Has anyone seen the movie Expelled: No Intellegence Allowed? - Page 3

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by genifer

Purplesage, I really really appreciate the respect you give in your posts. You dont belittle anyone and you really seem to listen. I know that all sides of all these arguments can get nasty and unwilling to listen, even me sometimes, but in this discussion I appreciate how respectful you have remained. Thanks.

Thanks. I appreciate your tone of respect, as well.

I think its difficult to explain these things bc its as if we are speaking different languages. I was just thinking this morning as I was dropping off the kids how everything in life, how we percieve things really depends on our perspective, how our experiences have coloured things for us. This is why I believe that in schools and universities they dont teach us to read the evidence and think for ourselves. I have come to realise that they teach us assumptions as if they are facts. They dont tell us how their scientific understanding came to be. They dont teach us how to read the evidence for ourselves, they basically say 'we're the professionals, let the understanding of the evidence be left to us... you are simple minded little people who wouldnt understand this stuff anyway'. I do believe a lot of scientific 'facts' are left in the textbooks long after there has been controversy about calling it fact.

Am I saying what I mean in a way that makes sense?lol. Im sure we'll get there in the end.

Also, it is a popular assumption that to believe the way I do you have to leave your brain at the door, but thats what I meant when I said its not quite as you guys think it is for me. Funny how thats assumed tho.

I really do understand where you're coming from, although I tend to disagree. I don't get the impression that scientists are saying that regular people aren't smart enough so we're better off just believing whatever they say. When I read about scientists' theories on things that are not proven, I have never heard them say anything but "this is one idea of why this happens" or something like that. It's not presented as fact, but rather as one theory among others, one that has yet to be proven but is still under ongoing research. Keep in mind that I haven't taken a science class in well over a decade, though. And the field of science that I'm most interested in is one where almost everything is a question (quantum physics, something I am nowhere near smart enough to get any kind of decent grasp on).

I think the difference in our perspective on this is that I'm not coming from a place where I think I already know the answers, and creationists are. So when scientists are telling people who already have 'the answer' that their answer isn't what science is finding, then I can see how that would be taken the way you take it.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

I really do understand where you're coming from, although I tend to disagree. I don't get the impression that scientists are saying that regular people aren't smart enough so we're better off just believing whatever they say. When I read about scientists' theories on things that are not proven, I have never heard them say anything but "this is one idea of why this happens" or something like that. It's not presented as fact, but rather as one theory among others, one that has yet to be proven but is still under ongoing research.

I think the difference in our perspective on this is that I'm not coming from a place where I think I already know the answers, and creationists are. So when scientists are telling people who already have 'the answer' that their answer isn't what science is finding, then I can see how that would be taken the way you take it.

I wish that were my experience in science classes. :P I've gotten into many a debate with a teacher or professor over this very issue and their presentation of it.

I was watching a show on dinosaurs on tv just a few days ago that was a perfect example of my thought that evolutionists don't start from scratch with new findings, but rather start from what they suppose to be true.

The show was on a woman who dissolves dinosaur fossils to see what they break down into and what is under the top layers, etc. It was really interesting. When she started dissolving one dinosaur bone to see what was under the first layer, she accidentally left it in the acid too long. It broke down all the way to the center marrow section. The insides were still elastic! She was blown away and did it with several other bones to back up her findings. This type of cell should not be able to keep it's elastic properties after being fossilized for millions of years. It was NEVER spoken of (at least on the show or at all it would seem from the way they spoke) that MAYBE the bone wasn't millions of years old. All the research was on what kind of conditions could make the elastic nature stuck around.

To me, that seems no different than me looking at it and saying, well it's because it's not that old and adding to my evidence of a young earth.

[genifer]

I think the difference in our perspective on this is that I'm not coming from a place where I think I already know the answers, and creationists are. So when scientists are telling people who already have 'the answer' that their answer isn't what science is finding, then I can see how that would be taken the way you take it.

Oh PurpleSage, thats not true at all! We dont believe we have all the answers either! There is a LOT to discover. And creationists are in debate about how the flood occurred, what life was like before the fall and after and then again after the flood. I think there is a lot of evidence for a global flood and I watched a documentary that talked about how catastrophic water is and what a massive flood will do to a local area, with all the scientific studies and everything! They could accept that a massive flood could cause incredible damage and be so entirely catastrophic but couldnt apply it to the global flood, like they wouldnt go there. Its already been established that the earth is millions of years old and evolution is taught as a fact so lets not consider anything else. I just see so many holes in what I see taught in the media and schools. And like I said before I didnt have a firm grasp of a literal genesis either. I, personally, didnt come to the table with an 'I MUST take Genesis literal and find any and every way possible to make the evidence explain it' kind of mentality. That doesnt prove anything, obviously, but for me its been an important part of my search, studying.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

I wish that were my experience in science classes. :P I've gotten into many a debate with a teacher or professor over this very issue and their presentation of it.

I was watching a show on dinosaurs on tv just a few days ago that was a perfect example of my thought that evolutionists don't start from scratch with new findings, but rather start from what they suppose to be true.

The show was on a woman who dissolves dinosaur fossils to see what they break down into and what is under the top layers, etc. It was really interesting. When she started dissolving one dinosaur bone to see what was under the first layer, she accidentally left it in the acid too long. It broke down all the way to the center marrow section. The insides were still elastic! She was blown away and did it with several other bones to back up her findings. This type of cell should not be able to keep it's elastic properties after being fossilized for millions of years. It was NEVER spoken of (at least on the show or at all it would seem from the way they spoke) that MAYBE the bone wasn't millions of years old. All the research was on what kind of conditions could make the elastic nature stuck around.

To me, that seems no different than me looking at it and saying, well it's because it's not that old and adding to my evidence of a young earth.

That's a good example. But I disagree with your take on it, and here's why.

You are equating a religious belief that the earth is young with the scientific belief that the earth is very old, and I don't think the two beliefs are based on anything remotely the same.

I don't think scientists started with the idea that the earth is billions of years old and set out to prove it. In fact, I think scientists were actually quite surprised that they were coming up with evidence that the earth was that old. And I think they continued to be surprised about it until they had enough evidence and enough time for it to sink in, and now we're in a place where it is pretty much accepted as fact that the earth is indeed much, much older than it would be if the Bible were literally true.

Creationists, on the other hand, were starting from the point of view that the Bible is literally true and the earth is only several thousand years old. They believe this based on their religion, and they approach all the science from this belief. That is exactly the opposite of approaching science from "I don't know how old the earth is; let's find out." It's saying "I know the earth is this old because God said so; now let's prove it."

See the difference?

So I don't think the scientist in your example is wrong for trying to see why the bone is behaving a certain way in the framework of an old earth. The science supports an old earth, science that was not based on a preconceived belief (like creation) but on inquiry and discovery.

Oh PurpleSage, thats not true at all! We dont believe we have all the answers either! There is a LOT to discover. And creationists are in debate about how the flood occurred, what life was like before the fall and after and then again after the flood. I think there is a lot of evidence for a global flood and I watched a documentary that talked about how catastrophic water is and what a massive flood will do to a local area, with all the scientific studies and everything! They could accept that a massive flood could cause incredible damage and be so entirely catastrophic but couldnt apply it to the global flood, like they wouldnt go there. Its already been established that the earth is millions of years old and evolution is taught as a fact so lets not consider anything else. I just see so many holes in what I see taught in the media and schools. And like I said before I didnt have a firm grasp of a literal genesis either. I, personally, didnt come to the table with an 'I MUST take Genesis literal and find any and every way possible to make the evidence explain it' kind of mentality. That doesnt prove anything, obviously, but for me its been an important part of my search, studying.

I think you're the exception, though. I've been reading some creationist websites, and they specifically say that they're coming from the place where the Bible is literally the exact "eye witness" account from God on how everything happened, and all science must come from that viewpoint. It is not coming from a place of "I don't know" at all. So it is exactly that - the belief the God said there was a massive global flood is the starting point for trying to explain rock layers, just to give one example. Then they try to say that mainstream science is doing the same thing only with evolution, and I don't think there's any comparison. Evolution is not anything like a religious belief.

[mamabadger]

I watched the movie with DH, who got his degree in physical anthropology. His main complaint was the way separate issues were sort of mashed together, instead of being argued through individually. There are several issues which come up in the movie.

1. The suppression of certain ideas by the scientific community.
2. Whether these ideas are scientifically valid or not.
3. Whether established beliefs regarding evolution, etc. are scientifically valid or not.
4. How religious faith relates to all of this.

#3 is usually overlooked. As long as opponents of current thinking on evolution are mainly motivated by religious belief, not only can opposing viewpoints be dismissed, but established theories can be accepted without skepticism.

DH has encountered many academics - mostly atheists with no interest in defending the Genesis story or ID - who admit, privately, that evolutionary theory is full of holes and cannot be supported by the evidence. However, they would not openly say so, because the perceived alternative is to accept superstitious nonsense instead of real science, and to be ridiculed by their peers. The conflict with ID people leads to less scientific rigor and less objectivity than you would see in other branches of science.

Yes, but if we have a creator, isn't the same question raised of something coming from nothing?

What we know for sure is that the universe exists, and that it seems fairly certain that the physical universe is inadequate to the task of bringing itself into being. Without even bringing up the idea of God or a personal creator, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that something completely outside of the natural world was responsible for its existence. That "something" might be completely different from the known universe, and might be self-existent, self-creating, or have other modes of being we could not imagine. What we do know is that the natural world does not have these qualities. It is the known universe coming from nothing that is the logical problem.

[philomom]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

I really do understand where you're coming from, although I tend to disagree. I don't get the impression that scientists are saying that regular people aren't smart enough so we're better off just believing whatever they say.

Carl Sagan covered so much of this idea in his Cosmos series. He took the time to painstakingly explain everything in language that non-scientists could understand. He seemed to think it was his "mission" in life to do this. His biographies all mention how much fan mail he got during the series airing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yet1x...response_watch

[Thao]

This idea that evolution is "just a theory" that is full of holes... the thing is, many scientific theories that are the accepted template for scientific research are full of holes. Gravity is still pretty much unexplained, for example. Scientists accept Einstein's explanation of it being caused by curvature of space but they can't find a mathematical model that works for it. So you could say that Einstein's model is full of holes, but the thing is, it is the explanation that best fits the evidence at this time so it is the one that science works with and is taught in schools. Evolution is the same. At this point there is no alternative theory that explains the evidence as well as evolution does, holes and all.

I can see that people who believe in intelligent design are at a disadvantage because there really is no way to design a scientific experiment that tests for an intelligent designer. However, there are a lot of ID-related topics that can certainly be tested. The whole young earth theory, for one. For that to be true, for example, one would have to show that microevolution can occur naturally on a rapid time frame, in order to explain how the plethora of species evolved from the relatively few "kinds" that were saved after the worldwide flood. I like reading the Answers in Genesis website because they are actually trying to do this, rather than just complain about evolution theory. Now, I don't doubt that some scientists (like Richard Dawkins ) will scorn any research they do simply for the nature of it, but history shows that if their science is sound they will win out in the end. Quantum theory was scorned when it first appeared, too, even Einstein didn't like it, but in the end scientists had to admit that it best explained the results and it became the new orthodoxy.

There's plenty of money in conservative Christian circles; I'd like to see it spent on funding scientific research rather than on lobbying to force the teaching of ID in schools. IMO, such lobbying is just making it more difficult for the scientists who are trying to conduct research that supports ID or related theories. Because they are seen as being associated with people that are trying to circumvent the scientific process.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Really interesting points Thao. I also Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham is my hero. I also really enjoyed reading Lee Strobel's book "The Case for the Creator" and hearing what the scientists he interviewed had to say.

[Purple Sage]

Great thoughts here.

I'd personally love to see more ID science without any of the religious undertones that we usually find. I think we'd get a lot closer to answering many mysteries if religion did not play such a big part. That's why I'm very interested in seeing research done by people who are in the ID camp but aren't of the big three monotheistic religions.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Great thoughts here.

I'd personally love to see more ID science without any of the religious undertones that we usually find. I think we'd get a lot closer to answering many mysteries if religion did not play such a big part. That's why I'm very interested in seeing research done by people who are in the ID camp but aren't of the big three monotheistic religions.

Maybe look into the work of Bradley Monton (atheist) and David Berlinski (secular Jew, agnostic). I haven't looked all that much into their work, so I can't say much about it, but I did find in my notes on things that they were two scientists who are ID proponents, but do not adhere to a monotheistic religion.

[caitlinlea]

What we know for sure is that the universe exists, and that it seems fairly certain that the physical universe is inadequate to the task of bringing itself into being. Without even bringing up the idea of God or a personal creator, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that something completely outside of the natural world was responsible for its existence. That "something" might be completely different from the known universe, and might be self-existent, self-creating, or have other modes of being we could not imagine. What we do know is that the natural world does not have these qualities. It is the known universe coming from nothing that is the logical problem.

My bolding.....I don't disagree with what you are saying. The thing is, it is a big stretch (for me) to believe a single, all-powerful, all-knowing creator is responsible for the existence of the universe. Sure, it is a possiblity; that hypothesis cannot be disproved. I think most of us agree we don't know, or cannot prove, how the universe came to be. Personally, I have not found any evidence to support the theory that God is the answer.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

Maybe look into the work of Bradley Monton (atheist) and David Berlinski (secular Jew, agnostic). I haven't looked all that much into their work, so I can't say much about it, but I did find in my notes on things that they were two scientists who are ID proponents, but do not adhere to a monotheistic religion.

Thank you so much!

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by caitlinlea

My bolding.....I don't disagree with what you are saying. The thing is, it is a big stretch (for me) to believe a single, all-powerful, all-knowing creator is responsible for the existence of the universe. Sure, it is a possiblity; that hypothesis cannot be disproved. I think most of us agree we don't know, or cannot prove, how the universe came to be. Personally, I have not found any evidence to support the theory that God is the answer.

But I did not say anything about an all-knowing creator or a deity of any kind. See, this is part of the problem. Any hint at evaluating evolutionary theory, exploring new ideas about the origins of life, or looking at the flaws in the current thinking, no matter how secular the discussion, and the first thing anyone thinks is, "this is going to open the door to God stuff. Shut it down." One thing Stein had right, is that evolution is being treated not as a scientific theory, but as a competing religion, and this does not encourage logic or objectivity.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

But I did not say anything about an all-knowing creator or a deity of any kind. See, this is part of the problem. Any hint at evaluating evolutionary theory, exploring new ideas about the origins of life, or looking at the flaws in the current thinking, no matter how secular the discussion, and the first thing anyone thinks is, "this is going to open the door to God stuff. Shut it down." One thing Stein had right, is that evolution is being treated not as a scientific theory, but as a competing religion, and this does not encourage logic or objectivity.

I agree. I think it's rooted in the "one true way" mentality - something we find in both atheism and in the monotheistic religions.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by Thao

This idea that evolution is "just a theory" that is full of holes... the thing is, many scientific theories that are the accepted template for scientific research are full of holes. Gravity is still pretty much unexplained, for example. Scientists accept Einstein's explanation of it being caused by curvature of space but they can't find a mathematical model that works for it. So you could say that Einstein's model is full of holes, but the thing is, it is the explanation that best fits the evidence at this time so it is the one that science works with and is taught in schools. Evolution is the same. At this point there is no alternative theory that explains the evidence as well as evolution does, holes and all.

I can see that people who believe in intelligent design are at a disadvantage because there really is no way to design a scientific experiment that tests for an intelligent designer. However, there are a lot of ID-related topics that can certainly be tested. The whole young earth theory, for one. For that to be true, for example, one would have to show that microevolution can occur naturally on a rapid time frame, in order to explain how the plethora of species evolved from the relatively few "kinds" that were saved after the worldwide flood. I like reading the Answers in Genesis website because they are actually trying to do this, rather than just complain about evolution theory. Now, I don't doubt that some scientists (like Richard Dawkins ) will scorn any research they do simply for the nature of it, but history shows that if their science is sound they will win out in the end. Quantum theory was scorned when it first appeared, too, even Einstein didn't like it, but in the end scientists had to admit that it best explained the results and it became the new orthodoxy.

There's plenty of money in conservative Christian circles; I'd like to see it spent on funding scientific research rather than on lobbying to force the teaching of ID in schools. IMO, such lobbying is just making it more difficult for the scientists who are trying to conduct research that supports ID or related theories. Because they are seen as being associated with people that are trying to circumvent the scientific process.

I agree.

I thought the movie was hogwash - and I come from a religion that still numbers years from accounts in Genesis. I do believe that evolutionary theory is the best possible explanation for what happened - especially the best possible explanation for Genesis. My rabbi believes the same. I honestly find no discord between evolutionary theory and my Judaism, and even though I call this year 5770, I do not honestly believe that it's only been 5770 years since the creation of the world. The evidence (to me, G-d given evidence) points towards a timetable closer to billions.

It always baffles me that ID-ers seem to think that Genesis is the only "evidence" given by G-d. What of the evidence we see in front of us - in layers and bones and our G-d-given logic? To me, these are much more compelling pieces of evidence.

Oh, and it doubly bugs me that most ID-ers (not all, of course) tend to not follow other parts of the bible, but they take Genesis literally. How many ID-ers enjoy their morning bacon, even though G-d said not to eat it? How many ID-ers are railing against the fact that we don't stone people for the crimes mentioned in Leviticus? IMO, it's selective and it brings the whole argument down. The bible CAN.NOT be taken 100% literally. We just pick and choose which parts to take or not.

And don't even get me started on America and Christianity. Look at the statistics, talk to people who aren't Christian, and then let me know. I didn't believe it either, until I converted to Judaism, and WOW. No doubt.

[Thao]

But I did not say anything about an all-knowing creator or a deity of any kind. See, this is part of the problem. Any hint at evaluating evolutionary theory, exploring new ideas about the origins of life, or looking at the flaws in the current thinking, no matter how secular the discussion, and the first thing anyone thinks is, "this is going to open the door to God stuff. Shut it down."

I'm at this. ID posits that our world was intentionally designed by some intelligent being(s), no? Surely a creature that is intelligent and has the power to create a universe would be considered a God by our standards. What else would you call it? Granted, it doesn't have to be Yahweh or Shiva or any one of the particular Gods in our human religions, but a God nonetheless.

Under ID, if it wasn't a God, then what designed the universe?

[caitlinlea]

But I did not say anything about an all-knowing creator or a deity of any kind. See, this is part of the problem. Any hint at evaluating evolutionary theory, exploring new ideas about the origins of life, or looking at the flaws in the current thinking, no matter how secular the discussion, and the first thing anyone thinks is, "this is going to open the door to God stuff. Shut it down." One thing Stein had right, is that evolution is being treated not as a scientific theory, but as a competing religion, and this does not encourage logic or objectivity.

I apologize for jumping to the conclusion. My response was based on some earlier postings about taking the book of Genesis literally and how that tied into beliefs in ID.

I am also a bit confused though - whether you call the designer God or not ID by definition requires a creator/supreme being/higher power, etc.....how do you separate that out? I understand how a belief in ID could be separate from religion, from theism.....but a designer would still indicate a deity, would it not???

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by caitlinlea

I am also a bit confused though - whether you call the designer God or not ID by definition requires a creator/supreme being/higher power, etc.....how do you separate that out? I understand how a belief in ID could be separate from religion, from theism.....but a designer would still indicate a deity, would it not???

I was not actually talking about ID, but I can see it comes to much the same thing. What I was saying is that, in our current understanding, the physical universe is not sufficient. Inanimate matter cannot bring itself into existence. This could mean our understanding of the universe might be faulty, or might be incomplete; or that our understanding of the concept of existence is incomplete; or else that the universe came from something outside and different from the natural world.
The idea I was trying to get at is, the universe "coming from nothing" or "creating itself" is not the most scientific or logical explanation, but is more acceptable to most scientists because it avoids any hint of a creator.

[philomom]

Originally Posted by smeisnotapirate

Oh, and it doubly bugs me that most ID-ers (not all, of course) tend to not follow other parts of the bible, but they take Genesis literally. How many ID-ers enjoy their morning bacon, even though G-d said not to eat it? How many ID-ers are railing against the fact that we don't stone people for the crimes mentioned in Leviticus? IMO, it's selective and it brings the whole argument down. The bible CAN.NOT be taken 100% literally. We just pick and choose which parts to take or not.

And don't even get me started on America and Christianity. Look at the statistics, talk to people who aren't Christian, and then let me know. I didn't believe it either, until I converted to Judaism, and WOW. No doubt.

Dietary stuff has bothered me, too. I found this guy is showing the god followers a "better" path.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/eating...n_unto_you.php

Amount of xtians in the United States... still 76% according to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._United_States

[caitlinlea]

This is a bit off-topic, but when the topic of religion comes up, stating you are a Christian is a generally accepted response, and a pretty common one. Stating you are an atheist usually brings a very different response and usually a quick change of subject. I'm not saying this is always the case, but certainly more often than not, in my experience. There is something about the term, maybe, that seems harsh to people. Having to describe myself as an atheist bothers me some (because it does not say anything about what I DO believe, what values I hold dear, the ethics I choose to live by) but in terms of theistic belief it is the term that suits best in my case. God permeates our culture on many subtle, and not-so-subtle, levels. There isn't a single US president who hasn't regularly mentioned God in speeches. "In God We Trust" is all over our currency. Atheists, although very present in scientific fields, are not well-represented in politics, for example. The religious, on the other hand....

I was not actually talking about ID, but I can see it comes to much the same thing. What I was saying is that, in our current understanding, the physical universe is not sufficient. Inanimate matter cannot bring itself into existence. This could mean our understanding of the universe might be faulty, or might be incomplete; or that our understanding of the concept of existence is incomplete; or else that the universe came from something outside and different from the natural world.
The idea I was trying to get at is, the universe "coming from nothing" or "creating itself" is not the most scientific or logical explanation, but is more acceptable to most scientists because it avoids any hint of a creator.

I think plenty of scientists are more than willing to admit our current knowledge about the origins of the universe is very incomplete. I agree it is important to remain open to all possibilities and explore them fully. I also think it is difficult for people not to have a bias, one way or the other. We should all strive for objectivity but plenty of people struggle with this across the spectrum of religious belief. That is why discussions, and open minds, are so important.