Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[battery chucka' one]

First things first, yes, I know this is a post about a movie. The reason I'm posting it here is because it no doubt will erupt into a theological debate of sorts (sup MTLR?). Therefore, it's better to have in this forum.

Saw this movie yesterday. Very well made, imo. Not so much about intelligent design and its legitimacy as much as it's about freedom of speech. The cartoon with Richard Dawkins and the 250 slot machines was perhaps a bit uncalled for. My favorite interview was the one with the scientist (don't remember his name) who thinks that the first cells were formed on the 'backs of crystals'. He reminded me a bit of the guy in office space who 'is a people person'. Not very believable, however, in his argumentation.

[BSmack]

I predict Ben Stein will have the same level of success changing minds with his "documentary" that Michael Moore has had with his films.

[battery chucka' one]

To be honest, I don't think Stein was trying to change any minds. Rather, I think it was more to point out that professors and the like aren't allowed to even question evolution or mention ID as a possible alternative.

Dawkins did say that, though it was inconceivable that there might be a god, he was open to the idea that our planet was seeded by an alien race. That was rather amusing.

[BSmack]

Shocking that pseudoscience is frowned upon in academic institutions. Just shocking.

[Felix]

Of course he wasn't. He was trying to fleece ignorant rubes like you.

apparently it worked

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I've known about this movie for months.

And I've given precisely all the attention it deserves.

It is getting panned left and right (even Fox panned it).

According to the box office receipts, moviegoers agree.

Anyone who wants to read a series of articles that go into FAR more detail about the claptrap being promoted by the guy best known for "Bueller, Bueller?", Visine ads, and a really bad game show, go here: feed://pandasthumb.org/atom.xml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Michael Shermer has a great take on the movie here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sci ... s-expelled" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The movie will go to DVD and will become a staple in thumper bookstores.

[battery chucka' one]

Hey Mike. I read that Michael Shermer post and found it to be rather lacking for information. The six things article was a little more accurate. I believe that I found two to be somewhat accurate. I don't think that Stein said that evolutionary theory led to nazism (in fact, he did a good job in prefacing the argument so as not to state that.) What he said was that Nazis DID use Darwinism and eugenics in their desire to create a 'master race'. Also, he did state that quote by Darwin.

I don't know why you mention thumpers. Yes, it does appeal to people who are of the Faith, but the movie isn't Christian. Stein isn't Christian. He's Jewish. I might be wrong, but I believe that creationism was espoused as a belief, without recompense, by such scientific heavyweights as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and, I believe, Darwin himself.

In your opinion, Mike, do you feel that science in this day and age allows for the introduction of a designer into the mix? I know that you say that it isn't testable. However, neither is macro-evolution, correct? Also, should a scientist allow for some manner of origin outside of Darwin, is that allowed in academia? Would such a researcher be in danger of losing funding and being ostracized in the community?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I don't think that Stein said that evolutionary theory led to nazism (in fact, he did a good job in prefacing the argument so as not to state that.) What he said was that Nazis DID use Darwinism and eugenics in their desire to create a 'master race'. Also, he did state that quote by Darwin.

There was absolutely no reason for Stein to mention Nazism at all. Nazism has no bearing on evolutionary theory, and the fact that Hitler and his ilk completely misused and twisted a scientific theory in no way invalidates any component of that theory. Just because people (including clergy) misused the Bible to defend slavery didn't mean that the Bible should be condemned. Stein put that bit in there for the same reason he put all the other stuff about fascist governments in there - to make ridiculous hyperbolic claims about the alleged negative impact of Darwin on society.

I don't know why you mention thumpers. Yes, it does appeal to people who are of the Faith, but the movie isn't Christian.

Bullshit. The movie has been directly marketed to Christian schools - that's who got to see the "invite-only preview screenings and that is PRECISELY the group that this movie is aimed at.

Stein isn't Christian. He's Jewish. I might be wrong, but I believe that creationism was espoused as a belief, without recompense, by such scientific heavyweights as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and, I believe, Darwin himself.

Yeah, but then you see, actual scientific evidence came in AFTER those men's times. Only the most credulous individual would believe that Newton, Galileo, et al. would still cling to creationism given the scientific evidence accumulated that supports an ancient Earth (which, btw, Darwin was a believer in PRIOR to "On the Origin of Species") and natural selection/evolution.

In your opinion, Mike, do you feel that science in this day and age allows for the introduction of a designer into the mix?

A supernatural designer? In science? Absolutely freaking not. That violates the primary DEFINITION of science.

Is it possible to reconcile belief in a supernatural creator/designer and naturalistic science? Sure. But that's religion.

I know that you say that it isn't testable. However, neither is macro-evolution, correct?

Incorrect. Macroevolution is most definitely testable and has been very strongly supported by fossil evidence, molecular evidence, etc. Now that school is back in session after the spring break, I don't have time to hash out yet another "Evolutionary Primer" on this board, so go to TalkOrigins.com to educate yourself.

Also, should a scientist allow for some manner of origin outside of Darwin, is that allowed in academia? Would such a researcher be in danger of losing funding and being ostracized in the community?

Contrary to Stein and his pack of liars, people are not being drummed out of academia for doubting Darwin. Lynn Marguelis (sp?) herself argues quite convincingly that Darwinian natural selection cannot in and of itself explain speciation (I agree with her). Natural selection is just one mechanism. I believe that if you go to the Panda's Thumb website, there is a section on the feed page that lists common misconceptions about evolution and that specifically discusses how/why Darwinian natural selection is not the only evolutionary force.

[battery chucka' one]

1. your panda thumb link didn't work. Please re-post and I'll gladly check it out.

2. As per macroevolution, are you referring to Lucy and her hip bone?

3. Did you watch the movie?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

1. your panda thumb link didn't work. Please re-post and I'll gladly check it out.

The link was for an RSS feed, and some folks' browsers don't like the direct link.

Try this one: http://www.pandasthumb.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. As per macroevolution, are you referring to Lucy and her hip bone?

Nope. I was thinking sticklebacks. If you do a quick google search for "macroevolution" and "examples," you'll find plenty of folks who are more erudite and more eloquent than me on the subject.

3. Did you watch the movie?

No, western NY is not the locale for any of the 1, 052 theaters "blessed" to be showing the flick. Toss in the fact that I have absolutely no intention of giving one dime to Stein and his schlock.

[Dinsdale]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[battery chucka' one]

What he said was that Nazis DID use Darwinism and eugenics in their desire to create a 'master race'.

Actually the Nazi were more inspired by the American eugenics program than Darwin. They were greatly impressed with the work we were doing.

Darwinism led to eugenics led to Nazism. If I were you, this is the time when I'd call you a half-wit (or worse) and spit on your carcass. However, I think I shall pray for you instead. Yeah, that'll work. Love ya', bro'.

[battery chucka' one]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins

So, is it still considered a jaunt when there is no receiving unit (ie, a destination to where the traveler goes) and entry into the portal sends us into the internet cosmos?

[battery chucka' one]

Darwinism led to eugenics led to Nazism.

Guess again, you shiteating dumbfuck.

Christians don't do that whole guessing thing. We live by Faith founded upon experience and knowledge. Now, I shall pray that your turrets syndrome goes away. Love ya', MVScal.

[battery chucka' one]

We live by Faith founded upon experience and knowledge.

Experience and knowledge are the antithesis of Faith. Of course, if you weren't too busy gorging on shit, you might understand the contradictions inherent in your psychological pathology.

And you are wrong again. Faith isn't always blind (in fact, from my experience, more often than not, it's not). Experience and knowledge will get us to the gorge, but they don't make us fly off the edge. They will give us evidence (sometimes overwhelming) that God will catch us, but the proof comes from us actually taking the leap ourselves. I love you and pray that God will give you that evidence and that you will be smart enough to identify it as God and be saved. You can do it right now. If you're not scared.

[Dinsdale]

Darwinism led to eugenics led to Nazism.

Guess again, you shiteating dumbfuck. The notions of racial superiority predate Darwin by several millenia at the very least.

Spartans engaed in eugenics. Maybe my history is a little fuzzy, but I believe the Spartans predated Charles Darwin.

Matter of fact,I believe people bred the biggest baddest bull with the more prolific milk-producing cows going back a little farther than Darwin, as well.

So much for the Darwin = Hitler theory.

It's really pathetic the length the thumpers will go to with their ridiculous notions and flat-out lies to try and discredit anyone who disagrees with their "faith."

Darwin = Natural Selection

Eugenics = Unnatural selection

[Tom In VA]

Darwin = Natural Selection

Eugenics = Unnatural selection

Excellent distinction, IMO.

[Dinsdale]

Darwin = Natural Selection

Eugenics = Unnatural selection

Excellent distinction, IMO.

Give credit to Richard Dawkins. Little bit of a nut, but very smart dude.

[battery chucka' one]

Darwinism led to eugenics led to Nazism.

Guess again, you shiteating dumbfuck. The notions of racial superiority predate Darwin by several millenia at the very least.

Spartans engaed in eugenics. Maybe my history is a little fuzzy, but I believe the Spartans predated Charles Darwin.

Matter of fact,I believe people bred the biggest baddest bull with the more prolific milk-producing cows going back a little farther than Darwin, as well.

So much for the Darwin = Hitler theory.

It's really pathetic the length the thumpers will go to with their ridiculous notions and flat-out lies to try and discredit anyone who disagrees with their "faith."

Darwin = Natural Selection

Eugenics = Unnatural selection

So, what you're saying is that there is no way that the eugenics crowd that gave us nazism ever could have hopped on the back of Darwin's findings? You say that there is no way that they said that eugenics was 'nature's way'? Are you really this naive? You see, son, this is why we usually ask you to sit out of serious discussions. They're way over your head. We'll give you one more chance. If you continue to blather childish misconceptions, then we will have to ask you to hold your tongue until the adults are done. Again, we will give you one more chance, kid.

btw, of course eugenics isn't natural.

[battery chucka' one]

Just re-read your post, son. I take back what I said. You implied that creationists (and those in the movie) said that Darwinism=Nazism. Nobody said that. Therefore, just be quiet until the adults are done speaking. You have nothing to bring to the table. You forfeited your 'adult' privileges. Be quiet and we will let you know when you can talk. Thanks in advance.

[Dinsdale]

So, what you're saying is that there is no way that the eugenics crowd that gave us nazism ever could have hopped on the back of Darwin's findings? You say that there is no way that they said that eugenics was 'nature's way'? Are you really this naive?

You...

citing someone else as not being open to at least the possibility of things maybe not being the way they think them to be?


That's truly a priceless post.


BTW -- We don't really know much about the role The Origin of Species played in the decision-making in the Nazi-eugenics crowd. We do however know the role another popular book played in teir policies, and this one's role is of historical record, and isn't subject to wild speculation.


The book relied on most by the Nazi eugenicists was the Holy Bible.


You might want to give up on your current line of reasoning right around yesterday. You're fucking clowning.

[battery chucka' one]

So, what you're saying is that there is no way that the eugenics crowd that gave us nazism ever could have hopped on the back of Darwin's findings? You say that there is no way that they said that eugenics was 'nature's way'? Are you really this naive?

You...

citing someone else as not being open to at least the possibility of things maybe not being the way they think them to be?


That's truly a priceless post.


BTW -- We don't really know much about the role The Origin of Species played in the decision-making in the Nazi-eugenics crowd. We do however know the role another popular book played in teir policies, and this one's role is of historical record, and isn't subject to wild speculation.


The book relied on most by the Nazi eugenicists was the Holy Bible.


You might want to give up on your current line of reasoning right around yesterday. You're fucking clowning.

Son, I know that the Nazis were big fans of skewed Biblical interpretations. Perhaps you could go ahead and cite some examples for everybody here as to your assertion that Holy Bible=Nazism. They also loved Nostradamus. However, I don't think that they enacted the whole 'master race' thing based upon anything more than selective breeding (which they also masqueraded as being the 'will of nature'). Now, son, unless you can provide some links that work, I think you should be done with this discussion. Thanks much.

[Dinsdale]

Just re-read your post, son. I take back what I said. You implied that creationists (and those in the movie) said that Darwinism=Nazism. Nobody said that. Therefore, just be quiet until the adults are done speaking. You have nothing to bring to the table. You forfeited your 'adult' privileges. Be quiet and we will let you know when you can talk. Thanks in advance.

Gee, BCO, is that how you'd like people to adress you --with such a condescending tone?



Something about Matthew 7:12 or something. And a bunch of others.


Damn, you really suck at this christianity thing.

[BSmack]

Son, I know that the Nazis were big fans of skewed Biblical interpretations. Perhaps you could go ahead and cite some examples for everybody here as to your assertion that Holy Bible=Nazism. They also loved Nostradamus. However, I don't think that they enacted the whole 'master race' thing based upon anything more than selective breeding (which they also masqueraded as being the 'will of nature').

Selective breeding had been used by farmers for thousands of years before the Nazis. Are you seriously trying to say that Darwin somehow inspired the Nazis to totally misunderstand the concept of selective breeding by pointing out something that was patently obvious to even simple peasant farmers?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

On the one hand you write this:

Darwinism led to eugenics led to Nazism.

(which, as Dins, mvscal, and Bri have pointed out, is factually inaccurate for MANY reasons)

And then you have the laughable gall to write this:

Son, I know that the Nazis were big fans of skewed Biblical interpretations. Perhaps you could go ahead and cite some examples for everybody here as to your assertion that Holy Bible=Nazism. They also loved Nostradamus. However, I don't think that they enacted the whole 'master race' thing based upon anything more than selective breeding (which they also masqueraded as being the 'will of nature').

Just as the Nazi's were "big fans of Biblical interpretations," they were also big fans of skewed SCIENTIFIC interpretations.

They twisted BOTH the Bible and Darwin to suit their purposes. You, however, choose to only blame ONE of those skewed sources for Nazism.

You're so ready to condemn Darwin that the inconsistancy of your own arguments has completely escaped you.

[battery chucka' one]

On the one hand you write this:

Darwinism led to eugenics led to Nazism.

(which, as Dins, mvscal, and Bri have pointed out, is factually inaccurate for MANY reasons)

And then you have the laughable gall to write this:

Son, I know that the Nazis were big fans of skewed Biblical interpretations. Perhaps you could go ahead and cite some examples for everybody here as to your assertion that Holy Bible=Nazism. They also loved Nostradamus. However, I don't think that they enacted the whole 'master race' thing based upon anything more than selective breeding (which they also masqueraded as being the 'will of nature').

Just as the Nazi's were "big fans of Biblical interpretations," they were also big fans of skewed SCIENTIFIC interpretations.

They twisted BOTH the Bible and Darwin to suit their purposes. You, however, choose to only blame ONE of those skewed sources for Nazism.

You're so ready to condemn Darwin that the inconsistancy of your own arguments has completely escaped you.

1. I condemn nothing. Darwinists can do what Darwinists want to do. I was pointing out (originally) that the movie even said (and I agree) that Darwinism DOESN'T lead to Nazism. Are you having a problem with that?

2. Are you trying to tell me that you think the Nazis would have performed Eugenic experiments (with their scientists) under the guise of 'science' if they didn't have Darwinism to use as a springboard? Darwinism didn't lead to Nazism. However, in the form it took with Hitler's 'master race' desires, Nazism DID lead back to Darwinism. Yes, many other good things point back to Darwinism, but Nazism is a bad one that points back to it. Are you so incapable of accepting this?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Darwinism didn't lead to Nazism. However, in the form it took with Hitler's 'master race' desires, Nazism DID lead back to Darwinism. Yes, many other good things point back to Darwinism, but Nazism is a bad one that points back to it. Are you so incapable of accepting this?

Incapable of accepting utter claptrap?

There was absolutely NO legitimate point in mentioning Nazism AT ALL is a movie about Darwin. Period.

Whether of not Hitler and his band of freaks tried legitimizing their warped views by twisting Darwin's ideas is utterly beside the point. Hitler's misuse of science in no way diminishes the scientific validity of that science. It just means that Hitler was a sick SOB who was willing to twist anything - Scripture or science- to legitimize his evil.

The ONLY reason Stein decided to mention Nazism was to have viewers link Nazism and Darwin in their minds. For Stein to claim that he wasn't trying to say that Darwinism led to Nazism is disingenuous, and for you to parrot Stein's lie makes you credulous.

Once again - if Stein HONESTLY wanted viewers to not think that Darwin's theories led to Nazism, then he wouldn't have bothered to mention them. But, he's a lying sack of shit with a dishonest agenda.

[Dinsdale]

History has been much too kind to one Benjamin Franklin.

Without his contributions to the advancement of electrical conductors, it's possible the Industrial Revolution would never have taken shape the way it did. And if it didn't take shape the way it did, the Nazi war machine may well never have been built.

In fact, Nazism led back to Benjamin Franklin.


Fun game, BCO... the possibilities are endless here. Just wait until I blame mvscal for wheat beer.

[Dinsdale]

Ya'know who else is inarguably linked to Nazism?


Pythagoras and Archimedes.


Pray for them.

[Dr_Phibes]

not really uncommon though, a jew suffering from a holocaust fixation and adapting it as a defence mechanism.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Richard Dawkins very nicely deals with some of what we're discussing in this very thread in the following link:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[battery chucka' one]

Richard Dawkins very nicely deals with some of what we're discussing in this very thread in the following link:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fascinating, in a rather interesting way. These are my favorite parts.

Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).

6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.

7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Read over the parts I've bolded and actually think about it for a bit, Mike. I have full faith in your ability to think for yourself. Don't let your 'faith' in evolution cloud that God given ability.

[Dinsdale]

Richard Dawkins very nicely deals with some of what we're discussing in this very thread in the following link:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really?


Sin,

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins

[battery chucka' one]

Richard Dawkins very nicely deals with some of what we're discussing in this very thread in the following link:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really?


Sin,

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins

You see, son, unlike your link, his actually worked.

[Felix]

Read over the parts I've bolded and actually think about it for a bit, Mike. I have full faith in your ability to think for yourself. Don't let your 'faith' in evolution cloud that God given ability.

here's an idea..why not offer up an opinion/argument on the problems you have with the parts you've bolded instead of making it a guessing game

TIA

[Dinsdale]

It's the exact same link to the exact same page, dipshit.


Just like your views on religion and the overall big pictuire, the problem, despite what you might think, is on your end, not with everyone else on the planet.

But this thread has served as a funny microcosm of your life as a moron... right down to the title.

[Felix]

Of course that won't prevent him from yet another tedious attempt at appearing "folksy and wise" by calling you son just as he steps on a rake.

^^^^ I laffed

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Richard Dawkins very nicely deals with some of what we're discussing in this very thread in the following link:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really?


Sin,

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488, ... rd-Dawkins

Sorry, but when an entire post consists merely of a hyperlink without any context or intro, it's just scroll-wheel roadkill.

[Dinsdale]

I'm not silent very often. When I am, it's generally self explanatory -- it implied that Richard Dawkins very nicely deals with some of what we're discussing in this very thread in the following link.

[Tom In VA]

The URL itself lend itself to providing context, "Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins"

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins