Expelled: Intelligence or Whatever

[XaWN]

(I won't try to mince words here. I was born and raised Christian; I led an uneventful and spiritual life until I found Lee Strobel, Francis Collins, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. I was only after reading the best of what both had to offer that I decided I had to be willing to question my upbringing. My family accepted me, but I lost Christian friends, and extended relatives. I paid a lot, but I stand firm in my choice. My current position of atheism has lead to a more intellectually rigorous lifestyle, greater fulfillment in daily life, and has generally improved my life. now you know me.)

Does anyone else recognize this movie as a severely underhanded attack on Darwinism (not a defense of Creationism or I.D.)? Proponents of I.D. will tell you that it is not a religious suggestion, yet you will not find atheists behind the I.D. push. Why is there still a desire to have I.D. in classrooms? Isn't this a step in the wrong direction?

If we allow the supernatural into the biology classroom, aren't we inviting the supernatural into other classrooms? Isn't it easier for the physicist to simply say: "I don't know why these quarks cannot bond, it must be the will of God. Let us end our research," than to further explore.

What happened? Even in my Christian days I would not have called to a teach to explain Noah's Ark, or to explain the Flood, or anything of the sort.

If it wasn't enough, we have Ben Stein, a clearly intelligent man, backing this movement. I welcome criticism (I'm sure I'll get it), but I really don't see how creationism in the classroom can lead to a benefit. If nothing else, if creationism is correct, then Darwinism will lead us to it. Science doesn't ask for faith, only a set of eyes to look at the evidence. Papers on creationism are peer-reviewed and peer-rejected because they don't withstand a rigorous investigation. Where did we lose our way?

[Bartender]

Intelligent Design is creationism in disguise.

There is no scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design does not belong in public schools.

Anyone who feels differently must take their case to court.

There they will lose.

Period.

[Skyler]

Religion: A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Evolution is a system of beliefs about the origin of life. It has a pseudo-scientific basis, but is fundamentally non-scientific as it is neither observable nor repeatable.

Therefore, Evolution is religion.

Evolution is being taught in schools.

Therefore, religion is being taught in schools.

So, the arguments about "no religion in the schools" fail to take into account the one major religion which is almost universally accepted by public schools everywhere.

Now, I ask you, what ever happened to the separation of state and religion?

[Goat]

Religion: A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Evolution is a system of beliefs about the origin of life. It has a pseudo-scientific basis, but is fundamentally non-scientific as it is neither observable nor repeatable.

Incorrect. Evolution is a theory , based on evidence, on how life changes over generations. Evolution, as a theory, does not address the origin of life, but only concerns itself with how life changes over succeeding generations.

Therefore, Evolution is religion.

Incorrect. The theory of evolution is a model that explains the observation that life changes over time. It has no dogma attached to it, it is observable, and can be tested. You really should learn about what evolution is before attacking a straw man version of it.

Evolution is being taught in schools.

Well, yes... that is because the theory of evolution is science, not religion.

Therefore, religion is being taught in schools.

As mythology or comparative religions yes, but not in a science room.

So, the arguments about "no religion in the schools" fail to take into account the one major religion which is almost universally accepted by public schools everywhere.

Now, I ask you, what ever happened to the separation of state and religion?

Well, I suggest you actually learn something about science in general, biology in specific, and learn what evolution actually IS, rather than make a lot of false statements about science , and then attack that. It does not make you look very informed at all.

[JoeyKnothead]

Religion: A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Evolution is a system of beliefs about the origin of life. It has a pseudo-scientific basis, but is fundamentally non-scientific as it is neither observable nor repeatable.

Therefore, Evolution is religion.

Evolution is being taught in schools.

Therefore, religion is being taught in schools.

So, the arguments about "no religion in the schools" fail to take into account the one major religion which is almost universally accepted by public schools everywhere.

Now, I ask you, what ever happened to the separation of state and religion?

The proof is there, you refuse to accept it. Just because you want to throw away a century and a half worth of sound science does not mean it is not a well founded theory. So let's hear it, what is your alternative the this brilliant, elegant, well founded theory?

What would you replace this theory with?

[nygreenguy]

Incorrect. Evolution is a [strike]theory[/strike]fact , based on evidence, on how life changes over generations. Evolution, as a theory, does not address the origin of life, but only concerns itself with the mechanism (natural selection) how life changes over succeeding generations.

I hope you dont mind, I added what I thought were some necessary corrections even though I agree with your overall point.

[Goat]

Incorrect. Evolution is a [strike]theory[/strike]fact , based on evidence, on how life changes over generations. Evolution, as a theory, does not address the origin of life, but only concerns itself with the mechanism (natural selection) how life changes over succeeding generations.

I hope you dont mind, I added what I thought were some necessary corrections even though I agree with your overall point.

Well, evolution is a fact, yes, but the TOE is a model to explain how evolution works.

[nygreenguy]

Incorrect. Evolution is a [strike]theory[/strike]fact , based on evidence, on how life changes over generations. Evolution, as a theory, does not address the origin of life, but only concerns itself with the mechanism (natural selection) how life changes over succeeding generations.

I hope you dont mind, I added what I thought were some necessary corrections even though I agree with your overall point.

Well, evolution is a fact, yes, but the TOE is a model to explain how evolution works.

Exactly, which is what Iw as aiming for in the "Edit"

There is no scientific doubt evolution has happened. Its just the little nuances that are being quibbled over.

[officer2002]

Expelled Not Intelligence Allowed was a great movie.
It is dishonest to call Intelligent Design Creationism. (The Gods created the earth by the way). Darwin made reasonable conclusions based on the evidence available to him. But as time has progressed, scientists have made many discoveries.

These are some questions of followers of the religion of Darwinism.

Why do we not have the "missing link"? We now have a hundred plus years of fossils but transitional fossils are non-existent. I heard about the 1 feathered dinosaur recently found in China. Is that all? Has there been a clawed deer? A squirrel/bat? A sharp toothed and hoofed animal?

The cell and DNA have been found to be extremely more complex than believed at the time of Darwin. It takes great faith to believe that DNA could randomly happen because some chemicals randomly end up together in some muck. Have we reproduced DNA in a lab?

The religion of Darwin says that gradual small changes eventually resulted in our large variety of species. It takes great faith to believe that transitional animals could have somehow survived with beginnings of one new feature or remaining stubs of an old feature weighing them down. (Oops I could not think of a question to follow-up that point.)

People have been selectively breeding animals for years. Has any one selectively bred a scaled dog, furry bird, beakless mammalian styled mouth bird, etc?

The vast majority of mutations are harmful to survival. It takes great faith to believe that animals with harmful mutations survived to spread the good mutations. (Oops no question again.)


If I go to a doctor who gives me a pill, then tells me that it has not worked or been seen to work or reproduced in a lab but some one with a University Degree said it will work; I would fire that doctor.

We should see things evolving now if it happened in the past. Darwin witnessed and science proves natural selection but not species gaining or loosing chromosones, etc.

[LiamOS]

Expelled Not Intelligence Allowed was a great movie.

It got steadily worse as I sobered up, personally.

It is dishonest to call Intelligent Design Creationism.

Not really... Both posit an intelligent creative entity, and posit little more.

(The Gods created the earth by the way).

Oh right!

In my astronomy class, we were studying planetary formation, but I guess that's all wrong.
Now if you'd just go ahead and prove it...

Darwin made reasonable conclusions based on the evidence available to him. But as time has progressed, scientists have made many discoveries.

We now know that he was definitely right.

These are some questions of followers of the religion of Darwinism.

Not heard of that sect.

Why do we not have the "missing link"?

Because if we had it, it wouldn't be missing, eh?
Luckily, we have loads of links which are not missing!

We now have a hundred plus years of fossils but transitional fossils are non-existent.

I'm surprised you've missed all that.
Here you go.

I heard about the 1 feathered dinosaur recently found in China.

So did I.

Is that all? Has there been a clawed deer? A squirrel/bat? A sharp toothed and hoofed animal?

We once found a horse/man:

Please learn about evolution before attempting a strawman.

It takes great faith to believe that DNA could randomly happen because some chemicals randomly end up together in some muck.

Not really. It takes little faith to accept something based on evidence.

The religion of Darwin says that gradual small changes eventually resulted in our large variety of species. It takes great faith to believe that transitional animals could have somehow survived with beginnings of one new feature or remaining stubs of an old feature weighing them down.

Really? Everything seems to be doing very well!

People have been selectively breeding animals for years. Has any one selectively bred a scaled dog, furry bird, beakless mammalian styled mouth bird, etc?

Straw-man. Also, we've turned normal dogs into this:

And this:

The vast majority of mutations are harmful to survival.

No, the vast majority have no notable effect.
You're ever so slightly different from your parents, but this evidently hasn't killed you(yet).

It takes great faith to believe that animals with harmful mutations survived to spread the good mutations.

It would, if anybody believed that.

If I go to a doctor who gives me a pill, then tells me that it has not worked or been seen to work or reproduced in a lab but some one with a University Degree said it will work; I would fire that doctor.

Evolution in a lab.

We should see things evolving now if it happened in the past.

We do.

Darwin witnessed and science proves natural selection but not species gaining or loosing chromosones, etc.

Down Syndrome.
Of course, you'll just say that this would be detrimental, but what if it isn't even in very rare cases? You've got the beginnings of a new species there.

[Slopeshoulder]

A quick note to the OP.
I too am against creationism and ID in the schools (or in polite learned conversation).

But I want to offer the friendly advice that if in the future you take time to read about religion you will look beyond lightweight dumbells and clowns like Lee Strobel.

Maybe read some general books by Karen Armsrtong. They're a great place to build a foundation.