I assumed that this movie was a satirical look at the notion of Intelligent Design.
Was I wrong.
This is actually a very sober look at how science "community" has snubbed dissent and can be applied to the global warming scam and the health care debate.
I would encourage you to watch.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
love your site but the scientific community isn't snubbing intelligent design. Intelligent design just isn't scientific and therefore not worthy of inclusion in the scientific community. creationism isn't scientific either.
sorry if that's what you meant. I got confused.
deskbox
Deskbox
1) Your comment was pretty typical of the "scientists" in the movie.
2) I'm guessing you didn't watch the movie.
3) There are a number of holes in evolutionary theory (yes it's a theory not a scientific law).
4) There's never been a discovery that shows a species "jumping" into another. There's plenty of micro evolution proof (changes within a species) but none showing a move to a whole new species.
5) Intelligent design theory may fill in some of the gaps in evolution if other scientist would be permitted to submit true peer reviewed papers.
I'll leave you with this question. Before species started to evolve there was a single cell life form according to Darwinist. Given that scientists have been unable to re create that life in the environment present billions of years ago, where did that first life form come from?
1) being a scientific thinker who believes in the scientific method, I suppose my comment would be pretty typical of scientists in the movie
2) correct. I read the book though. I assumed the movie was similar enough to the book that I didn't need to. Is it different?
3) yes, evolution is a theory not a law. theories do have what some call holes, and addressing those holes is how the scientific method works. sometimes someone tries to fill one of those holes and ends up proving the theory wrong and then that theory is modified or another theory takes its place.
4) I don't think one species "jumps into" another species either. your "micro evolution proof" (?) is probably what explains that "jumping into" process. species do not evolve into other species overnight.
5) see my first comment regarding intelligent design's unfitness as a scientific theory. ID has been peer reviewed as much as it can be and has been rejected. Michael Behe et al need jobs too and universities do a lot of other things I don't like so it's continued funding doesn't surprise me.
as to your question, there are theories about how life began (Big Bang, Dust Cloud, etc). As for scientists being unable to recreate that beginning, it doesn't surprise me since the factors needed to recreate that moment (a) likely aren't even fully known and (b) likely aren't all possible to recreate, and we can't exactly go back in time to said moment either. being a scientist doesn't mean knowing everything. see #3 above about theories and the scientific method.
also, please come up with a better name for that which you dislike than "Darwinist." the theory of evolution now encompasses things Darwin never knew or likely contemplated (ex. DNA) so labeling it with his name seems inappropriate. just my opinion.
and, a task for you: please explain how intelligent design is a scientific theory that's provable or falsifiable via the scientific method. I know you're a CPA but we should be on the same page in this conversation (regarding ID vs. evolution as science) or we shouldn't have it.
deskbox
Post a Comment