Thread: Expelled!

Looking forward to it as well.

Interesting movie reviews, X I like how they all focus on the Technical aspects of the movie and the "quality" of the cinimatography, not the fact that the movie asks a seroius question that bugs every school child at some point unless they are particularly dim and accepting. It was also neat to hear the writters of the reviews whining that they came off looking like idiots, duh! ,you've got a PhD, that is kind of the point.

At least when michael Moore gets critisized people talk about his twisting of facts and creative editing, Don't see any of that happening with this movie.

I think it is pretty obvious that this movie has an agenda, and that it is to simply point out that there is an agenda at work on the other side of the issue as well. To those of us familiar with this debate I don't expect any big shockers or surprises in this. I think its intent is to be a wake up call to the people who aren't paying attention to this issue that something is gong on and they ought to notice what being force fed to their kids.

Since I enjoy listening to Ben Stein and the way he puts ideas together is usually pretty entertaining I expect to enjoy this movie quite a bit, though I probably won't pay full price to see it. Its not exactly going to be a special effects blockbuster.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

While my personal beliefs don't exclude God creating the universe and giving it the occasional tweak, if you're religious enough to believe in creationism or intelligent design, you'll either take your kids to Sunday school to learn that or you'll teach'em yourself. There are also religious schools that cover the topics quite extensively. Unless we're living in a theocracy, religion should be kept from public schools with the following exceptions:
1) Non-denominational prayer rooms
2) Elective courses
People who take the Bible too litarally forget that it was compiled about 1700 years ago. Since then we've had numerous quantum leaps in every scientific field. Ultimately, the purpose of science is to learn about our environment, whether you believe it was created by God or not. If it gets discovered that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, that doesn't mean that we should disregard either our scientific findings or the teachings of the Bible.

The problem is that public schools teach the theory of evolution as proven fact. It is proven that things evolve, but then they go on to assume this accounts for the origins of life, the universe, and everything and require that it be learned this way. In doing this they don't answer some basic questions instead they actively avoid and discourage their discussion by immediately invoking the separation clause as some sort of shield to quell honest inquiry.

I know thats what happened in my own case.

It is to me very telling, not that these questions don't have answers, but that certain questions and suppositions are indeed suppressed in our academic system even when any specific religion or text is left out of the equation.

I kind of like this. I've read enough books on the coming into being of the earth/universe etc to know that there are a lot of gaps in the theories. I don't claim to know how to fill those gaps. But I think it's sad that as soon as someone claims to have another theory that does fill those gaps they get booed down because it's not accepted wisdom.

I think it's ALWAYS a good idea to find new idea's and think outside of the box. And it's a shame that this (in some cases) doesn't seem to be so in the scientific world.

And if this challenges accepted wisdom....more power to them.

Originally Posted by voerman

I don't think you are with the program yet. You are supposed to free your mind, think outside the box, and question everything. Only when you have accomplished all those things will you actually be in a true state of enlightenment and see everything the way the professor does.

Please continue to seek the true meaning of life, my son.

A college professor,
Lou

Ahh, it's all so clear now

Gents,

Thank-you very much for your participation. In brief:

The reason that science excludes intelligent design=creationism is because it's not. It's not science that is. ALL scientific observation in biology supports Darwin. That's pretty absolute. Technically nothing except math equations are 'proven' so we speak about facts in science. There are NO facts to support ID/creationism. None. Theories in science are not the weak theories of people's personal opinions. They are the best answers available as supported by the facts. As new facts are brought to light, theories are meant to advance. The beauty of living in a complex universe is that the more questions we answer, the more questions we raise. Such is the glorious nature of learning. We get to keep filling in the gaps. To attempt to quash that with non-science or junk-science as it is commonly referred is to do a grave disservice to your youthful learners. You've got a right to believe or disbelieve as you like, but you haven't got the right to subvert education because of those beliefs.

There is no double standard. You certainly wouldn't permit the teaching that becoming a suicide bomber to destroy the infidel is a blessed thing and will get you a fast track to heaven. ID/creationism falls into the same category. It is also a 'spiritual' belief based on the interpretation of some sacred texts unsupported by evidence.

X

PS As a rebuttal; Ben Stein says in his interview that Einstein and Darwin believed in a god. This is not true. These men, certainly Einstein, used the term god allegorically. Scientists also often refer to Spinoza's God. Certainly, never have such men seriously considered casting aside mountains of factual data for creationism.

Originally Posted by xman

Gents,

Thank-you very much for your participation. In brief:

The reason that science excludes intelligent design=creationism is because it's not. It's not science that is. ALL scientific observation in biology supports Darwin. That's pretty factual. Technically nothing except math equations are 'proven' so we speak about facts in science. There are NO facts to support ID/creationism. None. Theories in science are not the week theories of people's personal opinions. They are the best answers available as supported by the facts. As new facts are brought to light, theories are meant to advance. The beauty of living in a complex universe is that the more questions we answer, the more questions we raise. Such is the glorious nature of learning. To attempt to quash that with non-science or junk-science as it is commonly referred is to do a grave disservice to your youthful learners.

You've got a right to believe or disbelieve as you like, but you haven't got the right to subvert education because of those beliefs.

X

PS As a rebuttal; Ben Stein says in his interview that Einstein and Darwin believed in a god. This is not true. These men, certainly Einstein, used the term god allegorically. Scientists also often refer to Spinoza's God. Certainly, never have such men seriously considered casting aside mountains of factual data for creationism.

Two questions:

How did it all begin?

Can you teach me how to put the video into a thread as opposed to the link?

Gotta confess, when I saw "expelled!" I was expecting
another "banned from b&b" thread.

Originally Posted by xman

Gents,

Thank-you very much for your participation. In brief:

The reason that science excludes intelligent design=creationism is because it's not. It's not science that is. ALL scientific observation in biology supports Darwin. That's pretty absolute. Technically nothing except math equations are 'proven' so we speak about facts in science. There are NO facts to support ID/creationism. None. Theories in science are not the weak theories of people's personal opinions. They are the best answers available as supported by the facts. As new facts are brought to light, theories are meant to advance. The beauty of living in a complex universe is that the more questions we answer, the more questions we raise. Such is the glorious nature of learning. We get to keep filling in the gaps. To attempt to quash that with non-science or junk-science as it is commonly referred is to do a grave disservice to your youthful learners. You've got a right to believe or disbelieve as you like, but you haven't got the right to subvert education because of those beliefs.

There is no double standard. You certainly wouldn't permit the teaching that becoming a suicide bomber to destroy the infidel is a blessed thing and will get you a fast track to heaven. ID/creationism falls into the same category. It is also a 'spiritual' belief based on the interpretation of some sacred texts unsupported by evidence.

X

PS As a rebuttal; Ben Stein says in his interview that Einstein and Darwin believed in a god. This is not true. These men, certainly Einstein, used the term god allegorically. Scientists also often refer to Spinoza's God. Certainly, never have such men seriously considered casting aside mountains of factual data for creationism.

How about a peer reviewed published study that suggests exactly that.

The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Catagories from the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239)

Every thinking person knows the universe was created by the Great Turtles. With the help of Zeus and Hercules.
Why isn't serious discussion/attention being given to this explanation? I can find you a number of scholars who will attest to this theory of creation.

Praise to the Great Turtles!! Hazzah!!!

Originally Posted by Wildtim

How about a peer reviewed published study that suggests exactly that.

The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Catagories from the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239)

Respectfully, Dr. Meyer is no Einstein.