NY Times Reports on Expelled the Movie
Update: I provide more information and evaluate the claims of deception more fully in my post: False Accusations of Dishonesty.
Cornelia Dean is doing her best to put a negative spin on the movie Expelled, which I wrote about previously. This is a lead article on the Times web site.
Update: Links to most of my posts relating to Ben Stein and this film can be found here.
Dawkins claims he was misled, but the article is very short on the facts of what he was actually told and what release he signed. From reports elsewhere, there did not seem to be any deception at all. The interviewers apparently did not tell Dawkins the exact angle of the film, but what documentary filmmaker does?
Of course, Dean also includes "Cornelia's Creed," which makes it about the tenth "news" article of hers to include the same editorial comment, which I think is demonstrably false. I stopped counting. The link in this sentence takes you to a collection of posts about Cornelia Dean's "journalism."
Check out the film's web site here.
Update: I fixed the link to Cornelia's Creed and clarified a link to more posts about Cornelia Dean.
Update: Links to most of my posts relating to Ben Stein and this film can be found here.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 9:50 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Macro - Yes they have documented accounts where this has been observed. In all the held speciation types
- Allopatric (geographic).
- Peripatric (mostly geographic)
- Parapatric (somewhat geographic)
- Sympatric (non-geographic)
All have many many observed accounts, to dismiss them is blatant denial of the obvious macro evolution takes place its only how did it happen not did it. I implore you to do more research you are in ignorance.
Micro - Yes they have documented accounts where this has been observed.
And your article that talks about S. J. Gould "What good is 5% of an eye?" dude (really, seriously Gould's just a smarter ver. of Hovind wake up) should have sent of red flags up in your mind, his ideas that have been long refuted.
Sam,
Not sure to what you random comment refers.
You say "to dismiss them is blatant denial of the obvious macro evolution takes place its only how did it happen not did it."
After working through your run on sentence, it seems that you are confused as to what macroevolution is. Darwin's theory makes claims as to how species appeared- random mutation and natural selection, not just that they appear.
You seem to suggest that I am denying evidence. Why do you think that? I accept all scientific evidence. I think there is evidence that cuts both ways and you need to weigh all the evidence.
Your equating Gould with Hovind is priceless. I am sure he would have been delighted. Is Dawkins a Creationist too?
"When science does not give us a convincing explanation, we should admit it."
Quite true. And when science DOES give us a convincing explanation, we should admit it.
So, gravity attracts, magnets attract or repel and life evolves.
Admit it.
One question remains: What will happen to the credibility of Ben Stein's intelligent designer when (not if) science discovers the NATURAL processes behind abiogenesis?
This movie just reinforces the belief that the Christian god is just another god-of-the-gaps.
The movies's main argument relies on the fact that natural processes behind abiogenesis fall in CURRENT gaps of our scientific knowledge. I submit to you here that it is only a matter of time before science fills those gaps and do to Ben Stein's Intelligent Design what Darwin's theories did to Young Earth Creationism.
David
His point is that we should be able to talk about it in public because it is just as plausible as the best explanation that scientist's can come up with. It should be taught as one possible beginning in the classroom on an equal plane as evolution.
View One: Hydrogen plus time equals the complexity of the human brain.
View Two: God plus His decree equals the complexity of the human brain.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This movie "Expelled" is about censorship. I think it's already has spark a world wide debate over this issue. But I believe the reason why special interest groups have been pressuring theaters not to show this film, and teachers who lost their job over questioning Darwinism is because they fear this film might influence more doubts about their position on how the Universe was created.
We would all laugh if a man who was serious in his belief, told us he could make money out of thin air. In Christianity, they would call it that belief "witchcraft."
Now evolutionists claim that could happen without anyone doing anything, all happening by chance. That the Universe was created out of nothing. I seen an atheist try to argue this point, but with all due respect, what he is implying defies the laws of physics.
THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Defines energy as a mass which cannot be created out of nothing, and can be changed from one form to another but the total amount remains the same.
I love it when creationists or excuse me Intelligent Designers, talk about science, it really is so cute! They attack Darwinists and evolutions, looking for holes where there are none but never bother to explain the mechanisms or proof for their own theories other than a basic 'god did it." Sorry, that's not science but the province of theology and faith. More at www.millenniumwriting.com on this ongoing charade.
Erik John Bertel
Eric said:
"looking for holes where there are none.."
No holes in evolution? Riiight.
"but never bother to explain the mechanisms or proof for their own theories other than a basic 'god did it."
Evolution has no "proof" other than a basic, "nobody did it."
Erik. So now Christians are dumb? So just because we have different beliefs we are suddenly dumbed down. I hate to tell you, but you're way off. Oh, and by the way. Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism. Creationism is religion, Intelligent Design is science. ID has nothing to do with "god" or any other specific being. It's simpy that the earth wasn't created out of nothing. Ben is not out to prove Darwanism wrong, that wasn't his point. His point is to show that America supposedly has freedom of speech, and yet when people mention ID, they get shut down. Doesn't sound too "free" to me. The only reason Darwanist have a problem with ID is because they're scared of it. People wouldn't be offended by critisism if they were 100% in their beliefs. They'd be open to proving them wrong. But you guys just shut up anyone who mentions ID. You call it stupid, when it has more evidence than Natural Selection or evolution does. Try doing some research yourself rather than believing what everyone tells you. You'd be surprised at how biased the information you're told is. They only tell you what they want you to hear. I challenge you to actually look in to the evidence. You can't possible try to stand up agaisnt something that all the evidence points to. You just don't want to admit that your theory has holes, so you ignore the questions. Face up to the questions, if you really believe in Darwanism, you'll prove us wrong! Oh wait... you can't.
We don't simply say 'God did it'. We prove our beliefs. But you can't... how do you prove that nobody did something? You can't... and yet the universe is filled with examples of an intelligent designer. But you guys can't prove anything. Oh wait.. that's right. Cells, a very complex thing, was created by chance by nothing. Now THAT makes complete sense....
April 19, 2:41 AM, Anonymous is right on point. It IS, as much as anything, a free speech issue. And, if we cave into giving that up, what can be next?
There is no evidence of macro evolution. Even if there was. Thats a process that always requires tools prior to its existence to work. Richard Dawkins made a fool out of himself by claiming that we could consider ourselves intelligently designed, only that it was by a higher intellectual species, such as Aliens or whatever. The Alien intelligent designers he speaks of are beside the point. The main evidence still stands- we are in a universe that shows us causality. Every cause has an effect. You can only trace it back so far,but common sense and scientific observation will tell you that something must be outside of this system to sustain the system itself. The system can never define the system. No matter how much time you can make up.
Allopatric- just because you stick a barrier between a group (hence forming two groups) and then later on remove the barrier, does not, i repeat "does not" tell anyone how one of those groups could possibly change into a seperate species. So i would like to see how a group was cut in half and then magically became two different species. That whole (geographic) "speciation" does not get to the main point of change. So you might as well just name that one half (of the many accounts you claim) that actually changed. Or is it, that you assume they were a different species before hand without knowing of a mechanism that actually divided them from their original group? Dont give me that river crap either, because a group can move if they see a river beginning to form.
A load of crap. Thats what that smells like.
sorry about what i said earlier- I meant that "every effect has a cause" not vice versa.
the law (or principle) of causality.
Evidence for macro-evolution? Try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
As for ID being science, it isn't. Look at the requirement that Kuhn posits, accuracy, broadness of scope, internal consistency and consistency with other theories, parsimony and fruitfulness of further research. Add in the Popperian requirements of empirical strength, testability and falsifiability. ID is simply nowhere in any of these compared to Darwin's theory of evolution.
You might want to look at Hempel's deductive-nomological model for scientific explanation too. Again, ID comes nowhere near to the ToE.
As Behe was forced to admit in the Kitzmiller-Dover trial. Any definition of science sufficiently broad to include ID would also have to admit astrology as well.
One final thing - when it comes to quantum mechanics are people Schrodingerists, Heisenbergians, Diracists or Feynmannists? Doesn't make much sense does it? Why then are evolutionary biologists referred to as "Darwinists"?
Post a Comment
<< Home