Anyone planning on going to see Expelled starring Ben Stein

[Karenciavo]

 

it opens next week.

[Mamagistra]

I would love to, but we'll probably wait for it on Netflix since we are not movie-goers. :lurk5: (I like my own popcorn, thankyouverymuch.) :D

 

Dee-aitch has had the trailer linked on his website for a while now; we are anxious to see it.

[Mom2legomaniacs]

I love Ben Stein! I had no idea about this film being made. I think he is a hoot. I am intrigued definitely.

[jacqui in mo]

I imagine we will go! Are you taking your kiddos too?

[Karenciavo]

I imagine we will go! Are you taking your kiddos too?

 

Not the 5 yo.

[dalynnrmc]

Definately.

[Quiver0f10]

We will see it once it's on DVD. Looks interesting.

[Phred]

Wow... you'd consider taking your kids to see this? Why? What do you think they'll get from it? Scientific American reviewed it and found it to live up to it's subtitle - no intelligence allowed. A snippet below -

 

Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie:

 

The most deplorable dishonesty of Expelled, however, is that it says evolution was one influence on the Holocaust without acknowledging any of the other major ones for context. Rankings of races and ethnic groups into a hierarchy long preceded Darwin and the theory of evolution, and were usually tied to the Christian philosophical notion of a “great chain of being.†The economic ruin of the Weimar Republic left many Germans itching to find someone to blame for their misfortune, and the Jews and other ethnic groups were convenient scapegoats. The roots of European anti-Semitism go back to the end of the Roman Empire. Organized attacks and local exterminations of the Jews were perpetrated during the Crusades and the Black Plague. The Russian empire committed many attacks on the Jews in the 19th and early 20th century, giving rise to the word “pogrom.†Profound anti-Semitism even pollutes the works of the father of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, who reviled them in On the Jews and Their Lies and wrote, “We are at fault in not slaying them.†I don’t think Protestantism is accountable for the Holocaust, either, but whose ideas were most Lutheran Germans of the 1930s more familiar with: Darwin’s or Luther’s?

 

Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer, a former Pepperdine University student, points out yet another piece of dishonesty in the film:

 

 

It was with some irony for me, then, that I saw Ben Stein's antievolution documentary film,

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

, opens with the actor, game show host and speechwriter for Richard Nixon addressing a packed audience of adoring students at Pepperdine University, apparently falling for the same trap I did.

 

Actually they didn't. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein's screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, associate provost for research and chair of natural science at Pepperdine, "the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus" but that "the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and a staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.

 

[j.griff]

Ditto.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Wow... you'd consider taking your kids to see this? Why? What do you think they'll get from it? Scientific American reviewed it and found it to live up to it's subtitle - no intelligence allowed.

 

I've been following it here.

 

Golly.

 

No, we won't see it. And we wouldn't have seen it back when we were creationists, either.

[Karenciavo]

Wow... you'd consider taking your kids to see this? Why? What do you think they'll get from it? Scientific American reviewed it and found it to live up to it's subtitle - no intelligence allowed. A snippet below -

 

Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie:

 

The most deplorable dishonesty of Expelled, however, is that it says evolution was one influence on the Holocaust without acknowledging any of the other major ones for context. Rankings of races and ethnic groups into a hierarchy long preceded Darwin and the theory of evolution, and were usually tied to the Christian philosophical notion of a “great chain of being.” The economic ruin of the Weimar Republic left many Germans itching to find someone to blame for their misfortune, and the Jews and other ethnic groups were convenient scapegoats. The roots of European anti-Semitism go back to the end of the Roman Empire. Organized attacks and local exterminations of the Jews were perpetrated during the Crusades and the Black Plague. The Russian empire committed many attacks on the Jews in the 19th and early 20th century, giving rise to the word “pogrom.” Profound anti-Semitism even pollutes the works of the father of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, who reviled them in On the Jews and Their Lies and wrote, “We are at fault in not slaying them.” I don’t think Protestantism is accountable for the Holocaust, either, but whose ideas were most Lutheran Germans of the 1930s more familiar with: Darwin’s or Luther’s?

 

Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer, a former Pepperdine University student, points out yet another piece of dishonesty in the film:

It was with some irony for me, then, that I saw Ben Stein's antievolution documentary film,

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

, opens with the actor, game show host and speechwriter for Richard Nixon addressing a packed audience of adoring students at Pepperdine University, apparently falling for the same trap I did.

Actually they didn't. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein's screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, associate provost for research and chair of natural science at Pepperdine, "the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus" but that "the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and a staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.

 

Wow Phred, you've only been here for a few days and yet I knew you would post something like this. Predictable. :001_rolleyes: A review like this from Scientific American means very little to me, although I'm sure it makes great kitty litter.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Wow Phred, you've only been here for a few days and yet I knew you would post something like this. Predictable. :001_rolleyes: A review like this from Scientific American means very little to me, although I'm sure it makes great kitty litter.

 

Phred was on the old board.

 

Really, it means very little? It would make me crazy if someone was trying to push agnosticism and used deliberate chicanery and tricks of the camera to make their position merely "appear" truthful. I would hope Christianity Today would pick up the scent and expose them. Even if it were MY side, kwim?

 

If evolutionary biologists needed to resort to such nonsense to try to sell a movie about evolution, I would hope someone, somewhere, would say, "Uh, wait a minute here. Why all the nonsense?" Shouldn't ID be able to take at least as much scrutiny as those in the EB field expect their ideas to withstand?

[Mamagistra]

One needn't embrace or even accept ID yet still desire to see the film, right? I'm just sayin'. :001_huh:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

One needn't embrace or even accept ID yet still desire to see the film, right? I'm just sayin'. :001_huh:

 

True, dat.

[Guest tinda]

Everything Phred said.

[*anj*]

We are definitely interested in seeing it although we will likely wait til it's out on dvd.

[1bassoon]

I think dh is going to take oldest 2 or 3 kiddos to see it - our SS teacher is going through Creation Science right now - good stuff.

[Kelli in TN]

Phred was on the old board.

 

 

 

Yes he was. He sure was.

[Kelli in TN]

I'll wait for the dvd. I think it might push the envelope a bit for me. Even though I am a creationist I don't like the tactics that some creationists use and so I will prefer to watch this in my own home, with my remote in hand.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Yes he was. He sure was.

 

I wonder, though, if Phred posted infrequently but from an evangelical Christian perspective, coming in to refute the evolutionists, would he be seen as a rabble-rouser or an infrequently heard voice of reason?

 

Is it the tone or the content?

[Kelli in TN]

I wonder, though, if Phred posted infrequently but from an evangelical Christian perspective, coming in to refute the evolutionists, would he be seen as a rabble-rouser or an infrequently heard voice of reason?

 

Is it the tone or the content?

 

Are you asking me? Because if someone showed up once in awhile just to blast the secularist I would be appalled. And offended on their behalf.

 

It is the tone. It is the trollish nature. It is the lack of interaction on non-controversial topics. It is the post and run technique.

[nmoira]

Absolutely not.

[Laura K (NC)]

but I want to know why it's rated PG. The rating says "thematic material, some disturbing images, brief smoking." My kids can handle smoking and the news that God isn't welcome in academia. What else is there that I might actually have to worry about?

[battlemaiden]

You can betch-ya-bippy I'm going! The controversy! The irreverence! I'm so excited.

 

Jo

[chiguirre]

A review like this from Scientific American means very little to me, although I'm sure it makes great kitty litter.

 

Actually, Fox trashed it too.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html

(scroll down past Mariah Carey)

 

:lurk5:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Are you asking me? Because if someone showed up once in awhile just to blast the secularist I would be appalled. And offended on their behalf.

 

It is the tone. It is the trollish nature. It is the lack of interaction on non-controversial topics. It is the post and run technique.

 

Yes, I was asking you because you posted a reply to my post. And I quoted your post, and posted it under your post, thereby ensuring you'd see it and we would (probably) chat. :D

 

I guess I can claim fame to having blasted Phred at one point, realized I completely misunderstood what he said, had to apologize, then had him come back and say, "no problem" to my apology. So maybe my view of his posting nature is different as far as the cut and run thing goes.

 

Not many people interact with Phred except to tell him he's an exceptional idiot and a newbie. So I could actually see why he wouldn't want to hang about.

 

And I'm assuming it's a guy, and of course, I could be wrong.

 

I don't see quite the same way. I was just wondering if the reason I don't is that I share his viewpoint usually. I'll just be more aware of it in the future, I guess, reserve judgment.

[Mamagistra]

brief smoking...

 

ROFLOL That a film rates PG (partially) for scenes of smoking is beyond hilarious to me!! :lol:

[Basketmaker Amy]

You can betch-ya-bippy I'm going! The controversy! The irreverence! I'm so excited.

 

Jo

 

I love your way with words! We're going, too!

[Kelli in TN]

but I want to know why it's rated PG. The rating says "thematic material, some disturbing images, brief smoking." My kids can handle smoking and the news that God isn't welcome in academia. What else is there that I might actually have to worry about?

 

Could it be that the disturbing images are of people smoking in their briefs?

 

Okay, sorry, must be a Friday night.

[Phred]

but I want to know why it's rated PG. The rating says "thematic material, some disturbing images, brief smoking." My kids can handle smoking and the news that God isn't welcome in academia. What else is there that I might actually have to worry about?

Wow... I think the responses such as "not without my remote in hand" are apt. But to take your kids to something as dishonest as this... what possibly can you hope to learn from it? Do you wish to reinforce your opinion that God isn't welcome in academia?

 

Think of it this way... perhaps you're right. And perhaps... just perhaps it's God that's made the choice to be of a nature that can't be studied by science. You do know most scientists in the U.S. and in academia are Christian, right?

 

So seriously, I'd like to know. Those of you that are in a hurry to see this epic. What do you hope to gain from it?

[battlemaiden]

Wow... I think the responses such as "not without my remote in hand" are apt. But to take your kids to something as dishonest as this... what possibly can you hope to learn from it? Do you wish to reinforce your opinion that God isn't welcome in academia?

 

Think of it this way... perhaps you're right. And perhaps... just perhaps it's God that's made the choice to be of a nature that can't be studied by science. You do know most scientists in the U.S. and in academia are Christian, right?

 

So seriously, I'd like to know. Those of you that are in a hurry to see this epic. What do you hope to gain from it?

 

And your proof that it is dishonest?

 

Your statistic source that most scientists in the U.S. in academia are Christians?

 

And if they are Christians, do they have the freedom to discuss their Christian beliefs in relation to the science they study?

 

Answer to your question: I hope to gain a better understanding about what the critics of the theory of evolution are having in higher education.

 

I'm not surpised the science journals are critical of the film. They are kinda the audience addressed in the film. ;) But what is the harm of seeing this side of the coin? If I come away thinking it was stupid, so be it. It can't be any worse than some other documentaries I've seen of late.

 

Jo

[Karenciavo]

Actually, Fox trashed it too.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html

(scroll down past Mariah Carey)

 

:lurk5:

 

That's is perfectly fine. I don't have a problem with anyone trashing it, but I'm not going to trust the opinion of a magazine with an axe to grind. Nor am I going to listen to a poster that is troll-like if not a troll.

[freethinkermom]

No, not in the theater. In no way would I ever consider giving money to support this kind of anti-scientific propoganda. I have been watching this movie closely since it was announced. I used to be a Ben Stein fan, but I have lost all respect for him. Not only did they purposely misrepresent certain mainstream scientists that are teachers of evolution, but on the blog for the movie they choose to severely edit and delete the comments that opened discussion on the matter (after Ben Stein verbally insulted several posters).

 

I will watch it on dvd from Netflix because I like to stay informed on all sides of an issue. I have very strong opinions on this subject that I know are not welcome here, but I at least do not remain ignorant of the opposition.

 

I love Scientific America. How can anyone here, where christian sources and world net daily are often used as refences, insult someone for using a respected scientic publication as a source? It is ok to use a biased source if it agrees with your religous beliefs, but not any other source? Look at your reactions. I can say quite honestly as an aethist I am frequently uncomfortable with discussions here. There is an attitude that christians are welcome and all others are merely tolerated.

[Karenciavo]

I love Scientific America. How can anyone here, where christian sources and world net daily are often used as refences, insult someone for using a respected scientic publication as a source? It is ok to use a biased source if it agrees with your religous beliefs, but not any other source? Look at your reactions. I can say quite honestly as an aethist I am frequently uncomfortable with discussions here. There is an attitude that christians are welcome and all others are merely tolerated.

 

You will never see me using World Net Daily as a source. Respected publications push their own agendas every day.

[Kelli in TN]

 

I love Scientific America. How can anyone here, where christian sources and world net daily are often used as refences, insult someone for using a respected scientic publication as a source? It is ok to use a biased source if it agrees with your religous beliefs, but not any other source? Look at your reactions. I can say quite honestly as an aethist I am frequently uncomfortable with discussions here. There is an attitude that christians are welcome and all others are merely tolerated.

 

I wonder if the insult against Scientific America was not more a reaction to the poster who quoted it and less a reaction against the publication itself. I wonder if that same magazine had been quoted by someone who is a respected part of the larger community here, would the reaction have been the same?

 

I think most people agree that the diversity here is a good thing. As a Christian I am truly sorry that you and others with similar viewpoints feel merely tolerated. I assure you that I and others appreciate the value in polite and respectful discussion of issues with folks that we would probably never meet outside of a forum like this.

[mcconnellboys]

GO BEN! You THE MAN!!!!! I can't WAIT!

[Karenciavo]

I wonder if the insult against Scientific America was not more a reaction to the poster who quoted it and less a reaction against the publication itself. I wonder if that same magazine had been quoted by someone who is a respected part of the larger community here, would the reaction have been the same?

 

Let me clear up this misconception right away. I did not insult Scientific American as a whole. I was very careful to say a review on a movie about creationism to mean a hill of beans to me. The only thing that would have changed about my reaction is that I would not have called a respected poster troll-like. You can check all of Phred's posts and see he/she is trolling.

[Laura K (NC)]

I see no reason to promote that canard now.

 

When fairy tales such as this (be mindful of your inner fish!)

and

this (the universe has 10 dimensions, and when the moon is in the seventh house, and jupiter aligns with mars, then peace shall guide the planet, and love will steer the stars!)

 

are considered in academia, yet an Intelligent Designer, who is not even yet named "God," is censored out like a naughty word, then what we have is the perception of bias in academics. When academics irrationally tolerates bias, then academia loses credibility.

 

What I hope my children to gain:

the fact that university professors are not unbiased walking encyclopedias.

the power of rhetoric

the difficulty they will have, as Christians, to hold a Christian POV in areas where no man is able to discern natural law.

 

If philosophers are allowed to kibitz, then tell me: why are Christians not?

[Laura K (NC)]

that I can watch a controversial movie (a movie!) with a conservative slant. I'm afraid these will go the way of the *ahem* dinosaur, so I want to take advantage of the opportunity. Who knows when secular humanists will decide that movies like this are crimethink as well.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

that I can watch a controversial movie (a movie!) with a conservative slant. I'm afraid these will go the way of the *ahem* dinosaur, so I want to take advantage of the opportunity. Who knows when secular humanists will decide that movies like this are crimethink as well.

 

Ah, those secular humanists. They pop up all over the place, spreading havoc and making even thoughts criminal. Durn them to heck, and their dratted ACLU!

 

I don't know any secular humanists that want to make movies (or other protected speech) crimethink. I know some evangelicals that can't wait to usher in a theocracy. But you won't see me insulting them on this message board. (You'd be hard pressed to find me insulting them ANYwhere, in fact.)

 

Are you serious about this, Laura, or just indulging in a bit of hyperbole? Because that smarts. My objecting to how the movie has been made has NOTHING to do with its leanings.

[Phred]

And your proof that it is dishonest?

As I quoted in my earlier posts... if you don't find representing an audience as adoring Pepperdine students who were paid extras...need I recount my entire post?

 

Your statistic source that most scientists in the U.S. in academia are Christians?

here and here

 

And if they are Christians, do they have the freedom to discuss their Christian beliefs in relation to the science they study?

What does their belief have to do with what they study? If you think that their belief is relevant then you don't understand science. It's not a bias, it's the nature of science itself. What you'll find is, using the age of the earth as an example, they have the ability to make a hypothesis that the earth is 6,000 years old. They can propose this and try to find evidence to support it. As scientists in the 1800s did. They were the first to seek and fail to find evidence to support a global flood. Belief is not enough to support a scientific theory. You need evidence.

 

Answer to your question: I hope to gain a better understanding about what the critics of the theory of evolution are having in higher education.

My opinion? You won't learn anything from a dishonest movie made to pander to those who don't know what the Theory of Evolution is in the first place.

 

I'm not surpised the science journals are critical of the film. They are kinda the audience addressed in the film. ;) But what is the harm of seeing this side of the coin? If I come away thinking it was stupid, so be it. It can't be any worse than some other documentaries I've seen of late.

FOX trashed it too.

 

I guess it's just time to move on. Here's my opinion. This movie is dishonest and misleading. It presents a strawman of what the Theory of Evolution is and then, through falsely edited interviews and items taken out of context it proceeds to tear that strawman down. Instead of spending money on research and proving the creationist side by finding evidence the PR machine once again cranks into gear and presents a movie. But does it ever occur to anyone that even if someone succeeded in tearing down the Theory of Evolution that would not prove creationism correct? It's not a zero sum game. If we go back in time to the 1830s there is still no evidence to prove creationism true. That's why they were seeking it.

 

My kids won't be seeing this until after I've seen it. I'll decide then if it's worth their time.

[CLHCO]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it Scientific America who is a target of some of the charges the movie makes? Were they the ones who dumped an editor for allowing an article that was peer reviewed and scientifically backed and gave suggestions to ID as a possibility? That editor was not even a creationist, he just allowed what he thought was a reasonable scientific paper to be published. If that is the case, though I may have the publication wrong, I do believe Scientific America to be biased as well - on this issue. They will pick this thing apart and leave no stone unturned.

 

That's not to suggest I don't believe the vast majority of everything they publish to be sound, I'm just saying that even scientific research has a direction they're pointing. We've seen evidence of this before on things far less controversial. They get things wrong in their zeal.

 

The Fox article was bashing with an ax. No further comment there.

 

I don't doubt they played up a bit of drama with the extras, not that previous documentaries didn't use a bit of, uh, hyperbole and drama as well. Even that stupid one against Walmart was nothing but a bunch of disgruntled employees bashing the company. However, after you sift through the manipulating heart-string pulling, you could get to the meat of the argument and make a decision. I see this as no different.

 

Sadly, that's the way most of the public deals with any decision anymore. Emotionally. If a documentary is going to get anyone to watch it they have to provide the right atmosphere, emotional roller coaster, dramatic music, etc. I've heard Michael Moore is an artist at this and so was Al Gore's movie. You just have to wade through the goop for these mass produced theater releases if you intend to view them, or just sit and watch Nova or Frontline instead.

 

I like Ben Stein. Does he have an agenda? Well, Duh. But find me someone who doesn't. I agree with the premise of his argument so I will be watching it, with my eyes wide open for the "extras".

[Vida Winter]

We'll wait for DVD because there's no way it will come to our one-movie-a-week theatre before it's on DVD (probably won't make it to the theatre at all).

 

I love Ben Stein. I'm not sure what the movie will have to say but for Christians, the college atmosphere has to be a concern. There is an anti-religious sentiment at a huge number of schools, and I'm not even talkin' evolution - I just mean in general. (I'm "old-earth" so evolution is fine with me). I've got a kid who's getting older fast and I'm paying attention to this atmosphere on campuses.

[mcconnellboys]

I really, *really* don't want to cause any sort of debate here, so please understand that I am just thinking out loud about all this stuff. I'm sort of confused about why ya'll are upset by this. I looked at all the trailers I could find this morning and the only thing I saw in them is that Ben Stein is trying to say WHY can't we look at, investigate, consider the possibility that there is a God and He was/is involved in the creation of the universe and it's continuance from that point forward.

 

Why? Why would anyone with a scientific mind dismiss any possibility whatsoever, no matter how implausible it might seem, when there is no *definitive* other answer yet?

 

I studied physical anthropology in school. I still don't see a fossil record that is complete enough or definitive enough to rule out God.

 

Because I was in physical anthro, most of my classes consisted of biology classes. My professors did not preach to us that there was "no god", could not be any such thing, etc. Has the world really changed that much since I was in school?

 

I read every new article regarding evolutionary finds that comes my way and I always have. I attend every museum exhibit that treats these subjects that I come across. I still don't see anything that precludes the possibility of a God. I don't see that we have found any sort of absolute, definitive answer to how, when, or where time began or precisely how or when the earth began - or life on that earth. We have some good fossil evidence of methane breathing bacteria. I don't think we have evidence of an origin of life, however, that we can treat as definitive.

 

I look at the world of physics and read about it - and everything I read about the edge to the space/time continuum indicates to me that there was a creation point to the universe, and therefore, presumptively, a Creator. String theory appears to me to be going no where.

 

I read the latest stuff on delving into the structure of atoms regarding quarks and neutrinos and perfect order and symmetry are found there, even in the unseeable, where scientists expected to find randomness when they started looking.

 

I read the latest stuff on the mapping of deep space galaxies, where scientists also expected to find randomness, and there, too, perfect order and symmetry are found.

 

Even clones are not identical.....

 

I can not, for the life of me, find anything, anywhere that I read on the science front that would indicate to me that I can now dismiss the possibility that there is a God. It's perfectly fine with me if others want to dismiss that, but I'm not sure I'm okay with them trying to tell me what I can and can not think about the information that I digest from the world around me.

 

Now, looking for evidence of a God may not be something that we're capable of studying at this point in our evolution, so perhaps research cannot be specifically designed to look for such a thing. I can understand that.

 

But I can not understand why we can't just say that. "It might be a possibility but we just don't know and have no way to measurably test for it." And that seems to me, at least from the trailers, to be all that Ben Stein is trying to say, too..... How can it be forbidden to say that a theory is just that, a theory - and that means that there might be other plausible explanations yet to be found, as well?

[Laura K (NC)]

My main point is that I'm interested in seeing this movie to see the extent that censorship is practiced in the academic community.

 

And of course, both my posts were addressed to "Phred."

 

You said,

I know some evangelicals that can't wait to usher in a theocracy.

 

But you see, evangelicals are supposed to be biased. That's not to say they are closed-minded, but faith demands a filter that secular scholarship should not. That's the secular world's supposed triumph over religion -- that it employs reason! But as I said in my preceeding post, all sorts of unreasonable theories are proposed by scientists about how the earth began, and frankly, creationism seems less ludicrous (she said, admitting that she is a creationist).

 

As for the media, I shudder when I consider Michael Moore and Al Gore. I'm hoping that Ben Stein's conservative expose will be better, and I'm surprised to actually see one, since these things normally come from the left. Evangelical whoops usually stay underground, preaching to the choir.

[Laura K (NC)]

Not having seen any reviews or knowing what this movie was about, I first thought "Expelled" starred Ben Stiller, not Ben Stein. I got all excited because I have a mild crush on Ben Stiller. Let me make it clear that I have no mild crushes on Ben Stein, however, and I would not promote "Expelled" based on so shallow a motive. If it was Ben Stiller's movie, however, I would have no such qualms. :w00t:

[Phred]

I really, *really* don't want to cause any sort of debate here, so please understand that I am just thinking out loud about all this stuff. I'm sort of confused about why ya'll are upset by this. I looked at all the trailers I could find this morning and the only thing I saw in them is that Ben Stein is trying to say WHY can't we look at, investigate, consider the possibility that there is a God and He was/is involved in the creation of the universe and it's continuance from that point forward.

Hi Regina... here's the problem as I see it. Any other thing that we consider and investigate is proposed as an hypothesis, evidence is gathered and then evaluated and from there we start come up with possible theories. So why can't we look at God? There's no evidence. Nothing suggests there must be a god. The problem is that people like Ben Stein insist we must consider a god anyway... even with no evidence. Philosophers have pointed out that science and the metaphysical don't mix. Find evidence and I'll be happy to consider it and investigate it. In fact I'll be excited about it.

 

Why? Why would anyone with a scientific mind dismiss any possibility whatsoever, no matter how implausible it might seem, when there is no *definitive* other answer yet?

No answer can be dismissed. But no answer is any more plausible than any other.

 

I studied physical anthropology in school. I still don't see a fossil record that is complete enough or definitive enough to rule out God.

 

Because I was in physical anthro, most of my classes consisted of biology classes. My professors did not preach to us that there was "no god", could not be any such thing, etc. Has the world really changed that much since I was in school?

Nobody is trying to rule out gods... but there isn't enough evidence to rule them in either.

 

I read every new article regarding evolutionary finds that comes my way and I always have. I attend every museum exhibit that treats these subjects that I come across. I still don't see anything that precludes the possibility of a God. I don't see that we have found any sort of absolute, definitive answer to how, when, or where time began or precisely how or when the earth began - or life on that earth. We have some good fossil evidence of methane breathing bacteria. I don't think we have evidence of an origin of life, however, that we can treat as definitive.

Are you suggesting that if we can't rule out a god that means a god did it? At this point we're so far from the Biblical description that you're pretty much on my side of the table anyway. :001_smile:

 

I look at the world of physics and read about it - and everything I read about the edge to the space/time continuum indicates to me that there was a creation point to the universe, and therefore, presumptively, a Creator. String theory appears to me to be going no where.

A creation point doesn't presume a creator. However, the Big Bang might be a one-time occurance or it might be one in a series of contractions and expansions. There also might be a multitude of universes. As to string theory, the math is elegant but it isn't even science yet. Nothing to test.

 

I read the latest stuff on delving into the structure of atoms regarding quarks and neutrinos and perfect order and symmetry are found there, even in the unseeable, where scientists expected to find randomness when they started looking.

They did find randomness. Good luck finding out where an electron is.

 

I read the latest stuff on the mapping of deep space galaxies, where scientists also expected to find randomness, and there, too, perfect order and symmetry are found.

Hardly so. The background radiation left by the Big Bang turned out to be strangely unsymmetrical and that's what allowed us to be here.

 

I can not, for the life of me, find anything, anywhere that I read on the science front that would indicate to me that I can now dismiss the possibility that there is a God. It's perfectly fine with me if others want to dismiss that, but I'm not sure I'm okay with them trying to tell me what I can and can not think about the information that I digest from the world around me.

 

Now, looking for evidence of a God may not be something that we're capable of studying at this point in our evolution, so perhaps research cannot be specifically designed to look for such a thing. I can understand that.

 

But I can not understand why we can't just say that. "It might be a possibility but we just don't know and have no way to measurably test for it." And that seems to me, at least from the trailers, to be all that Ben Stein is trying to say, too..... How can it be forbidden to say that a theory is just that, a theory - and that means that there might be other plausible explanations yet to be found, as well?

What you're saying is simply not science. And a scientific theory is different from a colloquial "theory". When we say something is a theory that means it's supported by significantly more than just "I think it might be". But what you're saying is that you can't find a single piece of evidence that suggests a god might exist yet you want us all to still give you the benefit of the doubt just because we can't find any reason to dismiss your deity. And that's what Ben Stein is saying. Along with a healthy dose of misinformation and disinformation about what evolution is.

[Jill- OK]

A woman after my own heart. :-)

[PiCO]

Supporters of ID always stress that they are not promoting their own religion, because it is just an "Intelligent Designer," not God they are talking about. My question is- there have been many gods over the years, why don't they talk about "Intelligent Designers?" Wouldn't it make more sense if there were more than one designer?

 

As for the movie, I will probably watch it at some point, so I am able to discuss in an informed manner. I'm not going to pay for a movie ticket, though.

[pixelroper]

I plan on watching it and will refrain from any comment until I can view the whole thing.

 

Questioning theory does not bother me and in fact being labeled as such (theory) demands it. Clearly this topic is not being handled in an appropriate manner publicly. I think this is what bothers me the most. It is the theory's proponents to provide the proof, not the unbelievers problem to provide proof against. In the case of evolution, its claims fall outside of observable data and we are limited by our ....well-- human limitations.