April 19, 2008...2:15 pm
Expelled - Ben Stein’s New Movie Asks Some Dangerous Questions…
“Some of you may lose your friends or even your job because you watched this film”
… Ben Stein on his film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”
Where Did Life Come From?
One of the big questions I’ve struggled with is the Darwinian premise that everything made itself out of nothing - with no design, no purpose, no external energy or plan. No god or designer or creator or whatever label you will apply to the external energy that made everything and set the rules.
If Darwin and his followers are correct, the universe, everything, is nothing but an accident of random chance. Perhaps we are all here because mud was struck by lightning.
My reluctance to accept the mud and lightning myth, stems from my reluctance to take the next logical step. When one accepts that we are all an accident, if all is random chance - then humans as a species are nothing special, and individuals are lesser still. We have no innate rights or freedoms except that which we give ourselves - either through agreement, or by the imposition of force.
If there is no “god”, there can be no “right” or “wrong” except what we decide for ourselves as individuals or groups. Who is to say that your morality is wrong and mine is right? Me? You? The group?
And it all stems from that great first question: Where did everything come from?
But according to Mr. Stein, our friends at Cave Hill and academia in general don’t allow certain questions to be asked. Those who ask them are shunned and discredited.
Mr. Stein is correct - certain questions are not allowed…
Can’t wait to see this movie. Check out the long trailer if you have some time. Well worth it.
Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed: Official movie website
Short Movie Trailer #1 - Link Here
149 Comments
April 19, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Whatever!
You certainly have the right to need more knowledge. You know the bible was not written by the hand of god it was written by a friend of a friends friend. Go to the library many scholors have written on this subject.
Also, most of the crimes are commited by people who believe in god. Some even stand before you in church and read to you from the bible. We all know right from wrong but make choices. You don’t have to believe in God to make the right choices.
All the wars in the world are because of who believes or not and what you believe. Sounds to me like the god and bible stuff is not working.. May be we do need to make other choices.
April 19, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The far Right damns ID more than anyone else. Why is Stein politicizing this? Oh, that’s right, he’s a republican, I forgot.
April 19, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I don’t think you have that correct, kip. Bush said he had no problem with ID being taught in schools. The fundamentalist Christians (born again) are creationists, and it is claimed, incorrectly, that ID is an offshoot of that, but it certainly means the far Right (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists are described sociologically as an ultra-conservative Protestant sect) will support ID, not damn it.
I am looking forward to seeing this film, I think an SDA church might get it first. As a scientist, I think ID has something to offer the discipline of science.
April 19, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I too have a problem with wrapping my head around the thought that everything came from nothing by itself.
There is a whole lot of pretending going on by the scientists who have made it impossible for students to question the religious dogma that is presented in the classroom as real science.
And yes, I’m talking about the religious position that the theory of evolution is true even though it cannot be observed or replicated. It isn’t science, and it is as much an article of religious faith as those who believe in a creator god.
April 19, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Is there a God?
Spouting propaganda worthy of Nazi Germany to prove there is a God, Ben Stein intersperses pictures of Hitler and Death Camp ovens to prove how “we” (the civilised American People?) have progressed since 1939-45.
Omitting any mention of civilian deaths since then directly caused by the very same people in Vietnam and continuing today in Iraq. (To name but two other Holocausts.)
There’s another school of thought which Stein completely side-steps.
The theory submitting Hitler is only one of many, many apparitions proving definitively there can be no loving, merciful God.
Otherwise how could HE allow Auschwitz, Vietnam, Stalin’s Death Purges, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, Darfur, Cambodia, Iraq and Rwanda? (To name but a handful from many where tens of millions died unnecessarily.)
Although this theory has nothing at all to do with Darwin and/or science (just plain indisputable, provable facts of inhuman punishment and suffering) perhaps Mr. Stein and his scientist friends can muster an ecclesiastic answer.
April 19, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Krzysztof, never mind all the twisting by everyone and all sides, I want to know the answer to the question…
1/ Is it a scientific fact that everything made itself out of nothing?
If science can explain that to me, I will listen.
April 19, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I am not going to turn this blog into one of those never-ending circular debates which occur on the Internet, Krzysztof Skubiszewski. Just a brief comment, then, on your post.
The problem of evil, to which you refer, has drawn the attention of theologians for centuries. A recent attempt to address it is Plantinga’s free will defense.
I do not think “Expelled” is about this, though. It’s about the bullying tactics of mainstream science to control scientific dissent. The link between Darwinism and facism is well known, I think, but the film does not suggest in any way that present-day neo-Darwinists, as they like to be called, are fascists.
April 19, 2008 at 5:56 pm
RRRicky - If science can explain that everything “didn’t make itself out of nothing” I will listen.
April 19, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Krzysztof Skubiszewski, belief in God, also non-belief (atheism), is a choice, because we have free will. Neither can be proved scientifically, for or against, but most of us prefer to choose that there must be a creator.
Pascal’s wager says that if you believe in God and He does not exist, you lose nothing, but if you do not believe in God and He does exist, you lose everything! Debatable, but interesting.
April 19, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Krzysztof, I need money. If I put an empty box on the table and wait, will it appear in the space?
Does extending the time frame improve the chances for success?
April 19, 2008 at 6:13 pm
RRRicky - sit next to your empty box outside Cave Shepherd on Broad St. You won’t have to wait so long.
April 19, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Oh? So the money won’t make itself? Someone has to put it in the box?
Maybe I don’t have enough faith in the ability of things to create themselves out of nothing…
April 19, 2008 at 6:25 pm
permres - so stick to the question which is Darwinism or Creationism?
(It’s also Condoms or AIDS? Or Abortion or Unwanted Pregnancies? But we’ll save them for another day.)
I also do not wish to turn this blog into one of those never-ending circular debates which occur on the Internet but by throwing in some spurious link between Darwinism and fascism you make me believe strongly not all of us have evolved at the same speed.
April 19, 2008 at 7:31 pm
BFP wrote,
“the Darwinian premise that everything made itself out of nothing”
“If Darwin and his followers are correct, the universe, everything, is nothing but an accident of random chance. ”
what complete nonsense.
THERE ARE NO SUCH CLAIMS MADE BY DARWIN OR EXIST IN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
you are refuting claims that DO NOT exist in science
April 19, 2008 at 7:35 pm
If a scientist went around claiming the earth was flat he too would be “shunned and discredited” but i doubt anyone would make a movie about it
April 19, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Oh, sorry Scientist. I must have been given a wrong lesson about Darwinism by my science teachers.
Are you saying that Darwin believed that God (a god) created matter and the universal rules that govern science, but that evolution then took over, perhaps as “god’s” mechanism? (I mean, it would have to be a created mechanism then, wouldn’t it?)
Maybe I’m confused about Darwinism.
Could you please explain where life came from then and how it relates to Darwinism?
April 19, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Careful RRRicky. You’ll be shunned for asking the question!
April 19, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Back to Ben Stein.
He says if God exists Darwin can’t be right.
But what if Darwin is right?
April 19, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Sounds like you never been taught evolutionary biology at all.
Well first there is no such thing in science as “darwinism”
Evolutionary theory is about descent with modification and explains the diversification of life on earth. It underpins several subjects.
The evolution of species is factual observed data - the fossil record - the theory is the mechanism of the change.
the field of abiogenesis is the study of life’s origins, NOT evolutionary biology. A common misuderstanding.
the field of cosmology is the study of the origins of the universe
complaining evolutionary biology does not explain where life comes from is like complaining the theory of gravity does not explain electromagnetism.
all research scientists do is spend their time acquiring new knowledge and trying to prove other scientists wrong.
a movie like expelled propagates peoples misunderstandings about science (so perfectly exampled by this blog)
April 19, 2008 at 8:02 pm
hello
April 19, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Ok Scientist, thanks for the lesson.
How does science say that life originated? That the inorganic became the organic?
And where did all that inorganic stuff come from?
What does science give as the answers to those two basic questions?
April 19, 2008 at 9:01 pm
science only has some hypotheses of the origins of life, no theories (in the scientific sense of the word). it is a very challenging area because most if not all of the evidence at the time of life’s origins (a few billion years ago) does not exist anymore
we do know a lot about how the elements were formed from cosmology in the early days of the universe
remember science spends its entire time devoted to unanswered questions and there remains very many of them
the search for truth holds no allegiance to anyone
expelled is pure propaganda and I am saddened to see BFP taken in by this nonsense
you can be a christian and a good evolutionary biologist - ask kenneth miller (look him up)
***************
BFP says,
Yes, you can be a Christian and an evolutionary biologist… but according to the movie, if you mention the mere possibility of god in your work, you’re history. That is, I think, the point of the movie.
I haven’t seen it yet. Have you?
And if you haven’t yet seen it, how can you call it “pure propaganda” and “nonsense” ?
April 19, 2008 at 9:07 pm
does anyone here really believe that every biological scientist in harvard, yale, oxford, cambridge, london and every great university on this planet is wrong and ben stein understands something better than they do? the brightest minds on the planet ?
do you really believe there is some global conspiracy
to suppress scientific knowledge? between every major university on the planet?
you might as well believe there is a conspiracy against “astrology”
we are an evolved species, get over it
*************
bfp says,
“every biological scientist in harvard, yale, oxford, cambridge, london and every great university on this planet”
Hmmmmm…. you know a lot of people!
But you fail to mention the many, including at least one Nobel Prize winner, who don’t agree with you.
April 19, 2008 at 9:15 pm
have a look here
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_head_Evolution:
April 19, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I have a theory that storks bring babies
I think the sex theory is nonsense. I know loads of people who have sex but no baby appears.
however i am shunned by the scientific elite. i want my theory taught in high school and i dont see any reason why both sides should be taught and let the students make up their minds
April 19, 2008 at 10:29 pm
BFP says,
But you fail to mention the many, including at least one Nobel Prize winner, who don’t agree with you.
++++++++++
you dont either, please do
April 19, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I have seen most of it, there has been private screenings
April 19, 2008 at 10:34 pm
now if you believe there are “many” biological scientists who dont accept evolutionary theory you have indeed been fed propaganda
please write to all the university biology dept I just mentioned and choose the top 100 in the world if you like and see what replies you get.
you can write the members directly, you will be surprised by the level of response
April 19, 2008 at 10:36 pm
if you dont think it is propaganda, tell me why is there is no one complaining about “quantum theory” or the “theory of relativity”?
strange that
April 19, 2008 at 10:43 pm
BFP says,
you mention the mere possibility of god in your work, you’re history
+++++++++++++++++++
again talk to ken miller, a great scientist and find out the total nonsense in that claim
besides you keep forgeting that these ID proponents say you must not call it god
scientists dont use god in their work because its does not explain anything, scientists look for natural explanations
why is the sky blue? saying god made it blue, just does not explain anything
scientists look for answers - rayleigh scattering of light makes the sky appear blue
****************
BFP says,
But where did the light and the sky come from?
And where exactly and when did you see the private screening of the film? Just curious, my friend.
April 19, 2008 at 10:50 pm
bottom line, bfp, what do you want taught in high school science?
- the same science taught in universities? or
- some idea without a single published scientific paper to back it up and not taught in any university but makes religious leaders happy
April 19, 2008 at 10:59 pm
But where did the light and the sky come from?
++++++++++++++++++++++
legitimate scientific questions.
if i say “god did it” have I explained anything?
had clips sent to me obtained from the screenings
April 19, 2008 at 11:01 pm
we are moving off topic
is the central claim of the movie valid? that legitimate scientific knowledge is being suppressed?
i say total nonsense
and as clearly seen here, the movie producers spread myths and lies about evolutionary science, that really is disturbing
I have also seen many ben stein interviews, that is also much of my information about the movie
April 19, 2008 at 11:02 pm
also of course i have read reviews
April 19, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Why do people who do not “believe” in God or practice religion at all, suddenly cry out “God Help me” when confronted with a major crisis or life threatening illness?….just wondering.
April 19, 2008 at 11:09 pm
I have had my dentist, a practicing Jew, since 1974. He says I am a mutant. I have never had any wisdom teeth. He says he is seeing more of it in his practice. He says we dont use them, they serve no purpose and eventually no-one will have any. He calls it on-going evolution. I have no beliefs one way or the other, but if I had to choose I would believe him.
April 19, 2008 at 11:48 pm
xenophobe chick, the link between Darwinism and facism is well known, I think, it is quite simply, “the survival of the fittest”, and all of us can make it. It may well be spurious, as you say, but the the arguments for and against are readily available on the Internet. They are not as extensive as occur in theodicy (that branch of theology which deals with the problem of evil), but in both cases I think the jury is still out.
I advise BFP not to let this blog become eristic rather than dialectic, as usually happens with this topic. This is only a film, made for totally commercial and propogandist reasons, but no less worthwhile for seeing it because of that.
I trust it will not be the neo-Darwinists who get hot under the collar over it, and the rest of us will certainly be entertained and be given cause to ponder, I think.
April 20, 2008 at 12:59 am
permres - The link between Darwin (never mind the “ism”
and fascism is not well known.
Perhaps you could support your claim by quoting someone who actually accepts Darwin’s theories.
That there are those who see the link and decry Darwin is indisputable.
April 20, 2008 at 1:01 am
PS. The smirking avitar isn’t from me. It should be a “close bracket.”
April 20, 2008 at 1:27 am
a link between fascism and the teaching of evolutionary biology is pure nonsense
hitler based his ideas on selective breeding an idea that had been known for centuries before darwin. selective breeding had been used in horses since the 17th century and in dogs even before that. it had also been used in agriculture for many years before darwin
again we have a misrepresentation - ’survival of the fittest’ says permres. In evolutionary biology its survival of the fittest for the environment and one of the fascinating discoveries in biology is that darwinian natural selection is not the optimal selection but rather the selection minimally necessary to survive
since 99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct, darwinian natural selection is hardly a guarantee of survival far less superiority
very sad how people misrepresent science to support their own agenda and people fall for it
April 20, 2008 at 1:32 am
This thread started with the statement ;
“the Darwinian premise that everything made itself out of nothing”
a complete falsehood
no such premise exists in science
this has been explained hundreds of times to the people behind this movie and other of their ilk but they continue to state it. stein keeps doing it in the interviews
as a scientist and an educator, few things are more depressing than to see knowledge being caricatured and misrepresented and it being done deliberately not out of ignorance but wilful intent
April 20, 2008 at 1:32 am
Back to the opening of this blog.
“One of the big questions I’ve struggled with is the Darwinian premise that everything made itself out of nothing - with no design, no purpose, no external energy or plan. No god or designer or creator or whatever label you will apply to the external energy that made everything and set the rules.
“If Darwin and his followers are correct, the universe, everything, is nothing but an accident of random chance. Perhaps we are all here because mud was struck by lightning.”
To keep me humble I have a screen saver picture taken through the Hubble Telescope of The Sombrero Galaxy which is 50,000 light years across, is 28,000,000 light years from Earth and has 800 billion suns.
We’re told that’s just one of the millions and millions of galaxies.
The odds are great that there is life somewhere out there. I wonder if they’re having the same debate about how they (and we) came into being?
And by whom? Or what?
April 20, 2008 at 1:51 am
xenophobe chick - Great post! Sure puts this petty debate into perspective.
I know nothing about Ben Stein except that he once hosted a shabby TV show but I’d sure like to know how old he thinks the Earth is. (Creationists are convinced between 6,000 and 10,000 years) And if he’s absolutely sure his God reserved all his efforts for only our tiny lump of mud and water.
April 20, 2008 at 2:18 am
There’s a perfectly good reason why Creationism (or ID) should not be taught in schools.
Anyone polluting our children’s minds by claiming that God created the Earth around 6,000 years ago should be banned from teaching forever.
And forced to write a thousand times “400 million year-old fossils of harvestmen arachnids (Opiliones) have been found by palaeontologists in an ancient rock at Rhynie near Aberdeen in Scotland.” (The New Scientist - 20 September 2003.)
April 20, 2008 at 2:38 am
you can teach whatever you like about god , just dont do it in a science class
***************
BFP says,
Thank you, Scientist, for confirming the point made by the movie.
April 20, 2008 at 2:39 am
unless you have evidence to back up your claim, then its science
April 20, 2008 at 4:12 am
BFP says,
Thank you, Scientist, for confirming the point made by the movie.
+++++++++++++++++++++
No BFP you have it wrong
the supernatural is not taught in science class and no one is saying it should be
this movie is trying to make you believe that legit science is being suppressed. not even they would tell you that god should be taught in a science class
this movie is trying to make you believe that teaching evolutionary biology leads to fascism and even worse the holocaust
science is based on evidence.
are you saying that science classes should include information that has no evidence? that has no backing in published scientific journals
April 20, 2008 at 4:18 am
the US constitution disallows the teaching about god in science class
sorry bfp, try again, I have confirmed no such point about the movie
April 20, 2008 at 4:30 am
We’ve seen a lot of talk from Scientist, but nothing about how random chance could produce something as complex as an eyeball. One part missing and it doesn’t work so it doesn’t seem to be much of a candidate for spontaneous appearance in the evolutionary chain.
They say that mathematicians are highly skeptical of trans-species evolution because the odds are impossible.
As to Scientist’s claims about the fossil record I have yet to see a clear transitional species fossil out of the millions and millions that have been collected.
I’m not saying I believe in an overnight “poof” creation, but there are so many valid questions out there that Scientist must ignore.
April 20, 2008 at 4:41 am
the same misrepresentations repeated over and over and over again ;
“We’ve seen a lot of talk from Scientist, but nothing about how random chance could produce something as complex as an eyeball.”
please see the post above which i repeat below
=====================
“If Darwin and his followers are correct, the universe, everything, is nothing but an accident of random chance. ”
what complete nonsense.
THERE ARE NO SUCH CLAIMS MADE BY DARWIN OR EXIST IN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
=====================
evolutionary biology does not claim the eye or any other organ for that matter came about by random chance
April 20, 2008 at 4:47 am
“As to Scientist’s claims about the fossil record I have yet to see a clear transitional species fossil out of the millions and millions that have been collected.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
every fossil is a transitional fossil of some kind
a really spectacular one was found in April 2006 a key transitional fossil between species living in the sea and species living on the land
it always amazes me that people will write like aka about evolutionary biology (are you a biologist?) but i dont hear you complaining about the evidence for quantum theory?
April 20, 2008 at 4:50 am
people like aka ignore a much more important point
of the “millions” of fossils found forming the basis of the evolutionary data it would take ONE fossil, just ONE, out of place to falsify the theory of evolution
no such fossil has been found (as yet)
are scientists looking for it? you bet ! Find that and your name is destined for immortality like newton or darwin
April 20, 2008 at 4:51 am
a post seems to be missing
************
BFP says,
Hello Scientist,
Robert here (different moderator now)
Please read the tab at the top re comment moderation.
Thanks!
April 20, 2008 at 4:53 am
“We’ve seen a lot of talk from Scientist, but nothing about how random chance could produce something as complex as an eyeball.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
evolutionary biology makes no such claim that the eyeball or any other organ arises by random chance
so I cant really explain the claim because no scientist i know has made it
April 20, 2008 at 4:53 am
bfp, i redid a smaller version
April 20, 2008 at 5:32 am
Here we go again. Another attempt to discredit the institution of science because it does not validate religious viewpoints. God is not understood by the methods of science. He is not the subject of scientific enquiry because the concept of God is not falsifiable. Intelligent design is a religious theory and does not belong in the arenas of science.
I recommend the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OST2LtS3pEo&feature=related
Akabozik wrote that “there are so many valid questions out there that Scientist (sic) must ignore”. His/Her post actually indicates that there are scientists who have raised questions on aspects of evolution which thus contradicts the quoted statement.
I suggest the possibility that intelligent design is a political tactic being used by those who wish to gain control over Western countries. This is ironically in response to the rise of Islam and others who are challenging the dominance of the West.
April 20, 2008 at 5:54 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
April 20, 2008 at 9:58 am
Akabozik:
For an evolutionist’s explanation of the origins of the eyeball check out Oxford professor, Richard Dawkin’s video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw
It baffled Darwin, but as with this example we can see that even evolutionary theory is evolving.
April 20, 2008 at 10:14 am
Straight Talk, I watched it and it was interesting. Still Harry Potter stuff and little science though. The professor has great faith in his scientific theories.
His faith is the key that holds his “Mount Improbable” theory together, for their is very little science and much imagination in his talk.
April 20, 2008 at 10:17 am
You might try this YouTube video…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCg5PDWbg5I
April 20, 2008 at 11:04 am
Since we are into giving links, anyone interested in the other side of this story might try:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2008/04/18/reviews_of_expelled_line_up_with_worldvi
Yes, I know it is from Access Research Network, a pro-ID site, but that is the whole point. All scientists should look at all of the evidence, no matter where it comes from.
BTW, there are already many creationists (even young earth ones) teaching in our schools, and excellent teachers they are, too.
April 20, 2008 at 11:30 am
Citizen First said: I suggest the possibility that intelligent design is a political tactic being used by those who wish to gain control over Western countries. This is ironically in response to the rise of Islam and others who are challenging the dominance of the West.
ID is an invention of the right wing religious fundementalist movement in the U.S. These people scare the shi** out of me!
April 20, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Meanwhile - back to Ben Stein’s movie.
Here’s a review from Slant Magazine where you’re always more likely to get an honest opinion than most other movie reviewers.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
by Nick Schager
Posted: April 16, 2008
or a film about American freedom of expression and the necessity for open dialogue, it’s hard to imagine Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed being more one-sided, narrow-minded, and intellectually dishonest. Co-written by and starring actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, this “documentary” investigation into the debate between evolution and intelligent design is bald-faced PR rubbish pitifully masquerading as a plea for rational discourse.
Such fraudulence is epitomized by Stein casting the proceedings as an authentic investigation into the contentious topic, a pretense exposed as a sham by his biased, manipulative use of language and aesthetic juxtapositions.
According to Stein, mainstream establishment scientists are “evolution’s top apologists,” intelligent designers must fear “the Darwinists’ wrath,” a scientist who wants to make money in his field must “be a good comrade” (a comment accompanied by archival images of Soviet soldiers), and—in a feeble attempt to flip things on their head by positing evolution, and not intelligent design, as a concept rooted in faith—it’s “the Darwinian gospel” against which a brave group of outcast intelligent design devotees must struggle.
Expelled commences by positioning academic intelligent design advocates as minority victims of the reigning scientific community, whose oppressive intolerance for those who question the status quo is likened to the Berlin Wall, Stalin, and Khrushchev, while Darwinism is equated with—in this order—racism, atheism, and Nazism.
After visiting one of the Holocaust’s death chambers in order to clearly link Darwinian theory to Hitler’s final solution, Stein then says that he’s not, in reality, equating the two issues, a preposterously bogus statement whose equivalent is a kid prefacing an insult with “No offense, but…” Not content with those guilt-by-association criticisms, America’s history with eugenics and the related origins of Planned Parenthood also pop up as evidence of evolutionary theory’s awfulness.
Throughout, Stein erects a pose of impartial inquiry by asking “tough” questions, though the smarty-pants smirk that’s detectable behind his serious countenance is hard to miss, as is the fact that, despite eagerly accepting intelligent designers’ claims that this isn’t a “religious” issue, the film refutes said stance by working overtime to prove that evolutionists are—cue grave music and ominous shadows!—godless.
Court actions against intelligent design curriculums are dismissed via a movie clip of a judge making funny faces and twirling his gavel, and the scientific community’s supposed fear of scrutinizing Darwinism is explained via the sight of Dorothy pulling the curtain back on the Wizard of Oz. It’s proselytizing Morgan Spurlock-style, replete with a childish animated cartoon and CGI sequence of a cell’s inner workings.
To their film’s catastrophic detriment, Stein and director Nathan Frankowski fail to provide concrete examples of the flaws in Darwin’s theory, content instead to simply have speakers (many with impressive credentials) state that it’s problematic and then treat such unsupported statements as verifiable truth. Nor, ultimately, do they examine the obvious and crucial religious underpinnings of the “intelligent design movement,” whose onscreen adherents deliberately refuse to speculate on the source of this creative “intelligence” because their opinion on the identity of this fundamental biological architect—God—would conclusively reveal Expelled as propaganda for a Christian-right movement whose own champion, Ronald Reagan, Stein ultimately depicts as his spiritual counterpart.
http://www.slantmagazine.com/index.asp
April 20, 2008 at 12:24 pm
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BrentBozellIII/2008/04/18/ben_stein_vs_sputtering_atheists?page=full&comments=true
Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics — experts all — who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State
University).
That’s disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds. These are experts with national reputations, regular welcomed guests on network television and the like. But the public knows them only by their careful seven-second soundbites. Stein engages them in conversation. They speak their minds. They become sputtering ranters, openly championing their sheer hatred of religion.
PC liberalism has showered accolades on atheist author Richard Dawkins’ best-selling book “The God Delusion.” But when Stein suggests to Dawkins that he’s been critical of the Old Testament God, Dawkins protests — not that Stein is wrong, but that he’s being too mild. He then reads from this jaw-dropping paragraph of his book:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Dawkins has a website. Its slogan is “A clear-thinking oasis.”
It’s understood that God had nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. What, then, is the alternate explanation? Stein asks these experts, and their very serious answers are priceless. One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens. Anything but God.
The most controversial part of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how Darwin’s theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by Adolf Hitler. If there is no God, but only a planetary lab waiting for scientists to perfect the human race, where can Darwinism lead? Stein insists that he isn’t accusing today’s Darwinists of Nazism. He points out, however, that Hitler’s mad science was inspired by Darwinism.
Now that the film is complete, the evolutionist prophets featured in the film are on the warpath inveighing against it, and the alleged idiots who would lower themselves to watching it. Richard Dawkins laments how the film will solicit “cheap laughs that could only be raised in an audience of scientific ignoramuses.” Minnesota professor and blogger P.Z. Myers predicts the movie is “going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant —- which means they’re going to draw in about 90 percent of the American market.” Myers and Dawkins now both complain they were “duped” into appearing in the movie (for pay).
Everyone should take the opportunity to see “Expelled” — if nothing else, as a bracing antidote to the atheism-friendly culture of PC liberalism. But it’s far more than that. It’s a spotlight on the arrogance of this movement and its leaders, a spotlight on the choking intolerance of academia, and a spotlight on the ignorance of so many who say so much, yet know so very little.
April 20, 2008 at 12:40 pm
How tiresome - one after another relating Hitler to Darwin.
Then who led the God-fearing (whatever that means) Bush to approve and admit to torture?
From today’s New York Times - “…we have learned recently, is that — with President Bush’s clear knowledge and support — some of the very highest officials in the land not only approved the abuse of prisoners, but participated in the detailed planning of harsh interrogations and helped to create a legal structure to shield from justice those who followed the orders.”
“Mr. Bush told ABC News this month that he knew of these meetings and approved of the result.”
And don’t pull the Darwin excuse. Bush doesn’t believe in evolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20sun1.html
April 20, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I hate God people. They are so full of themselves. They bore.
April 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I wonder if one of the share holders at BFP is due a commission for advertising this nonsense production in such a clever way. (anyone remembers the The Blair Witch Project?)
April 20, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Enough. Darwinism does not deny the existence of God, it merely demonstrates how livings things naturally evolve. The ‘fight’ between Darwinism and religion is no such thing. It’s being primarily driven by people who can’t seem to accept that God does not necessarily need to tinker continuously with the world in order to exist. And that’s what really, really irritates me. I believe in God and yet I can still believe in Darwinism. Amazing isn’t it. I just don’t happen to believe that some non-theory touted mainly by creationists is rigorous from either a scientific or religious viewpoint. And don’t even get me started on linking Darwinism to Eugenics and Facism. It’s a little bit like me saying that “all religion leads inevitably to killing other people as per the crusades and 9/11″. Simply daft. BFP, you’re by entitled to your views but ID is fairly silly whichever way you look at it.
April 20, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Scientist:
I am a hobbyist researcher and have yet to find hard evidence for inter-specie evolution.
If I am correct the main hypothetical proposition is that each animal / plant evolved from another specie in a hierarchal relationship.
Can the current scientific evidence really support this theory? It seems to point to the well observed fact of environmentally driven adaptation within each specie.
Please, if you have come across such evidence, place a link here so I can do my own research.
PS: I believe that what the religious hard liners have a problem with is the teaching of evolutionary theory as a pure science in the classroom. It is still a theory and needs to be taught as such.
April 20, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Name one respectable scientist who has claimed that he/she is “absolutely” 100% sure about anything other than for the obvious like the fact that we will all at some time die. Aren’t you glad that there are people out there who continue to seek real answers because they just do not accept emotionalism?
April 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm
excellent discussions
isn’t this what a real press is suppose to do?
discuss, investigate and expose ideas
April 20, 2008 at 4:59 pm
iwatchya,
“It is still a theory and needs to be taught as such.”
you may be a hobby researcher but you dont know the meaning of the word “theory” in the scientific arena. Have you had scientific training? should gravity be taught “as a theory” and how exactly would that vary from how it is being taught now.
“Can the current scientific evidence really support this theory?”
Ever heard of DNA evidence?
a website? try talkorigins.org
April 20, 2008 at 5:01 pm
wonder why there are no European scientists being “suppressed”
April 20, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Permres says ;
“All scientists should look at all of the evidence, no matter where it comes from.”
ok ask yourself honestly, who is ignoring the evidence, the worlds biology departments or this group of ID people who have never a published any evidence of their own and just simply ignore all other evidence
April 20, 2008 at 5:43 pm
As I understand the issues, evolution is a fact. Even creationists talk about micro-evolution and try to distiguish this from what they term macro-evolution. That said, it is the mechanism of evolution about which there are many competing views and arguments in the scientific community. Scientists are therefore working at trying to unearth and understand the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Intelligent Design/Creationism does not provide any useful approach (vis-a-vis the scientific method) to this task. Acceptance of such a proposition (i.e ID) is to implicitly declare that there is no need for science. We only need “revealed truth”. Any rational person should be able to forsee the many pitfalls, arguments and yes, abuses (the trial of Galileo comes to mind) that result from such an approach.
I conclude that anyone who attempts to combine science and religion is unworthy of serious consideration in EITHER field - theology or science.
April 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I wasn’t picking sides, scientist, of course IDers should look at the evidence for evolution by descent as well as for evolution by design. There is, of course, a lot more of it (evidence for descent), so it should keep them pretty busy.
It is not convincing evidence though, is it, otherwise we wouldn’t be bothering to look for alternatives to neo-Darwinism? I think those who are convinced by it are so, more on faith than reason.
April 20, 2008 at 7:25 pm
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/1400041376.asp
April 20, 2008 at 8:27 pm
permres says;
“It is not convincing evidence though, is it, otherwise we wouldn’t be bothering to look for alternatives to neo-Darwinism?”
I doubt there is a single biological dept of any significant university anywhere in the world that would agree the evidence “is not convincing”
Its not much easier for me to explain the evidence for evolutionary theory than say the evidence for relativity.
My best try would be DNA. The greatest test of a scientific theory is its ability to predict. When DNA was eventually unravelled, the findings were exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. The closer a species is on the evolutionary tree, the closer the match of DNA
Every time a transitional fossil is found and found in the right time period it is again a further example of the predictive power. just one fossil out of place would turn the theory on its head.
Scientists are not so much looking for alternatives for current evolutionary theory as they are looking to improve their understanding. In trying to refine the theory more. Evolutionary theory has come a long long way in the 150 years since darwin and no doubt we will continue to refine it further.
You also added ;
“I think those who are convinced by it are so, more on faith than reason.”
really?
not the overwhelming evidence? you dont think that plays a role?
You think the thousands of scientists working in different fields that evolution is part of the core, really are working on faith?
scientists avoiding reason? hundreds of them? at all the best universities?
if you believe that you really have bought the propaganda.
are their any other scientific theories held on faith? without reason or evidence?
April 20, 2008 at 8:28 pm
thanks, nonsense, for a wonderful post
April 20, 2008 at 8:43 pm
good post too citizen first,
if i may clarify,
evolutionary data is a fact. the theory of evolution is used to explain the observed evolutionary data (fossils, genetic information, DNA etc etc)
scientists consistently work on the theory of evolution to refine it and improve our understanding of how and why life evolved it way it did. It is a wonderful subject of discovery.
In science, theories are “higher” than facts, theories explain facts. A theory never aspires to or never becomes a fact.
Theories are fact are different things, one does not become the other.
There will never be the “fact” of gravity. It will always be the theory which explains the facts we observe
Unfortunately in common language we use the word theory much differently than in the scientific arena
The propagandists behind this movie exploit this misunderstanding. They also spread lies about evolutionary theory (random chance and that nonsense). The constantly like to tie evolutionary theory with life origins which is another subject altogether. They do this to confuse and mislead
It is time for me to go back to work.
I am heartened to find some of the posts here but I am saddened to see people fall for the propaganda.
Ask yourself, do universities suppress knowledge?
April 20, 2008 at 8:46 pm
typo correction
Theories AND facts are different things, one does not become the other.
April 20, 2008 at 11:17 pm
scientist, why are you so energetic to post? Even to the point of making typo’s? This discussion is a calm, considered, and hopefully constructive dialogue. Dialectic rather than eristic.
Read the mainstream media responses to “Expelled”, and then read the alternative views on the pro-ID sites such as ARN. Why are the neo-Darwinists so aggressive? Are they frightened, or are all of us believers in God criminally insane, as Richard Dawkins suggests as we corrupt our children? God bless.
April 20, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I agree with ‘Nonsense’.
April 20, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Permres, Here we go again linking Darwinism to being an aetheist. It’s not mutually exclusive to believe in God and evolution all at them same time. It really isn’t. I may have had to look up eristic but that doesn’t mean that you’re right. Darwinists tend to be agressive because the alternative being put forward has not a shred of evidence to support it. Not a thing. Darwinism has some gaps but it also has solid, scientific backing as a theory. ID does not. Pure and simple. It’s become a “faith” vs. “science” debate where the only people really putting ID forward are a lunatic fringe. I resent the general implication that anyone who believes in evolution is not religious. I’m not some creationist nutter but I believe in God. And evolution. Bizarre isn’t it ?
April 21, 2008 at 12:11 am
permres, we are frightened, very frightened
April 21, 2008 at 12:42 am
Richard Dawkins needs to come to Barbados and see for himself that the children of Seventh Day Adventists are the least prone to corruption, drugs, and aggressive lifestyles. Dawkins claims believers are corrupting their children. He acknowledges he is not a good politician. Like Anthony Flew, he may well become a believer before he dies.
I am sure you are not frightened by the demise of civilised society which we see all around us. You may be pleased to know that God is not a punishing God, just accept Jesus into your heart and all your sins will be forgiven.
April 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm
here is a review from the New York times
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html
April 22, 2008 at 11:06 am
Here is a criticism of the review in the New York Times:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/expelled_movie_sparks_tantrum.html
BFP, I will not be keeping this up, I promise! Intelligent readers will now know that there are two sides to this story, and they will be able to find out for themselves. Better still, go to see the film when it is made available here in Barbados so that we can make up our own minds about it (the film).
April 22, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Just saw Expelled, it would seem that Ben Stein designed his movie to promote dangerously-free thought, especially more thinking about motivations that drive American academia and a lot of other behind-the-scenes worldview that we tend to take for granted.
April 22, 2008 at 10:15 pm
You know, I respect all of your posts and ideas, but to me what I would take as a tongue-in-cheek post by scientist i.e. his reference to the stork and persons having sex but no babies, says it all!
The ONE factor that everyone seems to have missed or refuses to acknowledge, but said factor is critical to anything that we consider, is that we can only identify, assess and conclude on the basis and within the parameters of our OWN KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING, whether in of itself or by choice!
Hence, what we either do not yet know, or cannot comprehend or indeed will not comprehend or choose to understand, is in of itself a barrier to understanding!
Which thus makes any of our theories just that.
Theories, NOT fact!
Unless you define fact as only that which you can conclude on, within your own parameters of understanding?!
That may be a ‘comforting’ way forward, but only just that!
Peace
April 23, 2008 at 12:49 am
Rumplestilskin, I suggest that one should keep things simple (as good scientists do) and avoid epistemological sandtraps.
Within the world of trained scientists and mathematicians, the words “fact”, “theory” and “hypothesis” have very definite meanings and on which there is consensus.
A fact is an observation which is irrefutable (or as the more rigorous would say - has not yet been refuted).
A theory is an explanation of the observations. It explains the existing observations and predicts new ones. In science, theories are constantly challenged, modified and even thrown out on the basis of new observations and data.
A hypothesis is a working assumption. It is being tested/evaluated to determine its validity.
Your comments echo those of that ‘great scientist’ Ronald Reagan who said pretty much the same thing in reference to the evolution of species.
April 23, 2008 at 1:38 am
Citizen.
So, within your second paragraph, you confirm my point in mentioning ‘trained’ scientists and ‘on which there is ‘consensus’.
Both of these references inherently represent defined parameters, thus what you have already done is set parameters that suit your own hypothesis, thus making such self-fulfilling.
You say that there is ‘consensus’? Again, a parameter making things ‘comfortable’.
Why keep things simple? Nothing is, particularly the topic discussed here.
To avoid the greater issue in order to win little ‘battles’ makes no sense whatsoever.
Why mention Ronald Reagan? In an effort to avoid the point that I have raised you are attempting to deflect same with an irrelevance.
What is relevant is that current knowledge AND choices of belief in of themselves establish a framework of making assessments that are ‘comfortable’ only, without any real underlying validity, apart from in one’s own mind.
I do not echo anyone’s statements, but merely state the ONLY truth and FACT here i.e. that no one here or anywhere else in the world can state ‘reality’ or ‘fact’ as an absolute.
I am glad that within the realms of ‘traditional science’ these parameters are admitted to, as the conclusions reached can only be within such parameters and ultimately cannot be in any way absolute, thus it is good that these are recognised as such.
Any scientist of any worth who wishes to breach traditional boundaries must have a truly open mind, without laying parameters.
Why avoid reality? There is no harm in investigating, nor in hypothesising, but never state something as fact, which ultimtely cannot be determined.
That is my issue with many persons who vent theories, whether ‘atheists’ or ’scientists’. Such theories are usually vented as absolutes, which is inherently ridiculous.
Ultimately, any such expressions are and can only be opinions.
April 23, 2008 at 2:54 am
Theory in the scientific world:
You’re driving down a highway and see a mangled car at the side of the road. You’ll probably say “that must have been a terrible car accident, I hope everyone is okay”.
A scientist on the other hand will examine the car, look at the scatter of windshield fragments, measure the skid marks, search for engine fluids etc. before proposing their THEORY that there was indeed a car accident. They then publish all their evidence for the world to examine, critique, and break apart. Only after all this scrutiny does this theory become generally accepted.
Compare this never-ending search for the truth (always evolving and improving) with theories proposed by a bunch of sheep herders 2000 years ago who thought the earth was flat, was about 3,000 years old, and that slavery was okay (yup, read your bible). Folks who think we descended from two people about 5,000 years ago. STuff that we know is FACTUALLY incorrect.
Believe what you will, but to think that this stuff can stand up to the actual scientific method is laughable.
We now have science people, this is no longer the middle ages. The blindfolds are off now, if you choose to keep your eyes closed, that’s up to you.
*******************
BFP says,
But we have recently discovered that the speed of light is increasing. What does that mean in terms of assuming that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant?
Or… do you have any idea what I’m talking about and why it matters?
April 23, 2008 at 4:04 am
Rumplestilskin,
The Reagan reference was not an effort to avoid the point that you have raised nor to attempt to deflect same with an irrelevance but to assert that very similar words were used by him about the same subject i.e “Evolution is only a theory.”
Just to put my cards on the table, I do not believe the issue of this thread to be simply about evolution per se but really to be more epistemological in nature i.e the scientific method versus revealed truth and their respective modes of application.
I must admit that after reading and re-reading your posts, I have to wonder if you are proposing your own very personal and esoteric framework of enquiry and analysis. Scientists by way of the scientific method seek to provide explanations and to advance knowledge about the observable universe in commonly accepted terms and constructs. How else could we have dialogue, conjecture and refutation by different individuals which facilitates progress? Otherwise one could and would dismiss (or accept) viewpoints simply on caprice.
It is true that nothing is known with 100% certainty (except a mathematical proof) but what would it serve to question say if you or I really exist? Our minds cannot be so open that they fall out!
And so on to your final comment - “… with many persons who vent theories, whether ‘atheists’ or ’scientists’. Such theories are usually vented as absolutes, which is inherently ridiculous” - I strongly disagree that this characterises any scientist of good repute (atheists will have to speak for themselves). As you pointed out scientific theories are established with stated limitations and as I have pointed out theories are constantly reviewed, modified and even dismissed. This is hardly the venting as absolutes even Einstein’s General Theory is being questioned and the idea of multiple universes is getting a second look. However, I observe that the tendency to speak of absolutes is often that of fanatically religious persons.
April 23, 2008 at 4:18 am
BFP
I have heard of Faster than Light travel and communication. Also some scientists in Europe have reported being able to slow down and speed up the speed of light in fibre optics. However I have not read of light increasing its speed. Please provide more information.
*************
BFP says,
Hi CF,
Actually, there are differing claims about the natural speed of light. Some say it is slowing, some say increasing. Lots on google and wiki if you’re interested.
What does it matter? It is a big deal IF you are a scientist attempting to establish scientific theories. If, as most do, a scientist assumes that the speed of light is a non-variable - a constant - since the beginning, that leads to a whole different outcome than if the speed of light has been changing.
Same goes for the rate of radiometric decay upon which the technology that dates fossils is built around. If that radiometric decay has not been constant since day one… well, the whole thing becomes a farce.
Consider this…
The sun is shrinking. It has been measured as shrinking for about a thousand years and accurately measured for about the last 100 years or so.
Suppose we assume that the rate of the shrinkage has been a constant throughout all time?
If we do that, we find that only 20,000 years or so ago, the earth’s orbit would have been within the sun’s surface! Which… obviously it was not.
So we know that the rate at which the sun is shrinking has not been a constant - but only because we have an external reference that disproves the assumption.
For the rate of radiometric decay though, we have no such external reference to calibrate or disprove our assumption that the rate of radiometric decay has been a constant since forever.
We assume it has been… but it begs the question… Why the hell should it have been constant? Especially when it looks like the speed of light is not constant.
Yet we base vast areas of our scientific beliefs upon that one assumption of radiometric decay.
Fascinating stuff, neh?
April 23, 2008 at 5:13 am
You want to keep me up all night ….lol. Will do some research. If these things turn out to be true (through observation and experimentation along with stochastic modelling) scientists will be only too happy to revise their theories (the General Theory does accomodate velocity faster than the speed of light however). There are no sacred cows and that is the point.
April 23, 2008 at 8:22 am
Ciizen First.
Okay, I get where you are coming from.
I have no problem with proposals as you reference for ’scientists’ as long as you note that ‘nothing is sacred’.
But it is indeed dogmatism that puts me off many a ‘position’.
Peace.
April 23, 2008 at 10:53 am
Rumplestiskin
Ah, let there be peace.
btw what do you think about my proposal re the Hudson Medal? (see About us and submissions)
April 23, 2008 at 12:17 pm
As much as I understand it, BFP, you are putting forward some of the Young Earth Creationists’ ideas, along with a world wide flood (from waters beneath the earth’s surface) and rejection of plate tectonics. All interesting from a scientific point of view, I think, but still at the level of hypotheses, rather than theories. That is, they need lots more of experimental evidence and observations, although they already make use of the fossil record to support their hypotheses.
Paul Feyerabend was the “enfant terrible” of the philosophy of science, upsetting many mainstream philosophers and scientists. His ideas are beginning to be looked at again. As a well respected, though radical, Roman Catholic theologian says, ” …some arguments of … the enfant terrible of critical rationalism - are worth considering even if it is impossible to share his anarchical attitude to method - anything goes” (Hans Kung, “Doe God Exist?”).
*******************
BFP says,
We never said a thing about plate tectonics, a flood or young earth.
Not a damn thing.
Where do you get that? We merely point out that those who stand so surely quoting science are often wrong and most often refuse to admit that much of what they believe is predicated on assumptions of which the speed of light and the rate of radiometric decay being constant are only two.
Now, with a knowing glint in our eye let’s pose another question and see where it will take us…
At the beginning of the twentieth century there was a worldwide shortage of ivory caused primarily by the fact that pianos were everywhere as entertainment devices. Where homes today have a television, the homes of 1901 had a piano. The combination of modern manufacturing methods and the invention of the phonograph and cheap printed music had combined to create a “piano frenzy” that lasted until the depression of the 1930s. That produced a shortage of ivory for much of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
Here is the question for you: Prior to the start of the Great War (WWI), what country supplied most of Europe’s and much of North America’s ivory?
CLUE: This question has nothing to do with Africa.
April 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“Does God Exist?” (eng. trans. 1978). Sorry, not Doe!
April 23, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Angels dancing on pin-heads.
” Humans still live in prehistory: all things stand before the creation of the world. The real Genesis is not in the beginning, but in the end, when society and human existence become radical. When we engage our roots - the history of human as worker, creator, moulder–and ground our possessions in a genuine democracy without alienation, only then there will appear in the world something glimpsed in childhood, a place where nobody has yet been: Home.”
- Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope
******************
BFP says,
Very true, ST.
But it is fun and our nature to consider the big questions… and the small questions that produce difficulties - like our question about ivory!
April 23, 2008 at 1:58 pm
My apologies, BFP, I did not mean to imply that you were YECs! I was trying to point out that they use the hypothesis that the speed of light might have been different years gone by (within 10,000 years for them!) to support their views.
(I’m a flat-earther, myself! Not really!)
P.S. You will have to give me time to search out an answer to your question about ivory.
**************
BFP says,
Hi Permres,
You sound like someone who enjoys thinking in new ways - or at least thinking for yourself.
You will enjoy the ivory question when you discover the answer.
April 23, 2008 at 8:09 pm
BFP says;
“But we have recently discovered that the speed of light is increasing. What does that mean in terms of assuming that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant?
Or… do you have any idea what I’m talking about and why it matters?”
My answer:
BFP, first off you have it backwards. The argument you’re trying to make is this: The speed of light is DECREASING (not increasing) and therefore the scientifically accepted age of the earth is wrong. It’s a little creationist sleight of hand, no such thing is happening to the speed of light.
Anyhow, here’s how the little argument goes:
If the bible is right and the earth is only 6,000 years old, how could light from stars that are well over 6,000 light years away have made it to earth by now. Convenient answer: Light was travelling much faster in the past than it is now. MUCH faster, as in millions of times faster.
Voila: problem fixed. The bible’s 6,000 year old estimate works and the earth is not 4,500,000,000 years old. How convenient……ly funny.
This theory has no founding in the scientific community and was based on the shoddiest of work by a creationist with assumptions like
“I will assume that this value held from the time of creation until the time of the fall, as in my opinion the Creator would not have allowed it to decay during His initial work.”
Even the Institute for Creation Research rejected it. (Acts and Facts, June 1988, G. Aardsma). -
Even the creationist thought he was off his rocker!
Seriously, this guy’s theory could not be more full of holes. It would have been slick if it worked though, but it’s simply one more example of having a conclusion (the earth is 6,000 years old) and then trying to find evidence to support it.
All evidence points to the earth being between 4 and 5 Billion years old. The bible is off by an order of magnitude that is so large, its the equivalent of saying that the distance from Christ church to north point St lucy is TWO inches (I did the math). Ofcourse, if the bible did say that, this guy would come along to say, “Well inches have become smaller. At the beginning of the world, an inch was 10.5 miles!”
*****************
BFP says,
Again we did not mention the “old earth - new earth” debate. We merely and correctly point out that this “science” everyone worships is in large measure based upon assumptions, some of which are in doubt. If we had wanted to talk creationism we would have illustrated our argument that the speed of light was slowing instead of pointing out that some believe it is accelerating.
We have never said the earth is 6,000 years old, nor do any of us believe that. We have never mentioned the biblical account of creation so where the H*** do you get off saying that we did?
So don’t try to put words into our mouts. Argue the facts.
And yes, there is lots of debate out there - including by Nobel prize winners - as to whether the speed of light is a constant or even cyclical. If it isn’t constant it blows the heck out of much of the science.
In the 70’s the concern was Global Cooling. The scientists assured us that by the end of the 21st century we’d all be blocks of ice. Now the same scientists assure us that we’ll be burnt toast.
This worshiping of whatever the latest “scientist” has proclaimed is as much a religion as the bible thumpers.
April 23, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Quick counterpoint based on your paragraphs BFP
1) Agreed. Science is indeed based on assumptions. Reasonable peer tested ones. Example: Gravity is explained by assuming that space-time curves. It’s not an assumption that’s pulled out of the air, it’s one that has stood the test of rigorous research. The day that a better explanation comes along, this one will be discarded. Critical thought and a constant search for the truth. Saying a magic man in the sky did it does not work.
2) The reason I assumed (yeah we know what this does) that you were making a creationist argument is the change in the speed of light thing. I knew this was an old rehashed creationist argument and with your take on the expelled documentary…so my apologies on this.
3) BFP says:
This worshiping of whatever the latest “scientist” has proclaimed is as much a religion as the bible thumpers.
You lost me on this one. The thing is, scientist and science gets better. So the “latest” proclamation is the best info we have at the time and usually builds upon itself and improves. That’s why the human race could go from creating a combustion engine to splitting an atom. The day we stop asking questions and exploring and researching and testing, would be the day science becomes religion. Until then, comparing the two is laughable.
Religion REQUIRES belief in something with zero evidence.
Science REQUIRES an overwhelming set of evidence before that thing can even be considered an argument.
Anyhow, interesting debate. You guys rock!
*************
BFP say
Thanks Rohan, you sound like someone who pays attention to, and has an interest in a little bit of everything too.
Hey… have you tried your luck at the ivory question?
Here it is…
At the beginning of the twentieth century there was a worldwide shortage of ivory caused primarily by the fact that pianos were everywhere as entertainment devices. Where homes today have a television, the homes of 1901 had a piano. The combination of modern manufacturing methods and the invention of the phonograph and cheap printed music had combined to create a “piano frenzy” that lasted until the depression of the 1930s. That produced a shortage of ivory for much of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
Here is the question for you: Prior to the start of the Great War (WWI), what country supplied most of Europe’s and much of North America’s ivory?
CLUE: This question has nothing to do with Africa.
April 24, 2008 at 12:42 am
Hmm, good question. I’m going to guess Russia/Siberia
haha, two guesses in one.
*************
BFP says,
Excellent Rohan!
Very few people have heard of the trade in mammoth ivory that carries on even to this day.
And of those who do know that millions upon millions of mammoths died and were frozen and buried - very few stop to consider t