Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed

  • Thread starter Zarathustra
  • Start date
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#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:

Ben Stein’s "Expelled" is one of the more evenhanded, clever, and well-produced documentaries currently on the market.
is followed a few paragraphs later by this:

In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.
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.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#3
loaded_not_ready said:
I think ID is mystical religious bunkum, just as all religion is mystical bunkum.
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
crow_bag said:
loaded_not_ready said:
I think ID is mystical religious bunkum, just as all religion is mystical bunkum.
So do i, but would that give me the right to refuse to publish an article on ID in a scientific journal?
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?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
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




















 
#12
loaded_not_ready said:
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.
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.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#13
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
 
#16
It is quite difficult to criticize Science because science is a method. As such what is scientific fact changes over time. The problem with proponents of intelligent design is they fail to understand the scientific method.

Science proposes a theory, then tests it out rigourously. It might not be the answer but it is the best answer until someone comes out with another theory and is able to demonstrate that this later theory is supported by evidence.

Thus far, the ID crowd comes across as a bunch of loonies whose theories ultimately center round a book that they say is the fountain of all truth. It is just chrisitan fundamentalism packaged to look like science.

edit: as well, re how creationism must be the best theory because things are too complex and improbable, I am not sure I agree. It has been explained to me before that one way of looking at it is to conduct a simple exercise. Take a coin, toss it in the air and then record if it lands head or tails up. Do that 1000 times. The probability of anyone else getting the exact same sequence must be minute. Yet, that does not mean the sequence cannot happen.
 
#18
Scabster_Mooch said:
It is quite difficult to criticize Science because science is a method. As such what is scientific fact changes over time..
Facts don't change. The theory to explain the facts does change and evolve. Darwin first proposed the Theory of Evolution 190 years ago. Since then thousands of man years of work have gone into finding more facts and developing the theory. So far nothing has shown the ToE to be wrong.
Scabster_Mooch said:
The problem with proponents of intelligent design is they fail to understand the scientific method. .
They understand it but it threatens their religion. The more that science explains the natural world the less there is for a god to be necessary to explain. You'll often hear the term god of the gaps used now and those gaps are getting smaller and smaller.
Scabster_Mooch said:
edit: as well, re how creationism must be the best theory because things are too complex and improbable, I am not sure I agree. It has been explained to me before that one way of looking at it is to conduct a simple exercise. Take a coin, toss it in the air and then record if it lands head or tails up. Do that 1000 times. The probability of anyone else getting the exact same sequence must be minute. Yet, that does not mean the sequence cannot happen.
But thats not what happens with evolution. The natural world can change to favour small differences between creatures of the same species. Those creatures will survive and breed, the rest may not. So those that survive because of a minor difference continue to breed until that species has evolved into something different to the original, and so it goes on over millions of years.
To suggest that the world and humans are too complex to have evolved and must have been designed is ludicrous. How would you go about designing something both as complex as the human body and as poorly designed? Are knees a good design? How about human eyes with their blind spot? Squid eyes are so much better and in fact there is evidence that the eye has evolved in 12 different ways across all of the worlds creatures.
The final nail in the coffin (for me) is that saying everything was created because its too complex begs one huge question. Who created the creator?

Oh and if anyone was offended by my cartoons the I'm sorry but laughter is the best detergent for nonsense.
 
#19
jew_unit said:
Seen it before. Its all balls. 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.

Actually in the fossil record there is a tremendous explosion of life in the beginning of the Cambrian Era,almost as if someone was trying every possible format before settling on the ones that worked best.
Dont get me wrong I think ID is bollox,but its nice to get the facts right
 
#20
salforddude said:
Actually in the fossil record there is a tremendous explosion of life in the beginning of the Cambrian Era,almost as if someone was trying every possible format before settling on the ones that worked best.
Wiki has a decent summary on the Cambrian for those not of a scientific bent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Someone wasn't trying them out, they were evolving and those which failed to adapt or were beaten by those that adapted better went extinct. 98% of the worlds life forms are extinct, piss poor designer. :twisted:

Incidentally the thread is about the film Expelled which claims that scientists who don't believe in 'darwin' (talk about projection!) have been expelled from work, denied tenure etc. Unfortunately there is no evidence to back the assertions up. Go figure as our American chums would say.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top