Thread: Expelled!

Originally Posted by Nickelking

It's actually one of the least scientific theories out there. The reason it's mentioned so prominently in Expelled is that the scientist (who was told he was being interviewed for "Crossroads" a movie to examine the intersecting of science and religion) was asked to postulate on how evolution could have begun life. Naturally as he was trying to help them show how science and religion interact he chose the most ID of the evolutionary claims.

What are some of the others?

I only ask because this was what I was taught in school.

Sorry, double posted, ignore this please

There's quite a few, but I don't remember most of them. I personally subscribe to evolution from primitive single celled organisms.

As for what created those organisms? Chance. I know the watch argument for it and while the odds are against the right molecules bonding on a single planet there are countless planets out there and countless bondings happening every minute. Eventually it was bound to happen, and after about 9 million years it did. Also, eventually someone would find out how slim a chance it as to happen on that one planet (as we tend to think of intelligent life only being able to inhabit an earth like planet) that they figure it can't have been chance.

"If god didn't exist, man would have to create him." - Voltaire

Just because the reason for something isn't known yet doesn't mean it's god. We used to blame lightning on Zeus or Jupiter.

(I'm something of a "tooth-fairy athiest" since it's impossible to prove a negative I can't prove god doesn't exist. I'll admit it's possible, but I'd believe it as easily as I would the flying spaghetti monster.)

I would like to hear from some more folks living outside of the USA, I seem to remember a statistic about the number of other nations facing the same debate, and that we are pretty much alone in it.

Is that correct, or slanted, or mis-stated?

Russell, I'd also like to point out where you say "The human eye is often used as an example."

It's often used as an example because he says in The Origin of the Species that "it is so complex it could not have evolved naturally." Then goes on for the next few pages describing exactly how such an evolution could take place.

Classic example of cherry picking data.

Nick, thanks! I read The Origin of Species a long time ago and must have missed or forgotten that.

I was referring to Dembski and Behe, who have both used it as an example, and both failed to think outside of the "head down" analysis method so common in I.D. theory.

Agreed, one can never prove the existence or lack thereof of anything supernatural. It is in the plain wording of the term supernatural, we live in the natural world and can never view with our natural eyes, anything other than natural things. But as for logic, it is easier to suppose that unintelligent, ultimately simple organic life came into existence by chance rather than the same happening for a supremely intelligent, unfathomably complex, and never knowable, transcendent being. But strange things happen so who knows?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I would like to hear from some more folks living outside of the USA, I seem to remember a statistic about the number of other nations facing the same debate, and that we are pretty much alone in it.

Is that correct, or slanted, or mis-stated?

Over here, evolution is pretty much taught in all schools, public and private.
Not as the source of life, but a way to trace humans to apelikes, to dinosaurs.
Evolution exists. It can be witnessed, hence it is a testable theory which can make testable predictions.

Religion is taught in most schools, and it is used to explain how it all got started without being too specific. Over here it is perfectly acceptable to say that God was responsible for the big bang and the laws of nature, after which he let the universe get on with business.

The whole creationism at schools debate in the US is viewed as weird by most Europeans.
I am not saying I am 100% sure that evolution explains everything. But if you start teaching creationism, you might as well teach about the flying spaghetti monster while you're at it.

Pretty much the same thing over here as in Belgium with Bruno.

Religions are taught (offcourse they are...we have catholic schools....REAL catholic schools where kids go to Mass once a week/month etc) in all school at least so kids know what other people believe. Outlawing religion in school seems to us kind of weird for a country that claims freedom of religion as one of it's basic laws.

Besides that. I still want to know why it's wrong for established Theory to be challenged? That's pretty much what I saw from the trailer that the film was about.

After all....however likely a theory is....it is still a theory and only true untill proven not true. That's what science is all about isn't it?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Pretty much the same thing over here as in Belgium with Bruno.

Religions are taught (offcourse they are...we have catholic schools....REAL catholic schools where kids go to Mass once a week/month etc) in all school at least so kids know what other people believe. Outlawing religion in school seems to us kind of weird for a country that claims freedom of religion as one of it's basic laws.

Besides that. I still want to know why it's wrong for established Theory to be challenged? That's pretty much what I saw from the trailer that the film was about.

After all....however likely a theory is....it is still a theory and only true untill proven not true. That's what science is all about isn't it?

Basically thats all the ID people want that the evolutionists admit that the origin of life isn't a forgone conclusion and that there are other explanations for it. Evolution does happen as every farmer and animal husband will admit. If things were taught here the way Bruno lays them out there would be no argument, unfortunately thats not what happens.

For my primary education I went to religious school, and I was taught about evolution and how it worked as well as Gods design and setting of the world in motion. When I went to public high school, and state run college, evolution was taught but the origin of life was sketchy at best and questions were actively discouraged. In other words as an 8th grader I had a better understanding of the scope of human ideas and theories due to a religious education than I was taught in state college because, specifically, this is a taboo subject. I don't care whether or not you are an atheist but if you don't see a problem with that, I have no hope for this country.


This whole debate is really a reaction to the way in which God has been systematically attacked and made a taboo subject in public discourse. It seems the freedom of religion has been warped into the freedom from religion over here. You are mainly seeing things like this as a backlash and a reaction to that. To give an example there was a teacher fired from public school last year for wearing a small gold cross on a chain while the same school was forcing students to make Kwanzaa decorations, when stuff like that happens people have a right to get a little irate.


Right now there seems to be this belief that Freedom means never having to deal with things that offend you or that you don't agree with. So we see PC speech, banning religious discourse, certain word that white people can't use. All in an effort to keep anyone from being offended.

Sorry folks, freedom doesn't work that way. If everyone is free to say and practice what they want, you will be offended by some of them. There are religions or viewpoints I find offensive, but I listen to them because the other has the freedom to say what he wants. There are bigots in this world, and they shouldn't go to jail for their words, offensive as they be, but only for their overt acts.


Anyway thats the larger debate this is a part of in this country. ID vs. the evolutionary origin is place that is relatively weak in the amour of the academic PC crowd. Despite some believing it is "relatively irrefutable" I have yet to hear a explanation that is significantly more plausible or scientifically useful than any other, that makes it a weak point in the general theory of modern scientific arrogance.

This all from a guy who used to consider biology to be my favorite subject, I never got less than an A even in university.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

I'll admit it's possible, but I'd believe it as easily as I would the flying spaghetti monster.)

I always get a kick out of those Pastafarians, a creative bunch.