I just saw this documentary last night. I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it brought up some very valid points.

 

It only touched on the different topics though. The film could of gone on for quite a long time.

 

I am NOT bringing up the Creationism vs. Evolutionism debate! For that, I would use the O.T. main discussion forum. I am discussing the movie, and the inteligent design/Darwinism theories that are brought up in the various interviews.

 

I never really fully understood the holocaust and reason behind it. This documentary really brought the reasons home for me. (Why the Nazi's did what they did)

 

 

 

Please don't flame/be idiots

 

 

 

:thumbsup: Discuss! :thumbsup:

I've not seen it, but what it claims is largely wrong.

 

 

 

Let's take this from the official site for example: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

 

 

 

The Controversy

 

The American publics awareness and beliefs vis-à-vis our governments expanding role in defining the curriculum in Americas schools, universities and institutions of science.

 

 

 

Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.

 

 

 

Neo Darwinian theory is taught in schools as if it is the only plausible scientific explanation of how life originated and developed. Yet Intelligent Design theory has recently emerged to challenge neo-Darwinian theory.

 

 

 

Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?

 

 

 

At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?

 

 

 

Question #1:

 

Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nations public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?

 

 

 

Question #2:

 

There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?

 

 

 

Question #3:

 

Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?

 

 

 

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it

 

literally forces a re-examination of these issues.

 

 

 

 

This entire passage does two things: it blurs the line between science and non-science (and contradicts itself in the process; more on that in a tick) and it sets up a false dichotomy as if you have to believe in one of these ideas but not the other.

 

 

 

First, it claims that ID is science. Not true. You can't possibly test the actions of a supernatural being, therefore such a mechanism being the genesis of life can't be scientifically verified or debunked. Second, it claims that ID has emerged as a new opposing theory to challenge evolution in the science class. Seeing as it's not science, the debate can be shelved for a philosophy class, but you can be assured that the majority of the scientific community rejects ID as pseudoscience, and the Dover trial in Pennsylvania basically ruled that it's creationism in disguise. Also check out the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document for a clear look at the religious agenda of the ID movement.

 

 

 

On the aforementioned contradiction, you can see originally that it claims both evolution and ID are scientific theories, yet it then goes on to say: "Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?" How can science answer questions that are beyond its limits? It's not possible, and it would no longer be science if you attempted to do so; it would be philosophy and therefore not fit for a science classroom. That's precisely why you only find evolution in the science class and precisely why ID isnt science.

 

 

 

To address another point that paragraph brings up, it's stretching the truth when it claims that science isn't open to debate or inquiry; of course it is, and biologists debate how evolution occurred all the time. It could very well be the case that no evidence supports evolution or the mechanisms by which it occurs, but that's just not true. Of course science isnt going to debate religion/the supernatural with people, because thats not what science does and religion/the supernatural cant be argued against scientifically.

 

 

 

On the false dichotomy point, it sets up one of two opposing ideas: "At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?" However, it completely ignores theistic evolution - the belief that evolution occurred as science says, yet that a god guided it to give it purpose. Besides, it's boxing evolution and natural selection as the be all and end all of the purpose of life in general purpose doesnt begin and end in the science class; in fact, science says nothing of purpose, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist (i.e. see philosophy class).

 

 

 

You have to also remember that a science class isn't the be all and end all to what you learn in school. The quote says: "Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nations public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?" The answer to this question goes back to what science is: the search for natural, verifiable explanations for natural phenomena. That's why researchers and science classes focus on the natural and the material - you're not going to know about how gravity or fluid mechanics works by praying or making up a supernatural agent to account for it. The only way to understand them with science is empirically through nature and the senses. Thats not to say that you cant understand scientific concepts in other non-materialistic, non-natural ways (again, this is the subject of a philosophy class).

 

 

 

To summarise, there is no scientific controversy here evolution is science and ID is not. You only need to do a few minutes of research to figure this out. Added, the idea that a science class is the place for talking about the purpose of life is absurd, and people can easily believe that evolution happened naturally, yet god still exists and gives you purpose.

 

 

 

Its worth being critical of what you see and checking claims against other information before you jump to conclusions.

I've not seen it, but what it claims is largely wrong.

 

 

 

Let's take this from the official site for example: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

 

 

 

The Controversy

 

The American publics awareness and beliefs vis-à-vis our governments expanding role in defining the curriculum in Americas schools, universities and institutions of science.

 

 

 

Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.

 

 

 

Neo Darwinian theory is taught in schools as if it is the only plausible scientific explanation of how life originated and developed. Yet Intelligent Design theory has recently emerged to challenge neo-Darwinian theory.

 

 

 

Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?

 

 

 

At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?

 

 

 

Question #1:

 

Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nations public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?

 

 

 

Question #2:

 

There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?

 

 

 

Question #3:

 

Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?

 

 

 

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it

 

literally forces a re-examination of these issues.

 

 

 

 

This entire passage does two things: it blurs the line between science and non-science (and contradicts itself in the process; more on that in a tick) and it sets up a false dichotomy as if you have to believe in one of these ideas but not the other.

 

 

 

First, it claims that ID is science. Not true. You can't possibly test the actions of a supernatural being, therefore such a mechanism being the genesis of life can't be scientifically verified or debunked. Second, it claims that ID has emerged as a new opposing theory to challenge evolution in the science class. Seeing as it's not science, the debate can be shelved for a philosophy class, but you can be assured that the majority of the scientific community rejects ID as pseudoscience, and the Dover trial in Pennsylvania basically ruled that it's creationism in disguise. Also check out the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document for a clear look at the religious agenda of the ID movement.

 

 

 

On the aforementioned contradiction, you can see originally that it claims both evolution and ID are scientific theories, yet it then goes on to say: "Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?" How can science answer questions that are beyond its limits? It's not possible, and it would no longer be science if you attempted to do so; it would be philosophy and therefore not fit for a science classroom. That's precisely why you only find evolution in the science class and precisely why ID isnt science.

 

 

 

To address another point that paragraph brings up, it's stretching the truth when it claims that science isn't open to debate or inquiry; of course it is, and biologists debate how evolution occurred all the time. It could very well be the case that no evidence supports evolution or the mechanisms by which it occurs, but that's just not true. Of course science isnt going to debate religion/the supernatural with people, because thats not what science does and religion/the supernatural cant be argued against scientifically.

 

 

 

On the false dichotomy point, it sets up one of two opposing ideas: "At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?" However, it completely ignores theistic evolution - the belief that evolution occurred as science says, yet that a god guided it to give it purpose. Besides, it's boxing evolution and natural selection as the be all and end all of the purpose of life in general purpose doesnt begin and end in the science class; in fact, science says nothing of purpose, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist (i.e. see philosophy class).

 

 

 

You have to also remember that a science class isn't the be all and end all to what you learn in school. The quote says: "Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nations public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?" The answer to this question goes back to what science is: the search for natural, verifiable explanations for natural phenomena. That's why researchers and science classes focus on the natural and the material - you're not going to know about how gravity or fluid mechanics works by praying or making up a supernatural agent to account for it. The only way to understand them with science is empirically through nature and the senses. Thats not to say that you cant understand scientific concepts in other non-materialistic, non-natural ways (again, this is the subject of a philosophy class).

 

 

 

To summarise, there is no scientific controversy here evolution is science and ID is not. You only need to do a few minutes of research to figure this out. Added, the idea that a science class is the place for talking about the purpose of life is absurd, and people can easily believe that evolution happened naturally, yet god still exists and gives you purpose.

 

 

 

Its worth being critical of what you see and checking claims against other information before you jump to conclusions.

 

 

 

I am not saying that ID is science!

 

I am saying the movie brings up some very good points, not that what is says is true! And yes, the scientific community is SHUTTING down the theory of ID! I am not saying it's science, but it IS a theory! I do believe that the scientific community is claiming so much against it, because they are worried that the fragile "fact", that is Darwinism will fall apart if too much evidence is brought forward for other theories!

 

 

 

The human race has learned so much because of questioning existing knowledge, and testing new ideas! Why should we stop now?

 

 

 

One more thing that strikes me is the fact that Richard Dawkins, a very outspoken atheist, said all he did, yet in the end of the interview, stated that ID is POSSIBLE! And that extraterrestrials could of 'seeded' our planet.

 

 

 

Ah... it is not often that I get to participate in a wholesome debate...

 

 

 

I'll read your whole post in the morning, but it is 10:00PM here, and I have homework to do in the morning... -.-

I wrote a very long response to this thread, but decided instead to go for eloquence. So:

 

 

 

Both creationism and evolution are testable ideas. Evolution has been tested, questioned, poked and prodded. So far, it's stood up to all its challenges - except the challenges that make no sense, like "evolution cannot be true, because the Bible says that creationism is true, and the Bible is right because God says in the Bible that the Bible is true". :wall:

 

Creationism, on the other hand, has not. No evidence has been put forth to support Creationism apart from the Bible. The earth is not 6,000 years old. In fact the Earth didn't exist for about 10 billion years. I won't get into the Creationism vs. Evolution argument, of course, but the point is that Creationism is demonstrably false.

 

 

 

This is why it should not be taught in science class. It can be taught in R.E, for sure, but not in science.

 

 

 

I think, OP, that you mistake Richard Dawkins' statement that ID is possible. It is entirely possible that the Earth was seeded by aliens. Indeed, it is a statistical certainty that life exists on other planets. Problem is, these beings could only have come into existence through the process of evolution.

 

 

 

The only way a creator being could have designed the universe is this: In an infinitely short time after the Big Bang occurred, elementary particles (which were not yet technically in existence) all jumped into the correct place, forming God. God then designed everything, grabbed it, and teleported 14.5 billion years into the future to plant the universe again so that it seemed to be 14.5 billion years old. The likelihood of the particles jumping is already almost infinitely unlikely, as is the idea that the electrical impulses in God's brain were already positioned in a way that gave him the knowledge and need to create a universe. So is the problem of moving the entire universe into the future. I say almost infinitely because everyone knows that if something is infinitely unlikely to happen, it almost certainly will (Douglas Adams fans will get the reference :D).

 

 

 

Basically, a creator being must be at least as complex as its creation, and this begs the question of where god came from, thus complicating the problem. Occam's Razor, and all that. :lol: I do not wish to explain why Hitler's eugenics plan has nothing to do with evolution or why natural selection does not discourage morality. I will if you want me to, but I find the idea of giving such claims credit distasteful.

 

 

 

Yes, that was the condensed version. I should really be training defence...

Don't turn the thread into a Creationism vs. Evolution debate please.

 

I enjoy watching documentaries, even if I think what they say is [cabbage]. I'm not sure why. I like watching 9/11 conspiracy theory documentaries, although I disagree with them.

Don't turn the thread into a Creationism vs. Evolution debate please.

 

I enjoy watching documentaries, even if I think what they say is [cabbage]. I'm not sure why. I like watching 9/11 conspiracy theory documentaries, although I disagree with them.

I'm not really sure where else this thread could go :|

Don't turn the thread into a Creationism vs. Evolution debate please.

 

I enjoy watching documentaries, even if I think what they say is [cabbage]. I'm not sure why. I like watching 9/11 conspiracy theory documentaries, although I disagree with them.

 

 

 

If that's the topic of the documentary, then you'd have to correct any misrepresentations of the truth. Essentially the documentary claims a lot of things about both intelligent design and evolution that aren't true, and sets up a false dilemma between the two while ignoring the middle ground.

 

 

 

It also seems to suggest that science classes ought to teach philosophy (i.e. the purpose of life, which science doesn't answer yet leaves to philosophers and priests) and even goes so far as to insinuate that by not doing so, science is some sort of indoctrination program to teach kids that life has no purpose, which is completely ridiculous. What science does teach is the natural mechanisms by which life evolves over time, i.e. the testable mechanisms, which is what science is limited to by definition. You can easily believe in a god and evolution, yet to reiterate, the film doesn't say anything about this view (theistic evolution).

 

 

 

It's also another mouthpiece for scientific illiteracy in that it doesn't give an accurate depiction of what "scientific theory" means and it contrasts "theory" with "fact" as if theories grow up to become facts, which isn't true.

 

 

 

 

Both creationism and evolution are testable ideas.

 

 

 

I take issue with this. The central claim of creationism is that god created everything, which by it's nature isn't a testable claim. Ask yourself this: can I study the ability of god to create things? Could I design an experiment to demonstrate the efficacy of this mechanism of creation? It's just not possible, save for god literally coming down from the sky and showing us all.

 

 

 

By contrast, I can test natural selection by seeing if/how allele frequencies of marine fish change upon relocation to fresh water.

Don't turn the thread into a Creationism vs. Evolution debate please.

 

I enjoy watching documentaries, even if I think what they say is [cabbage]. I'm not sure why. I like watching 9/11 conspiracy theory documentaries, although I disagree with them.

I'm not really sure where else this thread could go :|

 

 

 

I will tell you where this thread could go.... it could go where I intended it to go! On a discussion on the documentary! Like do you think it is right that people are losing jobs for MENTIONING I.D.???

 

PLEASE do not argue evidence against creationism/evolutionism extensively!

Don't turn the thread into a Creationism vs. Evolution debate please.

 

I enjoy watching documentaries, even if I think what they say is [cabbage]. I'm not sure why. I like watching 9/11 conspiracy theory documentaries, although I disagree with them.

I'm not really sure where else this thread could go :|

 

 

 

I will tell you where this thread could go.... it could go where I intended it to go! On a discussion on the documentary! Like do you think it is right that people are losing jobs for MENTIONING I.D.???

 

PLEASE do not argue evidence against creationism/evolutionism extensively!

Mentioning creationism? Probably not. Teaching it in schools as a viable alternative to evolution? Certainly. The problem is this: To be able to justify what I just said, I needed to point out why evolution is more credible than creationism.