Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Zarathustra, Apr 7, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I saw this posted on another forum i frequent and was wonderring what my fellow Arrsers think.

    Follow this link and click on the Super Trailor link.Expelled - No intelligence allowed

    For people who can't watch the trailor here's a very brief and not very good synopsis:

    It's a trailor for a film by a man called Ben Stein and is about scientists who claim to have found proof of Intelligent Design, but were persecuted by there fellow scientist, academic institutions, the government etc. There's more info and link on the webpage.

    This thread is not intended to start a religous debate, merely to hear other peoples opinions on the matter, especially any of the Yanks about as this is probabaly somthing that will effect them more than people in the UK.

    Personally i believe from what i've seen and read on the site that there is probably alot more to this than meets the eye. You can't be a very good scientist if you completely rule out another scientist work simply because it differs from normal opinion I.E. believing in ID instead of evolution.

    Although i'm still not sure without seeing the whole thing, although this quote (taken fromHere:

    is followed a few paragraphs later by this:

    Make me suspect this might just be some sensationalist balls made to appeal to the deeply christian parts of American society.

    What do you think?
     
  2. I think ID is mystical religious bunkum, just as all religion is mystical bunkum.
     
  3. So do i, but would that give me the right to refuse to publish an article on ID in a scientific journal?
     
  4. Seen it before. Its all bollocks. Sorry to disappoint.There is no evidence for intelligent design possible. YOu would require a complete fossil record which is suddenly begins at a particular point. Plenty of geological and fossil evidence goes some way to disproving this.

    Two years ago scientist from Harvard ran a controlled experiment to test evolution. They found a lizard which can exist in two forms, with either long or short legs. Those with long legs exist on the ground well as they can run. Those with short legs climbed trees better. They were in balance as there were two forms of predator, one on the ground and one in the trees. The experimenters then first removed the ground predator. Within a year, almost all the lizards surviving had long legs as this was the area free of predation. They then reintroduced this predator whilst removing the one in the trees. Roughly one year later, almost all the surviving lizards had short legs and lived in the trees. Ergo, strong evidence for Darwin's theory of natural selection. (I'll try to locate the write up for you. A comment without evidence, as mine currently stands, isn't science either.)
    A controlled experiment like this is better than "finding evidence" for something. This is why the global warming debate comes up. Neither side can perform a controlled experiment, no neither can strictly prove anything.

    Sorry mate, but it is sensatonalist balls. The nazi connection is laughable, cheers for pointing that out.
     
  5. I D is not science .Its stringing words together to prove god exsists.

    Listen you inbred fcukwits Your bible says god is about faith and belief you cant prove it with science neither can you disprove it .
    Science is about facts
    Religion is about faith
     
  6. There is no 'right' to have something published or not. Having something published in a scientific journal would require the piece to have scientific merit.

    This is just more of the typical US evangelical response: make unsubstatiated claim; ask for money; claim to be oppressed when people point and laugh; ask for money; link atheism to Nazism; ask for money.
     
  7. Journals work by a process of peer review (mostly) whereby they give submissions to other scientists to see if they are worth publishing. Whilst this process is open to abuse, it normally works well. They don;t just publish any old crap that comes through the mail.

    Besides, wouldn't the largely christian US govt welcome evidnce of ID if it was valid?
     
  8. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    I have faith in science. Science tells me the world is round, and faith told me it was flat. Science proved it, whilst faith tried to burn anybody who disagreed.
     
  9. With you there Biped. I read The God Delusion in The Stan last year. But to answer your question c_b, I believe in the right to free speech, so whereas I don't agree with the idea of ID, its proponents have the right to publish their views and ideas.
     
  10. science looks at evidence then tries to make a theory to fit the observed facts

    design for inbred southern fuckwits (id for short)
    takes usually the king james version of the bible so a translation of an ancient Hebrew manuscript which is a copy of more ancient creation stories
    then tries to put a theory to a load of mumbo jumbo
    no real scientist believes this fuckwit theory is even science everyone knows the true creator is http://www.venganza.org/
     
  11. Which they are free to do, but not in this particular Journal since the editorial staff have concluded it lacks merit. Of course they are free to publish it in a Journal which will accept it or even produce one of their own.

    Crow_Bag seems to have got his wish though....not much debate to be seen here.
     
  12. The main thing that got me about the site was the obvious atheisim = genocide bit.

    I'm suprised that we haven't had anyone argueing the toss for ID just for the sake of an argument