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?

[cnorman18]

I believe in God--I'm a Jew, as it happens--but I agree with you about Creationism. I consider the whole issue to be as dead as whether the Sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa (another question where the Bible was once said to have the last word). Resisting science on account of the Bible is 19th century silliness.

All that said--what movie are you talking about?

[XaWN]

Sorry, the name of the movie was the thread topic, I should've mentioned this. The movies is called: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." I'll go see it when it comes out.

Such claims are made as: "Scientists lose jobs for proposing creationism as a theory." Given the definition of "theory" I would have to say that the scientists didn't lose their job because they proposed creationism is a theory, but rather that they weren't particularly rigorous scientists.

[cnorman18]

Sorry, the name of the movie was the thread topic, I should've mentioned this. The movies is called: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." I'll go see it when it comes out.

Such claims are made as: "Scientists lose jobs for proposing creationism as a theory." Given the definition of "theory" I would have to say that the scientists didn't lose their job because they proposed creationism is a theory, but rather that they weren't particularly rigorous scientists.

Sounds about right. It reminds me of people who want to "debate" whether or not the Holocaust actually happened. They insist that it's just a "different opinion" and that people need to hear "both sides," but even those assertions are falsenoods. There are no opinions involved, only facts; and there are not two sides to either of these debates.

It's been said that asking a professional historian whether or not the Holocaust happened is akin to asking a professional astronomer whether or not there is a Moon. I would think that asking a professional paleontologist or zoologist or geologist or biologist or astrophysicist about Creationism is pretty much the same sort of thing.

If my doctor prescribed a trip to Benny Hinn's faith-healing show in lieu of medicine or other legitimate treatment, I'd fire him and then sue him.

Frankly, if I had a child who had his or her eye on a career in any of the fields listed above, and discovered that he or she was being taught Creationism in school, I would file suit against the school district. People can believe what they like, but no one has the right to pass off religion as science. It isn't, and wishing and praying and protesting won't make it so.

[XaWN]

Sounds about right. It reminds me of people who want to "debate" whether or not the Holocaust actually happened. They insist that it's just a "different opinion" and that people need to hear "both sides," but even those assertions are falsenoods. There are no opinions involved, only facts; and there are not two sides to either of these debates.

This is an important distinction that I think a lot of people miss. There was a recent [failed] attempt to get creationism into the classrooms of my old high school. I live about 15 miles away (call it a half hour drive). This is the same line of discussion I took when voicing my opinion with the school board.

Some religious parents would have their children hear "both sides" and make their own decision. But it isn't a decision to be made. There are a list of facts. If some parents would like their kids to never hear the word "evolution" that's fine. But after they hear the facts, they will want a name to put with topic. Rather than let everyone make up their own name, let's just call it "evolution."

Creationists have an agenda, they want science to match their book. Scientists have no such agenda. They want science to match the observable world. If it happens to match a book (whether it be a religious text, a children's fairy tale, or something else) that's simply coincidence.

CNorman18; you and I differ on a very serious point. I have, after a long time of careful consideration, decided that I lack a God belief, and have led my life since then with that knowledge. I recognize that you do have a belief in God. Why is it that we're able to communicate so intelligently? I thought atheists and theists were supposed to be violent enemies! (or so I was told by a malevolent woman in the school board meeting)

I'd like to submit that creationists don't only differ from the rest of the population in just their religious views (as evidenced by this exchange), but that there is something fundamentally different in the creationist's thought process. Take it for what it's worth plus a grain of salt.

There's no reason to implicitly discount creationism as a hypothesis, but until it stops relying on a religious text for it's only evidence (take that as a challenge creationists!) then it can probably be left to die alone in th bottom of a filing cabinet.

[Goat]

Sounds about right. It reminds me of people who want to "debate" whether or not the Holocaust actually happened. They insist that it's just a "different opinion" and that people need to hear "both sides," but even those assertions are falsenoods. There are no opinions involved, only facts; and there are not two sides to either of these debates.

This is an important distinction that I think a lot of people miss. There was a recent [failed] attempt to get creationism into the classrooms of my old high school. I live about 15 miles away (call it a half hour drive). This is the same line of discussion I took when voicing my opinion with the school board.

Some religious parents would have their children hear "both sides" and make their own decision. But it isn't a decision to be made. There are a list of facts. If some parents would like their kids to never hear the word "evolution" that's fine. But after they hear the facts, they will want a name to put with topic. Rather than let everyone make up their own name, let's just call it "evolution."

Creationists have an agenda, they want science to match their book. Scientists have no such agenda. They want science to match the observable world. If it happens to match a book (whether it be a religious text, a children's fairy tale, or something else) that's simply coincidence.

CNorman18; you and I differ on a very serious point. I have, after a long time of careful consideration, decided that I lack a God belief, and have led my life since then with that knowledge. I recognize that you do have a belief in God. Why is it that we're able to communicate so intelligently? I thought atheists and theists were supposed to be violent enemies! (or so I was told by a malevolent woman in the school board meeting)

I'd like to submit that creationists don't only differ from the rest of the population in just their religious views (as evidenced by this exchange), but that there is something fundamentally different in the creationist's thought process. Take it for what it's worth plus a grain of salt.

There's no reason to implicitly discount creationism as a hypothesis, but until it stops relying on a religious text for it's only evidence (take that as a challenge creationists!) then it can probably be left to die alone in th bottom of a filing cabinet.

By any chance, that wouldn't be Dover Pa?

I will say after looking at the website, my respect for Ben Stein went down drastically.

[cnorman18]

CNorman18; you and I differ on a very serious point. I have, after a long time of careful consideration, decided that I lack a God belief, and have led my life since then with that knowledge. I recognize that you do have a belief in God. Why is it that we're able to communicate so intelligently? I thought atheists and theists were supposed to be violent enemies! (or so I was told by a malevolent woman in the school board meeting)

It may be because, as a Jew, I don't think that what a person believes matters very much. We are much more interested in what people do.

There is a wide variety of styles of belief among (non-Orthodox) Jews, and we pretty much leave each other alone about it. Jews who become atheists--and it's never been uncommon--are not usually disowned by their families; they just have something new to argue about. Most still identify themselves as Jews.

As I've said before, Jews don't believe you have to be Jewish to go to Heaven, if there is one; we just don't think that that whole issue is very important. This life is our business; the next life, if any, is God's.

Plus, see below on "fear."

I'd like to submit that creationists don't only differ from the rest of the population in just their religious views (as evidenced by this exchange), but that there is something fundamentally different in the creationist's thought process. Take it for what it's worth plus a grain of salt.

I really have never thought about it very much, but now that you mention it, yes; there is something odd about that sort of thinking. My first guess--and it may only be because I wrote about it just last night on the thread about convincing Jews to become Christians--would be that it has something to do with fear.

If one thinks that "faith" is something one has to work at and guard carefully and keep reminding oneself that one has, then one will have to oppose anything (or anyone) that might induce doubt as a mortal enemy.

Some Christians seem to live in fear that someone, someday, will conclusively prove that God does not really exist; some even seem to think that evolution is such a proof. It must therefore be resisted, negated, and stamped out.

On the other hand, if one really believes in God, as deeply as one believes in one's own existence, one is afraid of no facts. What could prove, to me, that I don't exist? Hit me with your best shot. I don't think it will work.

The principle in Judaism is a very old one; if you see something in the Torah that you are certain is wrong, whether factually or in a moral sense, either you do not understand the Torah properly, or in that instance, the Torah is wrong. It is a very holy book, and to many or most Jews the literal Word of God; but that does not mean it overrules reality or common sense. God gave us functioning brains, too.

There's no reason to implicitly discount creationism as a hypothesis, but until it stops relying on a religious text for it's only evidence (take that as a challenge creationists!) then it can probably be left to die alone in th bottom of a filing cabinet.

I think young-earth creationism can be explicitly discarded, not just implicitly discounted. Period, full stop.

The fact there are, and must be, aspects or mechanisms of evolution that are not yet well understood (e.g., how structures that are useless until complete, like wings, could have evolved) does not mean that we have to invoke God's direct involvement. I just don't think that a book which is somewhere between 3,500 and 2,500 years old should be expected to give us a detailed scientific explanation of the Creation. For one thing, there was at that time no Hebrew word for "quark."

[XaWN]

By any chance, that wouldn't be Dover Pa?

No... Dover, NH.

The fact there are, and must be, aspects or mechanisms of evolution that are not yet well understood (e.g., how structures that are useless until complete, like wings, could have evolved) does not mean that we have to invoke God's direct involvement. I just don't think that a book which is somewhere between 3,500 and 2,500 years old should be expected to give us a detailed scientific explanation of the Creation. For one thing, there was at that time no Hebrew word for "quark."

I'm forced to agree, in part, with what you say here. I can see, at least in concept, how 3% of a wing is better than no wing at all. Especially for a tree-dwelling animal. With no wing, a fall from six feet will kill this hypothetical animal, but with 3% of a wing, perhaps it survives a fall from six feet and 2 inches.

Of course no one can claim to understand those mechanisms specifically, I only gave an example which is either over-simplified or possibly specious all together. In my "world view" (I call it that, since using the word "belief" opens me to attack from apologists... really, I consider myself to have a lack of belief) I recognize that I'm ignorant of a huge number of things, but I've never been proverbially handed something that was, by design, impossible to explain without theological intervention. I'd like to think that if that day came, my mind would be changed, not quickly, but definitely.

Which brings us back to the movie "Expelled." It's good to see that I'm not the only one that sees a problem here. I'd like to make a statement that completely sums up how I feel about the issue as a whole:

Evidence that contradicts Darwinian Evolution is not implicitly evidence in favor of intelligent design.

When did the origin of life become a dichotomy? Why are there two options. Isn't it more likely that part of Darwinian Evolution is wrong and that it needs revision. Or perhaps we just misunderstand it.

When Bohr discovered the properties of valence electrons he didn't just yell: "Rutherford's model is wrong, throw it out!" He revised the work, gave credit to the man who did it, and said: "Evidence claims that this new model is more accurate."

If Bohr applied Creationist methods to his work, he would have run from his lab shouting: "Rutherford was wrong! Atom nuclei are made of grape juice, protons are illusions caused by God, neutrons have tiny faces painted on them, and electrons reside in discrete energy layers around the nucleus of the atom which correspond to a specific quanta of energy that can be released only if the occupying electron changes its energy layer." Well, okay, fine... the part you actually discovered, perhaps, is credible, but those other claims are preposterous.

It really bothers me when a creationist really does find some reasonable evidence and relates it, implicitly, to something ridiculous. This reminds me of the UFO phenomenon. I find it intellectually sound to say: "there is a non-trivial phenomenon occurring on a global scale that relates directly to the reported sightings of UFOs." I think it is premature to say they are extraterrestrial, or that they are government test craft, or that they are all explainable through "every-day means." I make no claim to have special knowledge, I simply recognize that reputable human beings, some smarter and more rational than I, see things flying that they cannot explain. I will make the claim that a huge number of sightings are probably mundane misunderstandings. I also say (but do not claim): "well, it's not impossible that all sightings are simply mundane misunderstandings."

As such, I remain agnostic on the issue. I am curious to see the answer, but I cannot claim to have one myself. I also, with a certain level of confidence, discount people who specifically say they saw a spaceship from another world. If I ever saw a UFO, I may be inclined to say: "I'm 100% sure it was an alien spaceship." I hope that someone will keep me in line, and remind me that, in reality, I'm 100% sure I thought I saw an alien spaceship.

The reason I brought this up, is because creationists can be like UFO hunters. They dig very hard for a single piece of evidence that cannot be easily explained by current science, and they worship it as though it were some kind of "final proof." In a very bad documentary on the History Channel, I saw a hugely interesting photograph of a UFO. I would have accepted it as incredible support for the "Extraterrestrial origin" theory of UFOs, except that it presented by a man who then proceeded to point out the "anti-gravity field that is common to many UFOs" and then to show how part of the ship was "morphing" into a new shape.

Who can listen to that, and say: "Oh, of course!" It just isn't an intellectually rigorous position to take. Maybe it was an alien spaceship, maybe it was an anti-gravity field, and maybe it really was changing shape. But there is absolutely no way, whatsoever, that anyone could have gotten that specific knowledge from that single photograph. IMPOSSIBLE!

And while I'm ranting (I know I'm ranting), there's another thing that bugs me. When people say: "any thing's possible" as though it were an intellectually rigorous stance to take on some issue.

"Do you believe that the US government planned the 9/11 attacks?" "Any thing's possible!"

As though real-world possibility were some boolean value that could only be true or false. Of course a great many ridiculous things are possible, but no one gives thought to how wildly, wildly improbable they may be. If someone says there is a 1 in a trillion chance that the US government planned the 9/11 attacks, then there is some idiot that clings to that statistic as "there's a chance." But if you say: "a woman won the Powerball lottery five times in a row" that same person would probably say: "she must have cheated."

So, yes, anything is, indeed, possible in the strictest sense of the phrase. You cannot possibly discount any hypothesis if you allow presumption, supposition, and assertion into the argument.

I think young-earth creationism can be explicitly discarded, not just implicitly discounted. Period, full stop.

CNorman, you know I agree with you. I think that young-earth creationism (which is how I use the term creationism) can be fully discounted. But I maintain my stance that, assuming the appropriate evidence arises, I will completely accept that as the new, standing, theory. Please keep in mind that the evidence needed to prove young-earth creationism would, literally, have to be mind-blowing.

[cnorman18]

The fact there are, and must be, aspects or mechanisms of evolution that are not yet well understood (e.g., how structures that are useless until complete, like wings, could have evolved) does not mean that we have to invoke God's direct involvement. I just don't think that a book which is somewhere between 3,500 and 2,500 years old should be expected to give us a detailed scientific explanation of the Creation. For one thing, there was at that time no Hebrew word for "quark."

I'm forced to agree, in part, with what you say here. I can see, at least in concept, how 3% of a wing is better than no wing at all. Especially for a tree-dwelling animal. With no wing, a fall from six feet will kill this hypothetical animal, but with 3% of a wing, perhaps it survives a fall from six feet and 2 inches.

Of course no one can claim to understand those mechanisms specifically, I only gave an example which is either over-simplified or possibly specious all together. In my "world view" (I call it that, since using the word "belief" opens me to attack from apologists... really, I consider myself to have a lack of belief) I recognize that I'm ignorant of a huge number of things, but I've never been proverbially handed something that was, by design, impossible to explain without theological intervention. I'd like to think that if that day came, my mind would be changed, not quickly, but definitely.

I believe in God; but I also believe that if there were incontrovertible evidence or proof that God exists, we would have noticed it by now. I don't, of course, think that that is evidence that He doesn't exist; I believe that for reasons of His own, God doesn't wish to make Himself obvious.

I don't even think those reasons are all that hard to figure out. Jews, at least, believe that God intends humans to think for themselves with their own human minds and stand on their own human feet. Just as human parents want their children to grow up and become independent and capable adults as opposed to remaining totally dependent infants, so with God.

Consider what the world would be like if God had ever made His existence totally unambiguous and certain. No one would want to make a decision or try to learn anything any more! People would expect miraculous intervention in everything, and rightly so. They would spend their time in efforts to divine God's will and learn His wisdom through magical and supernatural means. Why try to understand Creation through science at all? Just ask God. Why develop the science of medicine? Just ask God to heal you. Why pick out which tie to wear in the morning? Ask God what His will is.

God knows--He really does--that we have enough of that kind of crap going on already.

Which brings us back to the movie "Expelled." It's good to see that I'm not the only one that sees a problem here. I'd like to make a statement that completely sums up how I feel about the issue as a whole:

Evidence that contradicts Darwinian Evolution is not implicitly evidence in favor of intelligent design.

True. Establishing that a given disease is not caused by microbes does not mean that it must be caused by evil spirits. Witch doctors do not have privileges at any hospital I know.

When did the origin of life become a dichotomy? Why are there two options. Isn't it more likely that part of Darwinian Evolution is wrong and that it needs revision. Or perhaps we just misunderstand it....

As above; the fact that there are things we don't know does not mean that we should fold our hands and find them in the Bible. It means we need to learn more.

...This reminds me of the UFO phenomenon. I find it intellectually sound to say: "there is a non-trivial phenomenon occurring on a global scale that relates directly to the reported sightings of UFOs." I think it is premature to say they are extraterrestrial, or that they are government test craft, or that they are all explainable through "every-day means." I make no claim to have special knowledge, I simply recognize that reputable human beings, some smarter and more rational than I, see things flying that they cannot explain. I will make the claim that a huge number of sightings are probably mundane misunderstandings. I also say (but do not claim): "well, it's not impossible that all sightings are simply mundane misunderstandings."

As such, I remain agnostic on the issue. I am curious to see the answer, but I cannot claim to have one myself. I also, with a certain level of confidence, discount people who specifically say they saw a spaceship from another world. If I ever saw a UFO, I may be inclined to say: "I'm 100% sure it was an alien spaceship." I hope that someone will keep me in line, and remind me that, in reality, I'm 100% sure I thought I saw an alien spaceship.

The reason I brought this up, is because creationists can be like UFO hunters. They dig very hard for a single piece of evidence that cannot be easily explained by current science, and they worship it as though it were some kind of "final proof."....

I feel exactly the same way, plus I'm not all that curious.

My father-in-law was an airline captain, and he saw UFOs pretty regularly. He and his fellow pilots didn't report such sightings; management would take them off flight status and put them through psych counseling and whatnot, and it was a huge PITA. I asked him once what he thought they were. He said, "Beats me, but I never saw any Martians."

....And while I'm ranting (I know I'm ranting), there's another thing that bugs me. When people say: "any thing's possible" as though it were an intellectually rigorous stance to take on some issue.

"Do you believe that the US government planned the 9/11 attacks?" "Any thing's possible!"

As though real-world possibility were some boolean value that could only be true or false. Of course a great many ridiculous things are possible, but no one gives thought to how wildly, wildly improbable they may be. If someone says there is a 1 in a trillion chance that the US government planned the 9/11 attacks, then there is some idiot that clings to that statistic as "there's a chance." But if you say: "a woman won the Powerball lottery five times in a row" that same person would probably say: "she must have cheated."

So, yes, anything is, indeed, possible in the strictest sense of the phrase. You cannot possibly discount any hypothesis if you allow presumption, supposition, and assertion into the argument.

The same sort of argument is used by Holocaust deniers. Their agenda is the abolition of history and the substitution of ideology. The same may be said for Creationists vis-a-vis science.

I think young-earth creationism can be explicitly discarded, not just implicitly discounted. Period, full stop.

CNorman, you know I agree with you. I think that young-earth creationism (which is how I use the term creationism) can be fully discounted. But I maintain my stance that, assuming the appropriate evidence arises, I will completely accept that as the new, standing, theory. Please keep in mind that the evidence needed to prove young-earth creationism would, literally, have to be mind-blowing.

It would have to be on the order of incontrovertible evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth, along with a solid scientific explanation of why all the evidence to date seems to have proven the opposite.

Tell you what: Let's make a pact that on the day that happens, we'll meet in Times Square at noon and watch the pigs go flying by.

[XaWN]

Tell you what: Let's make a pact that on the day that happens, we'll meet in Times Square at noon and watch the pigs go flying by.

I have many problems with this statement. Should it be discovered that the Sun revolves around the earth, I'll gladly meet in Times Square. However, I don't see the connection to flying pigs, much less the time of day. Were pigs to fly I'm not sure they would do so at noon, and I'm less convinced that they would fly over Times Square. I suspect they would be intercepted by the USAF in short order.

Oh, the absurdity...

Thank you for being a rational theist; you've restored by confidence in God-believers. The God you describe is safely outside the boundaries of the universe we share, and as such He does not effect the atheist. I dare say you may be a better person with Him in your life. This should be the only argument in favor of a deity, and a reasonable atheist will not argue against it. I might say: "I can be just a good without a God-belief as you can with one." But I will not tell a good person they can be better without their God, not without a decidedly good reason.

I know that my Grandmother (a good person) can be better without her God; but, alas, she is catholic and quite incapable of being anything else. If there is a catholic heaven, I imagine that she will be very lonely. If there is a catholic hell (I sometimes wonder which hell I will go to if indeed there is a hell) I'm sure I will be in good company. Well, shoot... if there's a catholic hell, I'll see you there CNorman.

Oh, theology! It's the only place where a disobedient servant (Lucifer) takes all the other disobedient servants (sinners) and tortures them for rejecting the same deity he originally rejected. Talk about a double standard! I suspect that if there is a hell it will be luxurious. Everything that Saint Thomas denied will be there. No shortage of alcohol, of course; plenty of sex (in any manner you choose); and copious amounts of friendly atheists. At the risk of sounding vulgar, I'm sure there will be no oral sex in heaven; you'll have to go to hell for that.

Funny how Christian hell is more tolerant than Christian heaven (or Christians themselves, for that matter).

I'm almost disappointed that I don't believe in hell.

I know Jews do not believe in hell. I recognize your exemption.