website blog and trailers seem to focus on the treatment of "rebels" with in the science community, especially those who question "Darwinism."
According to the producers:
“People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale,” said Walt Ruloff, co-executive producer and co-founder of Premise Media, which is producing the film.
He continued to say that his company agreed to take up the film’s production because they “believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth.”
The film’s original title was Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion, according to U.K.-based The Guardian. The film company said the movie's title was changed, on the advice of marketing experts.
Here's what the interviewees are saying:
Richard Dawkins
PJ Myers on his blog, Pharyngula
The New York Times
Then, there's this and this from Bioethics.net, the blog of the editors and pseudoeditors of the American Journal of Bioethics.
Labels: bioethics
posted by LifeEthics.org at 10/04/2007 08:05:00 AM
137 Comments:
"People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale."
Yes, "people" are often "stunned" by the truth. :-)
great comment...
Mommy, tell me the story about how atoms, molecules and such randomly, without true and realistic mathematic probability, began the universe.
Who believes in a fairytale?
It's about bribing schools to bring their kids:
http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php
Pfsh, of course Dawkins is ticked off. He vowed not to debate creationists because that in itself would imply that creationists have a ground.
I'm in academia and even those who are theistic evolutionists are persecuted.
Thanks for the confirmation, Gia-lệ. I've seen and experienced the exclusion, even as an undergraduate and then as a medical student.
You people are funny. None of you can explain what any alternate theory might postulate.
ID is a psuedo-science, while the The Theory of Evolution is well supported by over a 150 years of research and data. Not too mention, that it has withstood 150 years of denialists taking their best shots at debunking it, unsuccessfully.
Anonymous said... "..The Theory of Evolution is well supported by over a 150 years of research and data."
Of course we must all be on the same page with our terms before any valid debate can occur, to wit:
"Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
"...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
And no, I'm not RCC, Baptist, nor any so-called "fundie".
We are part of nature. Nature made us and at our death we will be reabsorbed into nature. We are at home in nature and in our bodies. This is where we belong. This is the only place where we can find and make our paradise, not in some imaginary world on the other side of the grave. NATURE IS THE ONLY PARADISE THEREFORE SEPARATION FROM NATURE IS THE ONLY HELL. When we destroy nature, we create hell on earth for other species and for ourselves. Nature is our mother, our home, our security, our peace, our past and our future. We should treat natural things and habitats as believers treat their temples and shrines, as sacred - to be revered and preserved in all their intricate and fragile beauty.
"......IF PEOPLE EVER REALIZE THE TRUTH OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO NATURE AND THE TRUTH OF THEIR PERSONAL POWER THE ENTIRE MANUFACTURED ZEITGEIST THEY PREY UPON WILL COLAPSE LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS" ~Zeitgeist
What is the point of this movie other than to twist scientists words and use them out of context. Most of the scientists interveiwed in this movie where under a false impression of the movie's true subject and purpose. the only scientists that believe that shit are the ones brainwashed from birth to live in fear if they dont. Anything that forces you to believe in it OR ELSE!! is a CULT. Religeon is nothing more than astrology transisted into metaphors. this is NOT to be taken literally!! There is a reason why jesus is the "son of god" You want me to interpret that? SUN of god. Jesus is nothing more that the Sun iteself misinterpreted to be in Human form. The Sun is the giver of ALL life. Without it I would not be sitting here right now typing this comment trying to get it into people's brainwashed minds and make them realize how we are at ONE with Nature. There would be no plants no trees and certainly no Humans to write up riduclous stories to force people to do what they want.I say this movie is all part of the manufactured zeitgeist to separate Humans from Nature so as to gain control of our minds. You might ask "why would they want to do that?" MONEY POWER GREED these people are so separated from Nature due to those 3 things that they dont see with eyeballs, they see with dollar signs. I refuse to believe that my life and my success depends on what people tell me. I already know, we ALL know what to do here on Earth. we dont need to be taught or told, it is our Nature to KNOW. If all Humans were given the opportunity to be their own guide here on Earth there would be peace.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace" ~Jimi Hendrix
I will NEVER give in to the fear. I will live in peace and happiness and feel content in knowing the true meaning of success. Iam Human. Iam Nature. Iam the Earth. Iam the Universe. I may not know exactly what "god" is but I sure as hell know what "he" isnt.
"They must find it difficult...Those who have taken authority as the truth rather than truth as the authority"
I'd like to address a quote brought up in an earlier comment:
"Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
"the spirit" "the truth about man" "the dignity of the person" are all three learned religious notions which John Paul is trying to fit into reality. What is the grounds for believing in a _spirit_? The grounds are assumed into the picture by religion, and are the basis of many ID supporters: "I KNOW that I have a soul, and Jesus is the only way to God, and the universe is God's creation. Evolutionary theory is against my faith-based beliefs (ie. blind belief), and I know for sure I am right, so therefore evolutionary theory must be incorrect, no matter what the evidence for it is" Is this not a proper summary of the cause for the ID/Evolution debate?
I feel I should clarify what I said: "What is the grounds for believing in a _spirit_?" In my personal understanding of the universe, there is no need for a spirit as Christianity sees it - an eternal soul which is a separate entity from everything else. In fact this assumption of a soul gives rise to a strong belief that our "self" is real, which I don't buy, and I can see is the primary cause of pain and evil in the world. Also, I see no need for believing in a personified God which is separate from us. What real (not the Bible) evidence is there for believing in the Christian God? Or heaven? or hell? I think the ideas of Christianity are wonderful metaphors which, when taken in the right way, can lead to one living a better life, but are NOT to be taken literally. For example heaven and hell are states of mind, and the parables tell what kind of psychology and actions lead to these states of mind.
If one looks into Eastern spiritual traditions such as Buddhism, one will find that their philosophies "consider _the spirit_ [the self] as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter," and are NOT IN ANY WAY "incompatible with the truth about man."
I think that taking Christian messages literally is simply wrong, and to do this was not the original intention of Jesus. The ID debate is bringing into focus this fact, and is a farewell call to the dying meme of Christian fundamentalism. I look forward in the future to see eastern philosophical notions taught to children along side with science, instead of telling them that all of the parables really happened, and that science is evil. Then I think the world would be a better place.
Anonymous is sure busy and multi-faceted.
I have to agree with the Zeitgeist quotes, here.
Expelled, from the reviews I've read of it, looks like a pretty garbage movie with very little science, very little support for intelligent design and a poor understanding of contemporary evolutionary biology.
From Wikipedia:
"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that 'intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life' are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."
The fact that Stein also rejects exogenesis, the belief that life originated elsewhere and traveled to Earth, indicates that he is not even a true intelligent design proponent, but a theological demagogue.
"Mommy, tell me the story about how atoms, molecules and such randomly, without true and realistic mathematic probability, began the universe.
Who believes in a fairytale?"
Of couse this is not evolution, this is "abiogenesis". Evolution is supported by a large body of scientific evidence. Abiogenesis happened on this Earth about 3 billion years ago, so the exact details of how it happened are still quite speculative. See the article in the February issue of Discover magazine. Seems to be a quite realistic possibility.
You all say ID is not true "science" but presuppose evolution is. I'm curious what your definition of science is. According to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, science is “knowledge attained through study or practice or knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method and concerned with the physical world.” And what is the scientific method? According to Merriam Webster, it's “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”
Is evolution reproducible? No. Can it be observed and tested in an experimental, controlled environment? No. I have yet to see anyone prove or disprove evolution based on the scientific method. And that is why evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design. Anyone who argues otherwise is letting their own bias, preferences and underlying world view influence reality. Evolution has no more a place in the scientific community than ID. It is merely a hypothesis of the worst kind: one that cannot be tested, measured, reproduced or observed in an experimental, controlled setting.
Remember, you can't argue with people that are so closed minded as to call your beleifs and views on life a fairy tale when they have never even scractched the surface of what life is all about themselves. FYI, they will never see things the way the majority of people do(spiritually), so let them be to ponder their own existence by themselves and hopefully one day they will be enlightened. For now, it's like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, God could smack them in the face and they would think it was the wind! ;)
Who was there? Was anyone there(then) not seeing G-d make the world? Who was there when evolution "happened"?
The same reasons the "elitists" use to prove the nonexistence G-d are the same reasons that prove their own god cannot exist. They believe in a god which they also deny, though they believe in no god at all and for the reasons too common to man.
I find it incredibly suspect that though they claim there is no G-d, they hate Him so forcefully. Why do they reserve so much disdain for that which does not exist?
Most of these guys aren't just "setting the record straight." And if they were, who should care? The real fairy tale is attributing some kind of objective significance to a world of chance. The contradiction is expecting someone to listen to you when you're preaching that what you say has no meaning.
Peace yo.
I took a second to scroll through some of these well written and intelligent posts.
I've rehearsed the rhetoric and got my feet wet in this sort of thing. I realized that most people search for a piece of information to fit their world view, and they make it the most sophisticated piece of data they can wrap their mind around. When their mind gets bigger they just find more wrapping paper. Who here is really willing to believe anything different? Who came here with the express purpose of doing something besides inserting yourself?
Most of us, including myself, will leave with what we came with unchanged. In the end, most of us are just justifying our conclusions. That doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. It means the real debate isn't about truth here, it seldom is.
Ok, good luck posting. Kbye.
"Evolution has no more a place in the scientific community than ID."
You are, of course, completely ignorant about science.
What is wrong with believing in Jesus? Why does this bother so many people? Why can people worship anything or anyother god other than Jesus and not be ridiculed? I would like to know the number of people who make statements about Jesus can say that they have really tried Jesus and have read the Bible from Genesis all the way to Revelations. I was always taught to read the book before I give a report!
Latest anon,
You had good teachers. I was also taught that more than knowing the facts, you need to know where to find them and how to look them up.
"Facts" will change as we learn more, see more and measure more. Do we have any sort of stable measurement, any camera or scale - or even any dictionary that we can use as common language and common ground?
The movie is actually about this very question and how professors, researchers and students are treated in the universities and research centers. There is evidence that the current bad news is that if you believe in the Gospel, you are suspect and guilty until proven innocent.
The opening lines of the Bible tell us more about the "Origins" than any other book. We know there was something before the Big Bang - if it turns out that the latest iteration of the explanation for the beginnings of the universe proves true.
Believers are often asked where God came from. However, that's just avoiding the question about where the matter and energy in the universe came from
Even if we invent infinite numbers of universes and big bangs, we still come down to the fact that the something that is our universe came from nothing.
"In the beginning ___(fill in the blank)__" My "God created the heavens and the earth" is just as good as adding one more layer of universes on.
The other question is why would God allow evil and pain in the universe? The believer's responsive question is, " It's good to recognize the existence of good and evil, but, if there is no super-natural, extra-universal Measure of good and evil, where did this concept come from? If it's simply a function that survived our human evolution, then why should we persist in acting good, and avoiding evil? If we're just another step in evolution, what is the value of acting as though humans even have such a thing as "rights"?
"There is evidence that the current bad news is that if you believe in the Gospel, you are suspect and guilty until proven innocent."
This is what Ben Stein might try to trick you into believing. He will tell one side of each of the "stories". But if he told the other side, you might just find that the pseudo-scientists trying to claim that "God did it" aren't real scientists. But they aren't guilty of anything except nonsense and they were never actually punished.
"If it's simply a function that survived our human evolution, then why should we persist in acting good, and avoiding evil?"
It's a very good survival trait. If you are punished by society for doing evil, you are less likely to reproduce.
Someone commented earilier with the question of why people can worship any other god outside of Christianity and not be riduculed- but rather be tolerated and encouraged to have freedom of religion. As soon as someone mentions Jesus, the persecution begins. It is because Jesus is the light, and darkness tries to hide from the light. Darkness knows that it will be exposed in the presence of the light. The fear of exposure to the true light proves that Jesus is exactly who He says He is- God, the true light of the world.
Yes, let’s go see poor Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure because of his deeply held beliefs. Of course, the fact that he didn’t publish, hardly worked, and couldn’t get a grant to save his life had nothing to do with it. And how about that poor Caroline Crocker, whose contract was not renewed after she started taking up class time with her own personal rants instead of teaching the subject she was being paid to teach. What a poster child for religious persecution!
And how can this movie fail to be anything but a raging box office success, when the target audience is being bribed, excuse me, is being offered discounts and rebates to see it? Classics like this just don’t come along every day!
It's good to see the conversation still going on. Just think how busy we'll be when the movie opens in April.
Irony 101 - Expelled from the Expelled the Movie
PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at University of Minnesota, Morris was Expelled from an invite-only screening of the documentary Expelled — No Intelligence Allowed on Thursday night at the Mall of America in Bloomington, MN. He, along with his family and his distinguished guest had registered online for the event and had received email confirmations. While standing in line, PZ Myers (who appears in the film) was recognized and informed by security that he would not be allowed inside the theater. A bemused Myers agreed to leave the theater without further incident, while his family and guest were allowed to remain in line and eventually preview the movie. Myer's guest was non-other than, esteemed biologist and critic of Intelligent Design, Richard Dawkins, who also appears in the movie Expelled. While they watched the film with a handful of preselected ID-friendly critics and guests, PZ Myers went down to the Apple Store and wrote about the event on his blog at ScienceBlogs: Pharyngula. Later that night, he posted a follow-up that explained the details of his Expulsion from the documentary Expelled."
The expulsion of Myers from the showing of the movie Expelled shows the utter hypocrisy of the producer of this movie -- Myers was even credited at the end of the movie, but was not allowed to view it. Who is censoring whom? And before I listen to a lot of whining from Christian fundamentalists who are still a majority in this land, about how "persecuted" they are, let me state that I was BEATEN UP by Christers in high school for being an atheist. Creationism has no more place in a science class than the teaching of Mein Kampf would have in a Civics class.
Jesus isn't science. God isn't science. Saying that evolution happened "randomly" implies that you've never read anything on evolution, as you do not even understand what natural selection is.
And to every sub-literate fundamentalist who puffs up their chests and laugh off the 'randomness' of evolution, I've yet to hear the probability of atoms "just randomly" forming into a faceless, ageless, sexless, omnipotent, omniscient, immortal god. Because there is no probability of that happening, and because it's fiction, not science.
I was going to say that I am going to have a heart attack if I hear one more creationitwit say that evolution is random chance. However, I probably would have had a heart attack long ago since it keeps popping up. Thankfully, I am alright. I guess I am glad that they keep making themselves look ignorant... over and over and over again. Evolution is not random and even if it were, that argument has no meaning. What you mean to say is that there is a mountain of evidence which confirms evolution and absolutely no evidence to disprove it and you would prefer that that was not the case. Try that next time. This is why you resort to saying that free-speech rights are violated or that atheists are Nazis (Hitler was a creationist but of course that does not make creationists Nazis) or that science is out to get you. As soon as creationitwits have some science, they will be welcomed with open ears. Until then start a church and stay away from my children!
Mark from Margate, FL
Dear sir, you are an idiot.
I'd say more, I'd give logic, theory, evidence, but honestly, you are, indeed, an idiot. Sorry to be so rude, but it boils down to that.
Science is agnostic. It does not "believe in" anything. It recounts the steps and processes undergone to seek and describe demonstrable "proofs."
To the gullible "believers" that's it's greatest sin.
I agree, the movie is about "censorship" and how teachers have lost their jobs who question Darwinism.
Even as we speak, there are special interest groups trying to convince theaters not to show this film. They are afraid it might encourage skepticism about how the Universe was made.
When someone says he can make a box out of thin air, we all laugh. Why? Because it's impossible to make a box out of thin air. But Evolutions claim the Universe started with nothing even less than thin air...lol
I saw an atheist argue that something can be created out of nothing by chance. That sounds more supernatural than science even without an intelligent designer. When you claim that something can be created out of nothing even by chance which defies the law of physics, it's a supernatural occurrence.
THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Defines energy as a mass which cannot be created out of nothing, and can be changed from one form to another but the total amount remains the same.
I can understand the struggle that people may have with the Bible or questions about Christ being who he said he was, etc. But what I can't understand is how anybody can look at wonder of creation and even their own existence and not realize that SOMEBODY had to put all of this here. There may be disagreements about who that somebody is or what they are like but I don't see how anybody can think that this all happened with no intelligence involved.
I find it ironic that we spend millions of dollars on programs like SETI where we scan the heavens looking for intelligent life on other planets and we would accept an electronic signal pattern as possible evidence to support that possibility. But we can't look out our own window and see the miracle of the patterns that are staring us in the face everyday and acknowledge that this didn't happen by accident.
I've heard discussions on radio talk shows where creationists will share their views and the evolutionists will come out of the woodwork ridiculing the ideas as "non-scientific". Then I've heard other shows where the topic is the possibility that life on this planet was the result of some alien race experiment. Nary an evolutionist would call in with a single objection. I wonder why since this is a theory that involves intelligent design?
I think the real problem the evolutionists have with creationisim is the idea that there is a moral authority higher than themselves that they are accountable to.
Well folks I'm sorry to burst your bubble but denying the truth will not change what the truth really is. You can run but you can't hide behind your degrees, your scientific "facts", or the comfort you find in other like-minded "scientists". It is only a question of time before the truth will be staring you right in the face and there will be no arugment that can deny it and no place to hide.
The second most foolish idea that mankind ever came up with is the idea of evolution, ie. that life came about without intelligence. The most foolish idea is that there is no creator.
Believe it now or believe it later.
Rick
I was reading in some atheist blog who claimed he was "expelled" from seeing the movie. It was a private screening, and instead of waiting to see the movie like other people he thought he could crash the screening party and start challenging it...lol
Many Darwinists are not too happy, even suggesting a so-called right wing religious conspiracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Michael, I'm afraid that you've got the story wrong. The "invitation" was open - not at at all private. Interested people - with no apparent restrictions - were allowed to register on line. The story is available here.
PZ Meyers blog before his attempt at the movie...
… I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That’s going to be fun.
Do you really think the producers wanted him to "cheer loudly" every time he appeared on the screen or sit there and give his rebuttal while people are trying to watch the film? Such arrogance on the man's part and using his family as well...
Thanks Rick. As a Christian with a well-rounded education, it's nice to see that someone out there doesn't believe me irrational for believing that I was created. The age of reason is taking it's toll. I fear for my 17 month old son. He is a miracle. I have been blessed. For all the ridicule my faith has taken these past 27 years, it's great to see reason questioned. There is one Truth. He died for me. I hope others see this before it's too late. I'm sure many of you scoff at me. Go ahead. It's happened my entire life.
Yeah I feel for the parents and their children these days because they do face quite a battle with this world system. You've already taken a huge step of faith by having your son and that same faith will keep him.
Peace,
Rick
You might want to read commentary upon the arguments the movie presents:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Expelled:Leader%27s_Guide
"it's great to see reason questioned"
Yes, that old problem - reason - is much worse than its opposite - unreason. I mean, just think where we would be if unreason had been chosen so many times in the last few centuries instead of reason. Can you say "Dark Ages"? I doubt it.
Michael
I think you mean the Second Law of Thermodynamics?!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth is constantly receiving energy from the Sun. Life is free to evolve without violating natural law.
And please... if your understanding of Evolution boils down to "random chance", you have no place at the debate table until you gain at least a remedial understanding. Start here: Understanding Evolution
Come on guys, even the Catholic Pope has said that accepting evolution is compatible with Christian faith.
Let's step out of the Dark Ages!
Flunked, not Expelled: What Ben Stein isn't telling you about Intelligent Design
Hi, I'm a Christian and a biological scientist and a parent and a teacher so I feel a little bit qualified to respond to some of these posts!
The theory of biological evolution is compatible with Christian belief and the infallibility of Scripture etc. Why are we so afraid of it? Up until 1960 and the publication of THe Genesis Flood (apart from a brief spell in the 20s) evolution and the ancient age of the earth were becoming quite widely accepted in the Christian community. Well before the time of Darwin (think 4th century AD), theologians were wondering whether Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally or figuratively.
I agree that no human was there at the birth of the universe but scientists are investigating the evidence that remains and evolution is so far the best explanation so far to account for what we have now.
We now have a situation where opposing positions are becoming more and more polarised. I feel sad about this; we are alienating Christians from science and scientists from Christ. If you belong to the one who declares himself to be the truth, take the time to investigate scientific truth.
On the other hand, we scientists also need to be humble enough to recognise that not all questions can be answered from within our discipline: Why do we value human life? Why do all known human civilisations worship God? Why are we here? Why are we even asking questions like why are we here?
We can learn from each other. Perhaps it might have been of more benefit if the producers of Expelled had made "Crossroads" instead?
Evolutionists get so worked up about religion being introduced in science education - but what is religion, isn't it merely a belief in the unseen; a hope and faith in that which can not be explained? I beg to argue that evolution is as much religion as it is science. most evolutionists are so unwilling to give a shred of credibility to those of us who try to explain with our faith the fundamental questions of life - yet, they themselves sit, wait and HOPE for when the missing gaps in their theory will finally come together to make something even remotely coherent. Now, do not get me wrong, I only say this in response to those who look at evolution and are in no way willing to see that there are major faults in the theory that have yet to be understood. Which, in my opinion, will only be answered if the so-called "intermediate" forms are ever found…
I'm a biologist and understand the frustration that most scientists face when people are not able to approach this discussion with a real understanding of what evolution is. Evidence is there and clear that microevolution does exist. However, macroevolution (where species evolve into divergent species) is in no way supported by current findings on the scale that most evolutionary biologists would have you believe.
Species do not evolve - they adapt... it should be noted that there are numerous ways to categorize species and there is not one distinctly recognized means in the study of evolutionary biology (which is very relevant to our understanding of evolution and more precisely, species evolving). All in all, educate yourself about this discussion and you'll find yourself more able to support your own claims, see the film and understand that everyone is pushing a message. I can not sit here and say that I believe my ancestors were apes. Maybe - just maybe - if everyone truly knew they posses the image of the Creator, we wouldn't be having this conversation...
All evolutionist who slap our creator in the face by arrogantly deneying His very exisistance will quickly become creationist a moment after their unescapable death. Believers only seek to save them in Love by introducing them to the only one who can save them Jesus Christ.
someone said something about stein not being and ID... because he does not believe in the possibility that there is life on other planets. for ur info many scientist don't believe in that even HAWKINS. U said the movie seem pretty garbage with little scientifict facts. lol Look who the interviewers are. They are Hardcore evolutiosnist ( well not all of them obviouly)
i don't mean to be rude or anything but could people stop just dropping the longest quotes ever. just give us the url or whatever it's called and we will look it up. Also my english teacher always tell me not to put quotes without explaining it even if it seems to be self explanatory. :)
One question:
If we are evolving via darwins "thoery" then why are there still Apes? Also, which group of apes were smart enough to leave the group to become smart apes.
Also, if evolution is truth then why fear the theory of creation design. Whether it stood for 150 years means nothing if it doesn't stand for a second thought. All the writers are saying is try another theory. You that are "open-minded" are only OPEN to your ideas.
No opposing ideas welcomed. You know what I think, you fear God and that is why you cleave to a different theory and any mention of any other [idea] threatens your ability to continue thinking in the way you do...it's not about truth it's about remaining in your current lifestyle.
But as I said before, which group of Apes said "were out of here" to the other group!
Hi Wsasser, I love the comment, "No opposing ideas welcomed". That's great for encouraging dialogue between people and furthering the spread of the good news of the one who said, "Come now, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18).
Re which group of apes etc: nobody "decided" they wouldn't be apes anymore, a random mutation would have occurred which would have been of benefit in the environment for a few members of the species. Over time, successive mutation/adaptation would have conferred on this species some advantages that were conserved. Usually this happens in an isolated species, which is why you get such distinct varieties of species in island environments. (Eg marsupials are almost exclusively found in Australia).
I know you said, "No opposing ideas welcomed" but perhaps Darrel Falk's book, "Coming to peace with science" could be of benefit at least in understanding where people who believe in evolution are coming from.
To anonymous (whoever you are...), using emotive expressions like slapping the Creator in the face and referring to evolutionists as arrogant is not helpful in this discussion. I want to know more about how the Creator made this world and I think from the evidence that has been presented that He used evolution. This is not slapping Him in the face- all truth is God's truth.
One more thing (sorry for taking up so much space here), I appreciated anonymous the biologist's comment about evolution being similar to religion in that it involves an element of faith. Have you ever read "Rebuilding the Matrix" by Denis Alexander? It's an excellent read and the chapter on "Reweaving the Rainbow" goes through many similarities between belief in evolution and belief in God...
Whew. I feel like I am walking into a hailstorm. Better get my mucklucks.
I think one of the major problems in Christianity today is the casual, subjective and self-declaring usage of the word "Christian". An example:
If I said the word "Fireman", virtually everyone here would have the same exact concept of what a fireman is. Why? Because there are a series of universal criterion that everyone acknowledges of which one must fullfil all of in order to be declared a fireman. In this example, one major criterion would be that they must fight fires. One cannot go around saying, "I am a firefighter!", when in fact, they do not fight fires. This would be a lie.
On the other hand, the word "Christian" does not have universal meaning, nor are there a universal set of criterion that determine what a Christian is. In the first century AD, a Christian was one who followed Christ, and believed in his teachings. Today, that is not so. For instance, to a Muslim, a Christian is anyone who is not a Muslim. Mormons, the self proclaimed "Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints" claim themselves Christians, yet do not believe in the divinity of Christ! To do so takes the "Christ" out of "Christian"! The Unitarian Universalist church says itself on its website that you can believe whatever you want, and its fine with them, and you can call yourself a Christian!
Anyone can go out and proclaim themselves Christians, and everyone else will believe them. If ever they do anything immoral or "wrong", their acts are loaded onto the backs of everyone else under the "Christian" envolope, as very actually think of 'Christian' as one who follows Christ.
Both democratic candidates have gone out and proclaimed themselves Christians because it is good for their campaigns, yet neither one of their actions bear the fruit of the spirit, not have they placed Christian principles into their campaigns.
I'm curious Clair how you as a Christian can be an evolutionist. Are you taking the observations of a corrupt creation (us) over the knowledge and speech of the all-powerful God?
Both Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 proclaim a six day creation: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." "It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested."
How also do you reconcile Romans 5:12-13, which states: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned for before the law was given, sin was in the world.
According to that verse: Man > Sin > Death ; not Death > Man > Sin, as is neccessary for evolution.
For me personally, I do not see why evolution seems logical to the general populace. We can discover an Island in the South pacific, covered in Stone heads, all facing the same direction. We look around, and realize that the only mine that these heads could have come from is hundreds of miles away on another island, and yet we realize that these stones MUST have been the creation of a human being. At the same time, we look at Billions and billions of smaller heads that populate the earth, that are billions of times more complex than a single one of the stone heads, and we cannot even contemplate the idea that - get this - something created them. *Guffaw*.
It just seems illogical.
Foy
There are insurmountable failures of evolutionary science called Abiogenesis. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it. Great article here: http://www.eternalpath.com/creationism.html
Perhaps God used those billions of years to plan, test and develop a rich habitat to nourish and stimulate His children.
Degradation and deterioration of this habitat is evidence of people exercising their free will and choosing to abandon His logic and love.
Evolutions teaching of an upward climb from slime to the sublime is nowhere to be seen. Not in nature or its creatures. Decay and destruction increase in all things.
The whole creation groans within itself waiting for the revealing (manifestation) of His children and the reinstatement of His rule of love.
Hey Foy, thanks for your comment although it was quite hurtful. I don't know how to prove to you that I am a true Christian. I know the difference between nominal and real Christians. My parents became Christians when adults (born again, shall we say?) after being brought up as nominal Christians. I asked Jesus to be my Saviour as a small child, was baptised at 14 and love the Lord and strive to follow Him and obey Him in every aspect of my life. I DO believe God created the world but I think He used evolution.
The funny thing about this is that for 29 years I believed in a young earth and special creation too and even though I had a Ph.D in microbiology I refused to acknowledge the evidence pointing towards evolution. I plucked up the courage to read Francis Collins's book "The Language of God" (I was afraid to because I knew he believed in evolution and like Foy was skeptical that one could be a Christian and believe evolution). This book convinced me and I have kept reading books on both sides since then. (You can check out some of my struggles with coming to this conclusion on www.myspace.com/dr_clairet Blogs: bad language and others).
I am so sad that you refuse to believe I could be your sister in Christ, a forgiven sinner like yourself, because I believe God used evolution.
So much for my "credentials", now Foy, to the Bible. I believe it is the inspired word of God. The reason science began was that men believed that creation would show marks of God's handiwork and they would learn more about God through studying his world. If God is the Creator (and I believe He is), then the evidence in the world should not contradict the Word.
About Romans 5:12-13, I think Paul is talking about spiritual death (i.e. eternal separation from God) because he goes on to talk about eternal life coming through Jesus Christ (5:21). Now we know as believers that even though we are saved we will still face death but have the promise of eternal life. Otherwise the promise that we will never die but have everlasting life in John 3:16 makes no sense either.
I'm aware I've taken up a lot of space so I won't go into the six days of creation unless you're interested. Also, re evolution not making sense, I know it seems counter-intuitive but it does make so much sense, particularly the genetics of it.
First off, I apologize Clair if I sounded mean. I did not mean (bad pun) it that way, but I can see how it came off that way. Sorry. : (
Now, if we take death in this case spiritually, why not take Jesus' death as a spiritual death, an not physical? If we take the events in early genesis as figurative or poetic - events which are displayed not in someones exact speech, as in Job, but in narrative form - why can't we take the events of Jesus' death as figurative? It's just one small step to take it that far, and if it does happen, the Christian religion goes POOF!, because the death of Jesus is what Christianity is all about.
Have to go, will speak more later.
This page itself, proves the point, that this film is making; “That the anti-creationist crowd, can & will destroy the reputation of anyone who dares, to say anything against Darwinism.”
You can clearly see this, by all the times that we see, “Anonymous said..”:
People realize that if they don’t “march in step”, with the forces that be, bad things might happen to them.
Thus, the name of the film, “Expelled”!
I fully agree, with the last comment!
I don't know much about this movie. I'm not a biologist or a theology student. I do know this: Whether it took God a billion billion years or six 24-hour periods, the universe came from somewhere. I also know that convincing someone to believe in creation does not make him/her a Christian. There are beliefs about divine creation in religions all over the world. What does make someone a Christian is convincing him/her that no person is perfect, that no person can live up to the standard of a God who is perfect, that a concept of morality exists in all cultures b/c it was put there by God, & that the only way we can hope to enjoy a fulfilling relationship with a God who is perfect is to accept the free gift of recociliation that was offered when His perfect Son and extension of Himself agreed exchange our imperfections for His perfection, allowing us to have a relationship with the Creator, by whatever method, of the Universe. Until someone is a Christian, God cannot reveal ANY other truth to him/her, so why waste your breath screaming your beliefs about Creation to a non-believer? Let's share the really important truth, & then we as God's people can seek His truth together. I'll probably never make it back to this blog again, but that's my thought.
-Meg
Thanks Foy, I appreciate that. Meg, I fully agree with your last comment, particularly "then we as God's people can seek His truth together." I think also it's important to make every effort to keep the bond of peace among believers even if we disagree with each other.
Re taking death as spiritual and not physical. Romans 5:12- "in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"; this seems to imply that the death referred to here does not apply to physical death because it seems to exclude plants/animals. "Death came to all MEN". Only mankind is accountable to God for sin. I'm taking death here to be spiritual death because that makes sense in the context of the whole passage. See v.18- "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." We know that we all will die, so we take life here to mean eternal life.
Also in Genesis when God made Adam and Eve clothes from animal skins, I think this hints towards the fact that there may have been dead animals around?
Believe me I was also petrified when I started looking at the evidence for evolution that the Bible would fall apart but the more I checked, the more I realised it was the way that we had been interpreting this over the centuries that was questionable, not the text itself.
In the 4th century Augustine wrote a book about Genesis and wondered whether the creation story should be taken literally or figuratively. (So it's not just Christians trying to explain away Genesis in the light of recent scientific advances). The reasons for taking it figuratively are that Gen1 is highly stylised prose, almost poetry. There is clear emphasis on repetition which Hebrews used in poetry (think parallelism in the Psalms). Also there is beautiful symmetry in the first three days, where God forms the light (1), water/sky (2), land/plants (3) and the next three days when He fills it with sun/moon/stars (4), fish/birds (5) and animals (6). I've written more on my blog; I kinda feel bad taking over LifeEthics' page like this, hope they don't mind...!
The movie is about the elitist scientific community refusing to allow any other opinion than there own. It is not really a debate on ID vs. evolution. I tend to agree that anyone who says anything against evolution is lambasted into oblivion to shut them up. My question would be why do people who claim to investigate and analyze for a living refuse to investigate and analyze. I thought science was supposed to be about new discovers and new theories to find answers. If you refuse to discuss anything different or listen to a different opinion and you can’t even argue something different you would be a communist. There are many countries available for people who don’t believe in free speech. I would suggest that those who refuse to let others have there right to free speech move to one of those other countries. Atheists, scientist and theist alike. The first amendment gives all the right to free speech, right or wrong. And the government’s job is to defend that right. Funny none of them are doing that in this case
I see the posts; I wish to reply, but can't now. Maybe tonight, probably tomorrow afternoon.
We look forward to it, Foy! Got out some library books on intelligent design, young earth creationism, old earth creationism and theistic evolution to double check what each side believes!
"Consensus" has no place in 'science', really; and, that is the main contributing factor to having films like this one. Same thing with "Global Warming"-- Oops, I mean "climate change".
"Jesus isn't science. God isn't science. Saying that evolution happened "randomly" implies that you've never read anything on evolution, as you do not even understand what natural selection is."
Natural Selection doesn't explain "Evolution of Life from Chemical Soup".
Shutting down discussions is what the movie is about.
The movie is about "Censoring" by the "Atheistic 'Scientific' Community".
"We're right, and everyone else is stupid and ignorant" and the Door is "Closed" on discussion.
I obviously haven't seen this movie or read the interviewees blogs, but here is what I want someone to answer for me:
1. Why do the evolutionists use words like; surmise, suppose, assume, believe, propose, etc. when talking about the origin of life. Those words seem to be "faith" based words.
2. Why do evolutionists assume that all or most fundies are idiots. I'm willing to bet a year's salary that I have an IQ in the 99th percentile of all evolutionists. I make 300K a year, how much do you make?
3. Where in the heck is this "mountain of evidence"? If there was a mountain of evidence then why are we even talking about it? Why is there even a debate? Might it be because evolutionists entire argument hinges on a multi-billion year time frame for there fun little theories. When you people don't have an answer for a problem you simply insert a few million years to make your improbable hypothesis more plausible.
4. Might evolution hang around because it allows people to muffle the voice of their conscience because without God around to ruin your fun you can live how you feel? Don't respond to that, just answer yourself honestly, use your conscience as your guide and be honest with yourself.
5. Before you condemn Christ and Christians, why don't you shed your either pre-conceived notions or your bad religious experiences and open up your Bible starting with Matthew and start a personal, open-minded journey into the Bible. Don't form your opinions about God based on other peoples religion, humans are imperfect.
6. The reason no one can convince me that I am wrong is because I am no longer just a believer in God, but I have personally experienced God and that cannot be argued. Once you experience God you don't need proof he exists, you know because of your experience.
To the latest Anonymous,
2. Why do you feel the need to boast about your salary, "Let he who boasts boast in the Lord." and "Blessed are the poor..." Salary is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence either. However, as a Christian who has experienced the humble Nazarene for yourself, why would you even make this an issue? Would you not rather be wronged unfairly (as Jesus was) and have people think you a fool than go online declaring to all how rich you are?
3. "Mountain of evidence"... Take your pick: "Rebuilding the matrix" Denis Alexander, "Perspectives on an evolving creation" Keith Miller, "Coming to peace with science" Darrel Falk, "Creation or evolution, do we have to choose?".All written by christians and available on amazon. Or if you'd rather listen online check out Graeme Finlay or Simon Conway Morris's lectures on www.faraday-institute.org in the multimedia folder. The reason we're still talking about this is because we haven't been listening when people have presented us with evidence for evolution.
4. You said not to answer but honestly once I came to see the evidence for evolution I had to humbly come before God and admit I had been too arrogant and afraid to see the truth and it has renewed my awe for Him. What a world, what a God!
5-6. This is sad because you want others to shed their pre-conceived notions, but you won't shed yours! Believing in evolution does not make you an atheist! (Or a liberal nominal Christian either)
Hi, rather than taking over Beverley's page (as I feel I'm doing, sorry!) I posted an old myspace blog about evolution on http://claire-searchingfortruth.blogspot.com/
so that if anyone's on blogger they can access that more easily than myspace. If you do post a comment, please sign yr name though even if you are anonymous to give some clarity to who I'm talking to about what. Thanks. I'll keep checking this one too though...!
For one thing, I don’t think you are “hogging” the page. I think this is what the blog is for. : ) I apologize ahead of time for my punctuation errors. :)
Before I tackle the recent posts, I want to go back to our Romans discussions. I’m going to go through Romans 5, starting with verse 6, and ending at the end of the chapter, verse 20. My personal comments will be in [ bold brackets]:
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died [God was perfect. How could he experience spiritual death? Thus, this must be referring to a Physical death (PD) [] for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die [PD[] for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die [PD]. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died [PD] for us.
9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death [again, death of Christ, a PD] of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! [because he is physically alive, he can save us. A dead guy can’t save you that well, even if he has paid the punishment for our sins] 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12Therefore [Meaning “taking all that into account” , just as sin entered the world through one man, and death [After all this discussion about physical death, why would there be an immediate and quick switch to it meaning Spiritual Death (SD) when there was nothing to say that it might switch? ] through sin, and in this way death [PD] came to all men, because all sinned[For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in£ Christ Jesus our Lord].—13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command [ How could spiritual death reign over those who had not committed a sin? ], as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died [PD] by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man [ This death, I believe, does refer to a SD, as the words ‘reigned through’ are used. It is not being referred to as a physical action. ], how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life[ Spiritual life God gives, as well as the physical] through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death[SD, ‘reign’again], so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Did I make sense, or did that come out horribly wrong?
Another thing that I have some problems with: Image if you will two boxes, one marked “God”, another marked “The world”. Now, you place in the God box everything that God has told you about the Universe, and everything in it, whether you believe it or not. Place in the second box everything the world has told you about the Universe. Now, place a third box in the middle, mark it “me”
Now, take the things that you believe to be true from one of the two boxes into your own. What happens when they each present different ideas on one issue? Do you take God’s view? Do you take man’s view? Or do you take a little of both, and combine them?
You seem to have no problem admitting to the fact that science is wrong when it comes to the resurrection, because every scientist will say that it is impossible to raise someone from the dead. There is absolutely ZERO scientifical evidence to support it – on the contrary, Zillions of scientific evidence points the opposite way, and yet you still believe that! What is so bad about believing the fact that God created the world in six days? My teacher told me this, and I agree with him: I’d rather get in trouble up in heaven because I gave God too much credit (if that is possible), than getting up into heaven and finding that I gave him too little credit.
Y'all keep on talking. I love the conversation, just don't have the energy to blog much these days.
The hole that was my basement is almost full. But that means I've got to come up with the house plans and get the rest of the junk put away properly.
Wonder what will happen to the conversation when the movie comes out?
Charles Darwin to John Herschel, 23 May 1861: "The point which you raise on intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure; & has been ably discussed by Prof. Asa Gray, with whom I have had much correspondence on the subject. I am in a complete jumble on the point. One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed;"
Charles Darwin:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
And finally, another quote from Charles Darwin: "I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”
Uninformed indeed.