[wallinbl]

So, Ben Stein has made a movie in which he looks at the inability of scientists and academics to make mention of their belief in a creator God without being canned. I got to see the movie yesterday at a preview at which Stein introduced the movie and took questions afterwards. The movie actually winds up making a compelling point about how science is actually failing on one of its basic tenets when it uses mob mentality to rush God out the door. Science is about always questioning the status quo and about testing things, but when it comes to Darwinism, Darwin is accepted unequivocally and no one is allowed to question it.

Stein actually interviewed Richard Dawkins, and the interview is hilarious. I'd love to see the entire thing be included as an extra on a DVD release. In it, Dawkins says he's "maybe 98, 99% sure there's no god" but then subsequently backs away from that number, implying the probability of god (in his mind) is higher. When asked how the world went from no life at all to the first living cell (remember, evolution starts after the first cell, we have no explanation for the first cell), Dawkins says perhaps at some point billions of years ago, some intelligent life forms from another planet in the universe were here and left the seeds of life on this planet. I'm not making that part up. It was the funniest thing I've ever heard. I'd like to see the rest of this interview, because Stein swears that they used the most generous answers they could because otherwise Dawkins would have looked like an idiot.

I found some of the Intelligent Design folks in the film hard to swallow.

The film's real point is that there is now a very active group within science that is using dirty tactics to silence those that don't agree. It's counter to both free speech and to scientific principles. The argument of what is taught in public schools is a red herring in the fight over intellectual freedom in science and university academics. While I am both a Christian and a scientist (biochemistry), I've always been leery of attempts to get Creationism into schools. I never really gave much thought to the fact that there might be people out there using public school curriculum as a way to drive the concept of a creator (independent of Bibilical Creationism) out of science. Not sure the extent of this, but the film does a fine job of making it look like this is happening to a frightening degree.

[Chongo]

already a thread on this
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...led-the-movie/

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

already a thread on this
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...led-the-movie/

That thread went to sh!t in a hurry. I've actually seen the movie. Many of the claims in that thread are flat out false. The movie has nearly nothing to do with teaching creationism in public schools other than to mention that that debate is a red herring in the debate of whether an academic or scientist should be able to believe in God. That's the only mention of it in the whole movie and it's in response to the fact that it was brought up by someone they interviewed. Perhaps now that someone has actually seen the movie, there can be a more rational discussion. I can, to some extent, validate or invalidate responses because I've seen it. I'm neither a supporter nor a detractor of the movie. I am not an opponent of evolution. I am not an opponent of the idea of a creator.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I think your review is missing something, and that something is the connection between belief in God and evolution, or as you call it "Darwinism," which I might point out is a term pretty much only used as a derogatory label when it's time for someone to start slamming evolution, though I suspect you're using it just because that's what they kept calling it in the movie. Anyway, back to my point, evolution doesn't exclude God, and this should be obvious in that the most fervent evolution supporter (Dawkins) and the most fervent God supporter (the Pope) both declare that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I work in biology in a lab setting and I know many excellent scientists who are strongly religious, and since I know you're not going to just take my word for it, this is also one of the main arguments of Ken Miller, another fervent pro-evolution debater who is also religious. Please see the dozens of hours-long debates with Ken Miller vs Michael Behe that are posted on Youtube.

My point is, scientists are absolutely _not_ "unable" nor even discouraged from believing in God nor of being actively religious. It's hard for them to say they believe in "Creationism" (where Creationism is the form of it that basically consists of "evolution is false, I don't care what else happened") is because of an understandable backlash against the specific and explicit agenda of the Discovery Institute to literally "defeat science" using evolution as a proxy. Basically, the Discovery Institute has closed the door on any whimsical, casual musing regarding the validity of evolution. It's a classic "boy who cried wolf," plain and simple. It's not impossible to open that door again, but to do so you'll need two things. First you'll need evidence, which so far has been utterly absent, and secondly you'll need to prevent the deceptive anti-science agenda of the Discovery Institute from influencing your story. Now unfortunately for Ben Stein, this movie, Expelled, is produced by none other than the Discovery Institute, and as far as I can tell it's not even remotely interested in looking at the evidence. Therefore, I call bullshit on this movie. It's like a big emo piece about how physicists aren't allowed to say they don't believe in gravity, or how police officers aren't allowed to say they don't believe in free will. Except it's worse than that because it is quite obviously part of a larger movement to "defeat" all of science through deception of innocent viewers such as yourself, wallinbl. I urge you to investigate the ulterior motives of the Discovery Institute and not let yourself be fooled by their claimed "persecution." They're lying, it's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

movie in which he looks at the inability of scientists and academics to make mention of their belief in a creator God without being canned. ... science is actually failing on one of its basic tenets when it uses mob mentality to rush God out the door. Science is about always questioning the status quo and about testing things, but when it comes to Darwinism, Darwin is accepted unequivocally and no one is allowed to question it.

[Shaddim]

In it, Dawkins says he's "maybe 98, 99% sure there's no god" but then subsequently backs away from that number, implying the probability of god (in his mind) is higher. When asked how the world went from no life at all to the first living cell (remember, evolution starts after the first cell, we have no explanation for the first cell), Dawkins says perhaps at some point billions of years ago, some intelligent life forms from another planet in the universe were here and left the seeds of life on this planet.

Wow, that's eye-opening. One of the most vocal atheists in the world isn't even an atheist. Someone buy this man a dictionary.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Anyway, back to my point, evolution doesn't exclude God, and this should be obvious in that the most fervent evolution supporter (Dawkins) and the most fervent God supporter (the Pope) both declare that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

I think that depends on the person's understanding of God. For a lot of people, evolution and God are incompatible. People like you can tell them they're really really not incompatible I-swear-they're-not, but it doesn't matter what you say if that's what they believe.

I think scientists misunderstand religion if they say that science and religion are separate domains, "non-overlapping magisteria" as SJ Gould pompously put it. For many, and probably most religious people, their religion does have real-world implications. Religion is not just vague spirituality, it carries with it very specific facts about the world. They believe the virgin birth and the resurrection happened for real, even if those are incompatible with biology. And lots of American Christians apparently believe that God created everything at once rather than the way science sees it. For them, God absolutely is incompatible with evolution. :shrugs:

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm sure the Pope believes those things too, so why is he ok with evolution? What's wrong with "God created evolution too?"

I don't think it's so much that people think evolution is incompatible with their beliefs as you say, I think in the vast majority of those cases it's that they were told by some authority that they had to choose between science and religion and they didn't want to choose anything against religion. I think the problem is that authority drawing the line in the sand, not the product of their actual beliefs. And the biggest instigator of this is the Discovery Institute.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

So, Ben Stein has made a movie in which he looks at the inability of scientists and academics to make mention of their belief in a creator God without being canned. I got to see the movie yesterday at a preview at which Stein introduced the movie and took questions afterwards. The movie actually winds up making a compelling point about how science is actually failing on one of its basic tenets when it uses mob mentality to rush God out the door. Science is about always questioning the status quo and about testing things, but when it comes to Darwinism, Darwin is accepted unequivocally and no one is allowed to question it.

Stein actually interviewed Richard Dawkins, and the interview is hilarious. I'd love to see the entire thing be included as an extra on a DVD release. In it, Dawkins says he's "maybe 98, 99% sure there's no god" but then subsequently backs away from that number, implying the probability of god (in his mind) is higher. When asked how the world went from no life at all to the first living cell (remember, evolution starts after the first cell, we have no explanation for the first cell), Dawkins says perhaps at some point billions of years ago, some intelligent life forms from another planet in the universe were here and left the seeds of life on this planet. I'm not making that part up. It was the funniest thing I've ever heard. I'd like to see the rest of this interview, because Stein swears that they used the most generous answers they could because otherwise Dawkins would have looked like an idiot.

I found some of the Intelligent Design folks in the film hard to swallow.

The film's real point is that there is now a very active group within science that is using dirty tactics to silence those that don't agree. It's counter to both free speech and to scientific principles. The argument of what is taught in public schools is a red herring in the fight over intellectual freedom in science and university academics. While I am both a Christian and a scientist (biochemistry), I've always been leery of attempts to get Creationism into schools. I never really gave much thought to the fact that there might be people out there using public school curriculum as a way to drive the concept of a creator (independent of Bibilical Creationism) out of science. Not sure the extent of this, but the film does a fine job of making it look like this is happening to a frightening degree.

That's really not an accurate portrayal of the ideological landscape, though. The reality is that most of the dirty tricks are distortions of fact used by creationists to keep people in ignorance.

The scientific establishment doesn't need coercion or deceit to keep people from rejecting "Darwinism" because the evidence does that for it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

So, Ben Stein has made a movie in which he looks at the inability of scientists and academics to make mention of their belief in a creator God without being canned.

That is completely inaccurate. Scientists and academics can make mention of their belief in a creator God. They just can't present it as science.

When asked how the world went from no life at all to the first living cell (remember, evolution starts after the first cell, we have no explanation for the first cell), Dawkins says perhaps at some point billions of years ago, some intelligent life forms from another planet in the universe were here and left the seeds of life on this planet. I'm not making that part up. It was the funniest thing I've ever heard.

Actually, this is a standing hypothesis, except for the "intelligent life forms" part. Possibly, a meteor landed here with bacteria inside it. Are you sure that Dawkins says "intelligent life forms" or just life forms?

The film's real point is that there is now a very active group within science that is using dirty tactics to silence those that don't agree.

Who are they? Are they named in the film?

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's become a classic neoconservative tactic, cliché even, to pre-empt accusations of their "dirty tactics" by accusing their opponents/targets of doing those self-same "dirty tactics," despite it being an unabashed boldfaced lie. This is just more of the same. I wouldn't be so quick to conclude this if the movie weren't produced by an institution with a long history of doing exactly that.

[hyteckit]

Evolution is about origin of species, not origin of life.

Evolution and the belief in God are not mutually exclusive.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Evolution is about origin of species, not origin of life.

Evolution and the belief in God are not mutually exclusive.

I just don't get why people say this. Whether evolution is inconsistent with the belief in God just depends on your view of God.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's because for many people it doesn't depend on their view of God, but it does depend on what someone on the other side has said, something like "evolution and the belief in God are mutually exclusive." Saying what hyteckit said just tries to balance that out. How does it hurt?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I just don't get why people say this. Whether evolution is inconsistent with the belief in God just depends on your view of God.

Maybe your believe they are mutually exclusive. However, evolution in itself does not make claim that God does not exist. Lots of people who believe in evolution also believe in God(s) or some supreme being.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's because for many people it doesn't depend on their view of God, but it does depend on what someone on the other side has said, something like "evolution and the belief in God are mutually exclusive." Saying what hyteckit said just tries to balance that out. How does it hurt?

I'm not sure why it bothers me. I think it's the idea that you can treat God like a scientific concept that can be consistent or inconsistent with specific other empirical facts or theories, like saying quantum mechanics is consistent with gravitation, or something like that. God is whatever people believe it is. Whether it's consistent with any particular fact about the world is really up to them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Let me put it this way: why don't people have a problem with God vs gravity or God vs magnetism?

If any sort of logical explanation just popped into your head, there's your answer: the idea of God can be reasoned about. A lot of people do it. I'm sure there are purists and philosophers who feel the way you describe, but I'd wager there are many many more people who believe in God the way rabbis do: logic and reason and over-interpretation of scripture can tell you a whole heck of a lot about what God is "supposed" to be. And that type of belief is certainly subject to insights like "God created evolution."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I just don't get why people say this. Whether evolution is inconsistent with the belief in God just depends on your view of God.

Because phrasing it as you just did is more confrontational, thus less appropriate in some social circumstances. Making comments about others' views of God isn't always wise.

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Science is about always questioning the status quo and about testing things, but when it comes to Darwinism, Darwin is accepted unequivocally and no one is allowed to question it.

Darwin is so widely accepted because there is a significant body of evidence gathered through scientific investigation that suggests he was correct.

(remember, evolution starts after the first cell, we have no explanation for the first cell)

You have to consider that life was probably very different 3.5 billion ago and has changed a bit since then.

Anyway, I think it is fine to denounce the accuracy of religion's interruptions of God, but to say there is absolutely no higher force is somewhat arrogant considering we simply do not know.

[Apemanblues]

The 'ID movement' seem to make a lot of movies, books and legal challenges, but they are glaringly short on any actual science. Then they complain that the scientific community won't take them seriously.

Funny that...

[CollinG3G4]

YouTube - Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Here is an interesting lecture by Ken Miller on Intelligent design. It is a few years old, but still rather informative.

[peeb]

Theology and science simply have nothing to do with each other - it's like asking how you can believe in Art History and still be an auto mechanic - they are totally unrelated.

[Chongo]

go god god, part I and XII
South Park Episode Player
South Park Episode Player

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Theology and science simply have nothing to do with each other - it's like asking how you can believe in Art History and still be an auto mechanic - they are totally unrelated.

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman.