Author Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed  (Read 5422 times)

Offline TheHalf™

  • The"better"Half™
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Karma: +166/-0
  • Road Runner H.S.I. 30Mbps/5Mbps
    • View Profile
    • Bit Che
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
« on: April 17, 2008, 12:26:27 am »
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial satirical documentary film which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of design in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, it claims that what the film calls "Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames evolution for a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood.

Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.


I have every intention on seeing this movie (documentary) and will chime back with my thoughts. I was thinking of making a poll in this thread to question members and guest on their belief vs. science in this matter... ...I need to see the film first.

Expelled trailer---->  http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php

TheHalf™

Offline Quantum

  • Ascended One
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 782
  • Karma: +206/-0
  • Daniel Jackson is looking at you!
    • View Profile
Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2008, 01:46:04 am »
What science is and what science isn't:

Science isn't belief.

Science is a hypothesis which states something about the natural world. Scientific theories must correlate to the real world, they must be able to make predictions about events, they must testable with empirical evidence, reproducible AND above all there must be a method to prove them wrong (kind of comes with testable, but worth re-state).


Intelligent design is theology not science, there is no way to test for it, there is way to make predictions with it, there is no way to gather empirical evidence on it and it is a belief.

I find it hilarious that he used that argument that living in Galileo's time wouldn't of been an issue if he had published that article! Of course not! Galileo was put under house arrest for arguing that the Earth revolved around the Sun!

Articles have to be well edited and thoroughly peer-reviewed to go in prestigious scientific journal. If the editor decided to put in and defended something that wasn't well peer-reviewed, wasn't scientific and just propagated a theological view point without any good understanding of science or mathematics then it doesn't surprise me that he found it difficult to seriously carry on science after that.

Free speech is tolerated! To say that it isn't is naive and quite frankly foolish. You don't see the Communist manifesto in republican weekly. Science has always been harsh and critical to those ideas which aren't scientific and are new. There are good reasons for this, non-scientific ideas are non-testable and just waste scientists times (think astrology and alchemy, they aren't seriously taken anymore).

New ideas are harshly treated so they have chance to prove themselves, if they can survive and show themselves and flourish to be true in such a harsh environment, then it's a good test to make sure these ideas are just concocted artificially in the minds of scientists. If you want to disprove evolution (and I'm not using the world Darwinism because that has been horrible twisted and tortured by people who don't understand evolution) then come up with testable, predictable, empirical science.

Evolutionary psychology (Nazism to Planned Parenthood) is a pseudo-science, it mimic's science. It makes the fatal flaw that most pseudo-science's make, which is to make predictions about things which have already happened. This means it can claim to be 100% correct, reproducible and testable, but this is in fact rubbish, because it can't do any of this, because the whole point of a scientific hypothesis is to be able to predict things. My observation of evolutionary psychology, is like most pseudo-sciences, is that it exists to further the political aims of the people who spout it, these are usually sexist aims and occasionally racists ones. They often use the argument that society is how it is because that's who we are, so we shouldn't change this and I've even heard it be used to conclude that liberal independent women are the downfall of modern society.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 01:49:58 am by Quantum »
Daniel: "This tastes like chicken."
Carter: "So what's wrong with it?"
Daniel: "It's macaroni and cheese."

Offline TheHalf™

  • The"better"Half™
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Karma: +166/-0
  • Road Runner H.S.I. 30Mbps/5Mbps
    • View Profile
    • Bit Che
Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2008, 10:51:15 pm »
Not that I agree 100% with what you posted Quantum (nice if you posted where you ascertained those statements) but the topic at hand is: go and watch the film first; then post your thoughts... ;)

TheHalf™

Offline Quantum

  • Ascended One
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 782
  • Karma: +206/-0
  • Daniel Jackson is looking at you!
    • View Profile
Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2008, 11:53:28 pm »
Not that I agree 100% with what you posted Quantum (nice if you posted where you ascertained those statements) but the topic at hand is: go and watch the film first; then post your thoughts... ;)

TheHalf™

I watched the trailer and found its out of context references intellectually offensive, I'm not going to watch the film.

I am at heart a mathematician and a scientist, I've worked in and around the scientific community. While I've not got to the point where I've got published papers, I'm more than confident that I will get there. These statements come from experience and intellectual analysis, something that that trailer seemed to lack completely.

I'm more than willing to have a discussion on anything I've said, I am open minded about things, and if you can point out where I'm wrong and give good reason I would be more than willing to concede a point, that said I'm fairly confident in my statements.
Daniel: "This tastes like chicken."
Carter: "So what's wrong with it?"
Daniel: "It's macaroni and cheese."