Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (ID propaganda)

[A Confused Iguana]

I'll be controversial. This is not about the evidence and lack thereof. Intelligent Design is being pushed because of reasons other than its scientific basis, we all agree that the scientific basis is very weak. If Intelligent Design is being pushed for reasons other than science what do we hope to achieve by pointing out how it has no scientific evidence and slapping ourselves on the back? There are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. We say that ID is not science but why does science have these restrictions? To the non-scientist this demand for testings may make little sense; hence, we need to explain why these "shackles" are in place. We also need to be careful about the human aspect. If ID is being pushed for religious reasons then insulting or demeaning people supporting ID is only going to make them more hostile toward the idea of science via methodological naturalism.

[Shokushu]

A Confused Iguana

I'll be controversial. This is not about the evidence and lack thereof. Intelligent Design is being pushed because of reasons other than its scientific basis, we all agree that the scientific basis is very weak. If Intelligent Design is being pushed for reasons other than science what do we hope to achieve by pointing out how it has no scientific evidence and slapping ourselves on the back? There are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. We say that ID is not science but why does science have these restrictions? To the non-scientist this demand for testings may make little sense; hence, we need to explain why these "shackles" are in place. We also need to be careful about the human aspect. If ID is being pushed for religious reasons then insulting or demeaning people supporting ID is only going to make them more hostile toward the idea of science via methodological naturalism.

The reason ID is the target of so many insults today is because everything reasonable has already been said. People aren't interested in repeating themselves until the slowest people finally pay attention long enough to hear it.

The people who are actively trying to get this stuff into schools do not care about why science is the way it is, they only care that it says things counter to their beliefs and they want to counteract that by undermining it. They've repeatedly lost court battles over whether or not it's constitutional to even have this material presented alongside evolution but they do not care about the reasons that we decide it to not be.

But more powerful is the understanding that they have to have in the first place to be attempting to get around regulations they way they are. But it's never been as if they were uninformed- several key figures have gone through higher education in science fields yet they still fight for this agenda.


The way we respond to this stuff doesn't help when we run in to someone who really just hadn't heard about this yet but those people are pretty rare and in order to have not heard these arguments sooner they couldn't possibly have been active about this so we don't really need to concern ourselves with them.

[Avian Azure]

I saw that movie, just for the sake of seeing it... It's ridiculous. You think they'd at least try to propose some evidence supporting ID, but the closest they get is a nifty cell animation (with commentary saying something about how complicated it is, it must have been intelligently designed) and some other animation about how improbable evolution is (never mind the fact that with billions of years and billions of molecules acting randomly, cells were bound to form eventually). rolleyes

[Smutterfly]

You know, how else do you think they could have gotten what they got? What you are suggesting is that they would have said something else if they had known it was about the discrimination against ID supporters. So they would have been dishonest?
The fact that they didn't know what the movie was called or what it was about doesn't excuse their circular reasoning or stereotypical prejudices.

The point of the movie is that a few decades ago, the issue was flipped completely: Darwinists were treated this way. It's meant to show that neither side can say, without a doubt, "We are correct!!!" and that they should admit that...it's also meant to scold the evolutionists for treating the ID supporters the way they were once treated. The outry from the evolutionists used to be, "Don't discriminate against us, everyone has a right to think and research our own theories!" Now it's, "Everyone has the right to that, but we're going to ostracize you if you don't agree with us."

As an evolutionist, I'm ashamed of the Universities firing people for touting ID concepts. One man didn't even believe in ID, he just used questions supporting it to push his students minds further. How is that fair?

The movie was, to some degree, propaganda, but so are a lot of movies. Micheal Moore's movies encourage his audience to think his way, and while I think he's kind of a douche, he's a gifted film maker and he DOES report the facts. He connects them together kind of weird, but they ARE facts.
Expelled is the same way. So they said it was for a more ecumenical movie when they interviewed the evolutionists. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE AFFECTED THEIR ANSWERS. The ones who are complaining about that are the ones who would have lied or declined interviews altogether. At least Ben Stein got some honesty out of them first.

[Smutterfly]

RedHawk364

I saw that movie, just for the sake of seeing it... It's ridiculous. You think they'd at least try to propose some evidence supporting ID, but the closest they get is a nifty cell animation (with commentary saying something about how complicated it is, it must have been intelligently designed) and some other animation about how improbable evolution is (never mind the fact that with billions of years and billions of molecules acting randomly, cells were bound to form eventually). rolleyes

The movie wasn't meant to convert you to ID, it was meant to show the discrimination against ID supporters. Ben Stein doesn't give a flying crap what you believe. He just wants you to be fair about it.

[Smutterfly]

Why don't people GET it? EVOLUTION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

How do you know that "God" (or whatever deity you worship) didn't say, "Let there be evolution!" Just because the Bible doesn't talk about it? Maybe he didn't feel like telling anyone.

In the words of the great Piers Anthony: "God created the universe, and Satan caused it to evolve."

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

Smutterfly

The movie wasn't meant to convert you to ID, it was meant to show the discrimination against ID supporters. Ben Stein doesn't give a flying crap what you believe. He just wants you to be fair about it.

But it failed at that. None of the "victims" of the supposed persecution were actually fired for believing in ID. They were fired for reasons any teacher or professor would.

[Avian Azure]

Smutterfly

Why don't people GET it? EVOLUTION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

How do you know that "God" (or whatever deity you worship) didn't say, "Let there be evolution!" Just because the Bible doesn't talk about it? Maybe he didn't feel like telling anyone.

In the words of the great Piers Anthony: "God created the universe, and Satan caused it to evolve."

But that's not the point; the point is that evolution did occur, insofar as current scientific evidence is correct, and intelligent design proponents are unable to either disprove it or prove that intelligent design occurred. Until they have valid evidence to support their theory and prove that it should replace evolution, they will be ridiculed. They're just going to have to deal with it.

[Redem]

Smutterfly

You know, how else do you think they could have gotten what they got? What you are suggesting is that they would have said something else if they had known it was about the discrimination against ID supporters. So they would have been dishonest?
The fact that they didn't know what the movie was called or what it was about doesn't excuse their circular reasoning or stereotypical prejudices.

It entirely changes the context, and thereby the meaning, of their words.

When asked if there was any way in which ID could be scientific, Dawkins responded by constructing the only testable model of ID, that Aliens might have intervened at some point in the past. That is potentially testable, unlike the only other option, and that means that it is at least potentially scientific, should any evidence ever be found.
The movie edits this to portray it was if he is some crazy kook who believes aliens meddled in life on earth.

This is a significant difference, and the only purpose is to ridicule him, and try to make it look as if one of the best known atheists is just as crazy as the religious folks who believe in a young earth and literal garden of eden.

Smutterfly

The point of the movie is that a few decades ago, the issue was flipped completely: Darwinists were treated this way. It's meant to show that neither side can say, without a doubt, "We are correct!!!" and that they should admit that...it's also meant to scold the evolutionists for treating the ID supporters the way they were once treated. The outry from the evolutionists used to be, "Don't discriminate against us, everyone has a right to think and research our own theories!" Now it's, "Everyone has the right to that, but we're going to ostracize you if you don't agree with us."

It's been a lot more than a few decades since Evolution was the corner-stone of biology.
This... conflict, it entirely the making of the creationists. They have been trying to get creationism taught in schools ever since it was kicked out, this is simply their latest shot across the bows, trying to convince the public that there is some conspiracy of worldwide scientists to suppress creationists.

There isn't, so they have to manufacture controversy. www.expelledexposed.com details the stories of the individuals mentioned in the movie. NONE of them were unfairly treated.

Smutterfly

As an evolutionist, I'm ashamed of the Universities firing people for touting ID concepts. One man didn't even believe in ID, he just used questions supporting it to push his students minds further. How is that fair?

Simple, it has never happened.
They lied to you.

Smutterfly

The movie was, to some degree, propaganda, but so are a lot of movies. Micheal Moore's movies encourage his audience to think his way, and while I think he's kind of a douche, he's a gifted film maker and he DOES report the facts. He connects them together kind of weird, but they ARE facts.
Expelled is the same way. So they said it was for a more ecumenical movie when they interviewed the evolutionists. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE AFFECTED THEIR ANSWERS.

It would have affected the context of their answers, however. see above.

Smutterfly

The ones who are complaining about that are the ones who would have lied or declined interviews altogether. At least Ben Stein got some honesty out of them first.

Yes, and then he ran their honest replies through a mangle to get as much material to use against them as possible.

[Smutterfly]

EsgarBlackpoxs

Smutterfly

The movie wasn't meant to convert you to ID, it was meant to show the discrimination against ID supporters. Ben Stein doesn't give a flying crap what you believe. He just wants you to be fair about it.

But it failed at that. None of the "victims" of the supposed persecution were actually fired for believing in ID. They were fired for reasons any teacher or professor would.

No, they were fired for mentioning ID.

[Smutterfly]

RedHawk364

Smutterfly

Why don't people GET it? EVOLUTION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

How do you know that "God" (or whatever deity you worship) didn't say, "Let there be evolution!" Just because the Bible doesn't talk about it? Maybe he didn't feel like telling anyone.

In the words of the great Piers Anthony: "God created the universe, and Satan caused it to evolve."

But that's not the point; the point is that evolution did occur, insofar as current scientific evidence is correct, and intelligent design proponents are unable to either disprove it or prove that intelligent design occurred. Until they have valid evidence to support their theory and prove that it should replace evolution, they will be ridiculed. They're just going to have to deal with it.

The point is that there is some evidence that could be interpreted (I spelled that both ways and it stil looked wrong...weird) to support evolution.

Now, I believe in evolution for a simple reason: it makes the most sense. There is the most evidence for it. HOWEVER...there is NO WAY to know if either theory is correct, unless we build a time machine and go look.
I believe in intelligent design as far this: something (I don't believe in JHVH, so in my case it would be the Goddess) decided to implement evolution. I feel that it is too elegant to have ben random chance. That's just me, and I know a lot of people would disagree. I call it, "Intelligent Evolution."
Both sides hate me because I'm not firmly in one camp or the other. I'm to accepting and ecumenical for them.

Part of the problem with pure ID is that it ISN'T science, and creationists are trying to stuff it into that box marked "Science." It just isn't gona happen. It's religion, but that doesn't mean that they won't find proof, they just might be going about it the wrong way. Until one way or the other proves their theory without a doubt, though, I'm gonna go with my Intelligent Evolution.

[Redem]

Smutterfly

EsgarBlackpoxs

Smutterfly

The movie wasn't meant to convert you to ID, it was meant to show the discrimination against ID supporters. Ben Stein doesn't give a flying crap what you believe. He just wants you to be fair about it.

But it failed at that. None of the "victims" of the supposed persecution were actually fired for believing in ID. They were fired for reasons any teacher or professor would.

No, they were fired for mentioning ID.

No one has ever been fired for that.

[Smutterfly]

Redem

Smutterfly

The movie was, to some degree, propaganda, but so are a lot of movies. Micheal Moore's movies encourage his audience to think his way, and while I think he's kind of a douche, he's a gifted film maker and he DOES report the facts. He connects them together kind of weird, but they ARE facts.
Expelled is the same way. So they said it was for a more ecumenical movie when they interviewed the evolutionists. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE AFFECTED THEIR ANSWERS.

It would have affected the context of their answers, however. see above.

They answered the questions honestly, right? Then how would it have changed their answers if they had asked the same questions, after telling them it was for Exposed?

[Smutterfly]

Redem

Smutterfly

EsgarBlackpoxs

Smutterfly

The movie wasn't meant to convert you to ID, it was meant to show the discrimination against ID supporters. Ben Stein doesn't give a flying crap what you believe. He just wants you to be fair about it.

But it failed at that. None of the "victims" of the supposed persecution were actually fired for believing in ID. They were fired for reasons any teacher or professor would.

No, they were fired for mentioning ID.

No one has ever been fired for that.

Alright, I went to that website you posted, and you made valid points. I feel a little less ashamed of my fellow human beings for not firing the creationists, and little more ashamed for splicing the film, even though every interview-based film has done that, to some degree.

[Redem]

Smutterfly

The point is that there is some evidence that could be interpreted (I spelled that both ways and it stil looked wrong...weird) to support evolution.

All of the evidence supports evolution, none contradicts it.

Smutterfly

Now, I believe in evolution for a simple reason: it makes the most sense. There is the most evidence for it. HOWEVER...there is NO WAY to know if either theory is correct, unless we build a time machine and go look.

We could just look at the evidence left behind, it's pretty conclusive.

Smutterfly

I believe in intelligent design as far this: something (I don't believe in JHVH, so in my case it would be the Goddess) decided to implement evolution. I feel that it is too elegant to have ben random chance. That's just me, and I know a lot of people would disagree. I call it, "Intelligent Evolution."
Both sides hate me because I'm not firmly in one camp or the other. I'm to accepting and ecumenical for them.

That's more commonly know as theistic evolution, and fits in perfectly well with the scientists. Many of them subscribe to the same ideology.
Only the creationists are promoting the false dichotomy of accepting evolution as valid, and being religious.

Smutterfly

Part of the problem with pure ID is that it ISN'T science, and creationists are trying to stuff it into that box marked "Science." It just isn't gona happen. It's religion, but that doesn't mean that they won't find proof, they just might be going about it the wrong way. Until one way or the other proves their theory without a doubt, though, I'm gonna go with my Intelligent Evolution.

The problem with ID is that is contradicts the evidence we already have, and makes claims which have been proven false already. And then continues to make them in a slightly louder voice.
It's never going to be a science because the ID proponents do no research, they engage in propaganda and disinformation campaigns.