EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)

[Guest Manny]

The killing and sterilizing are all part of eugenics programs, which I don't think has anything to do with evolution.

That's what you think. I'm pretty sure if you were to research Eugenics you would find some people who got excited about what it says in the Origin of the Species.

Well just because we can do something does not mean we should. The atomic/nuclear bomb should have never been made/used. But that genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

That shows that science without moral guidance is every bit as dangerous, maybe even more dangerous, as morality without scientific knowledge. Both of them come from within us. Right hemisphere/ left hemisphere. The battle is within your own brain.

[Sleipnir]

For those with INQUIRING and INTELLIGENT minds, there are serious questions being put forth by the movie.

Yeah serious flaws in the contents of the movie.

I don't care what ID is all about! The issue is not about that! The issue is about the freedom of scientists to follow the evidences! The freedom by academia to question....to voice out their questions.

If every crackpots who claimed to be an expert but not, were to be heard and addressed, scientific progress would be reduced to a trinkle in various fields of science.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Sleipnir

[Moonlight Graham]

I think something we can all agree on is that this is awesome:

[dre]

I don't care what ID is all about! The issue is not about that! The issue is about the freedom of scientists to follow the evidences! The freedom by academia to question....to voice out their questions.

Your problem really seems to be you dont understand what science is. If you read a basic definition you will see pretty quickly why ID is excluded from science class... it proposes an super-natural explanation of natural phenomenon that is unprovable, unfalsifiable, and unobservable.

There is quite simply no scientific avenue of study related to ID. No experiments to be done and repeated, no observations to be made.

Its an extension of theology and as such you are free to teach it to others at your church, in private, or even in a theology class. Nobody is stopping anyone from doing that, and the reality is that the vast majority of humans believe in some flavor of it, so its silly to claim its being supressed.

Its not taught in science for the same reason that basketball or carpentry arent.

Edited January 10, 2013 by dre

[GostHacked]

That's what you think. I'm pretty sure if you were to research Eugenics you would find some people who got excited about what it says in the Origin of the Species.

John Lennon is dead because someone read a book. Ever think it has to do with one's twisted mind to misinterpret a meaning in a book? Darwin's work tried to explain a few things about the origin of species and evolution. I have not read it, but I don't think it advocates for eugenics.

That shows that science without moral guidance is every bit as dangerous, maybe even more dangerous, as morality without scientific knowledge. Both of them come from within us. Right hemisphere/ left hemisphere. The battle is within your own brain.

Science can be dangerous, I don't doubt that, and sure, morals need to be taken into account. However there are powerful greedy people out there who would like nothing more than to make sure you disappear. And many of them have not read Catcher In The Rye, or Origin of Species.

But I am going to go pick up Hawking's book 'The Great Design' just to see if it sets me off on a murderous rampage. Maybe I'll stop by at my local gun shop on the way home after I hit the book store. /sarcasm.

[DogOnPorch]

Religion does not equal morality.

[Sleipnir]

Religion does not equal morality.

Agree, one doesn't need religion to gain a sense of morality.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Sleipnir

[cybercoma]

That's what you think. I'm pretty sure if you were to research Eugenics you would find some people who got excited about what it says in the Origin of the Species.

I'm pretty sure all of those people didn't understand a thing Darwin was saying, since the purpose of eugenics is to narrow the gene pool. This is anti-thetical to Darwin's concept of fitness.

[Sleipnir]

I'm pretty sure all of those people didn't understand a thing Darwin was saying, since the purpose of eugenics is to narrow the gene pool. This is anti-thetical to Darwin's concept of fitness.

Plus Darwin lambasted the principles of eugenic (though the concept eugenic came long after his death).

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure all of those people didn't understand a thing Darwin was saying, since the purpose of eugenics is to narrow the gene pool. This is anti-thetical to Darwin's concept of fitness.

Wouldn't any kind of natural selection narrow the remaining gene pool?

[Sleipnir]

Wouldn't any kind of natural selection narrow the remaining gene pool?

No.

[Guest]

Shows how much I know. How is the gene pool increased when something dies?

[DogOnPorch]

Agree, one doesn't need religion to gain a sense of morality.

I'll say...

[Guest]

Me too. In many cases, it's a positive impediment.

[dre]

Shows how much I know. How is the gene pool increased when something dies?

Because as evolution weeds out genetic traits it also adds new ones.

[Guest]

Because as evolution weeds out genetic traits it also adds new ones.

Got you. Wouldn't happen with artificial weeding.

Edit> Funny how a reply can seem to give the wrong message. By the above I mean, I get your point and see what the others meant. When I read it after it posted it it read like I thought I had caught you out.

Edited January 11, 2013 by bcsapper

[betsy]

Dog On Porch ....I can't help but be amused by your responses.

If those are the arguments you've taken from your cited movie, then am I so glad I didn't bother to take a peek on it!

What was the title of your movie - Ridiculous?

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Did you watch the movie? He said he doesn't believe in gods because there is no sufficient reason to do so. Do you remember the scene where Stein tries to get him to put a number on it? Dawkins said he believes the possibility is remote but not impossible.

What evidence? The proponents of ID do not provide evidence for a designer, they simply say evolution is complex hence there must have been a designer. The fact that the designer is more complex that what they are trying to explain kills their own point.

The ID camp is debated all the time. They are a tiny movement without an actual scientific theory. They just have a hypothesis resting on an idea more improbable than what they are trying to discredit.

Uh-uh. You're just throwing up the same pathetic attempts by the likes of Dawkins who try to wiggle their butts out of facing the competition.

The real big issue is the lack of freedom by scientists to follow where the evidence leads! That has a negative impct on science itself. If there are limits dictated by a group of people as what is allowed to be researched and discussed....then most of science that we know now - especially when it comes to the much debated areas - cannot be credible.

[betsy]

Did you watch the movie? He said he doesn't believe in gods because there is no sufficient reason to do so. Do you remember the scene where Stein tries to get him to put a number on it? Dawkins said he believes the possibility is remote but not impossible.

What evidence? The proponents of ID do not provide evidence for a designer, they simply say evolution is complex hence there must have been a designer. The fact that the designer is more complex that what they are trying to explain kills their own point.

The ID camp is debated all the time. They are a tiny movement without an actual scientific theory. They just have a hypothesis resting on an idea more improbable than what they are trying to discredit.

Yes I watched the movie! However you want to make excuses for this biologist-turned-atheist prophet, the simple truth of the matter is, HE DOESN'T KNOW where it all began!

All he can squeak out is the fact that he believes the possibility that aliens from outer space had made it all start with us on earth (which could be your legendary leprechauns for all you know).....and this so-called biologist is still left with the question, where did those leprechauns come from, and how did their own life begin?

HE DOESN'T KNOW.

He admitted that. He's just like a sleak sleezy used car salesman trying to sell us a lemon!

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

See that dicumentary that was clipped about the beginning of earth??? the phrase, "WHATEVER caused it," is not good enough!

I've seen a similar documentary -not the same though - that skipped and didn't even bother with trying to explain where those first thingy (planktons?) came from - they were suddenly there, swimming already - and from them, evolution was supposed to have begun.

Science doesn't have answers to quite a few major issues about the beginning! They're all guessing!

[betsy]

And don't buy that crappy big baloney they try to sell you that religion has no place in science.

A lot of great scientists that established the disciplines of science were all relying on their religion! The Bible has an impressive list of them!

[DogOnPorch]

Dog On Porch ....I can't help but be amused by your responses.

If those are the arguments you've taken from your cited movie, then am I so glad I didn't bother to take a peek on it!

What was the title of your movie - Ridiculous?

Yup...that's 'er name.

[Guest Manny]

I'm pretty sure all of those people didn't understand a thing Darwin was saying, since the purpose of eugenics is to narrow the gene pool. This is anti-thetical to Darwin's concept of fitness.

Ok. Insert Jesus

[Mighty AC]

The real big issue is the lack of freedom by scientists to follow where the evidence leads! That has a negative impct on science itself. If there are limits dictated by a group of people as what is allowed to be researched and discussed....then most of science that we know now - especially when it comes to the much debated areas - cannot be credible.

This is not an issue. There are not limits on what can be researched or discussed. However, evidence is required for a hypothesis to be taken seriously. The ID idea isn't backed by evidence. The entire movement simply places a magic designer into gaps in our knowledge. Yet, it doesn't explain the origin of the magic man. All the movement manages to do is make complicated processes, more complicated without supplying any evidence.

HE DOESN'T KNOW.

He admitted that.

Nobody knows how self replicating life began and of course Dawkins admitted it. Scientists, are honest and admit what they do not know. They then look for the answers. ID doesn't offer any answers or evidence, it just asserts that a designer is responsible for the gaps in our knowledge. Unfortunately for your movement, those gaps are shrinking.

Science doesn't have answers to quite a few major issues about the beginning! They're all guessing!

They don't even claim to know. They are honest about it. Filling the gaps with magic is dishonest and it hampers the ability of honest individuals from seeking the truth.

Not knowing the origin of something does not prevent us from understanding how it works.

[g_bambino]

They're all guessing!

So are you. They just have the honesty to admit it and refrain from jumping to factless conclusions.