The Christian Way Forums / The Christian Way Forums / On the Lighter Side / Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed / Latest Posts

RE: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sun, 04 May 2008 17:54:03 GMT

[b][Moderator's note: this message was originally posted in the Recovery and Health Issues » Attitudes and Impact re. Sickness and Wellness in Society and CS thread][/b]

Posted by Rosebud3 May3, 2008 @ 8:18:52 PM

Do Go Be Man,

I saw "Expelled no intelligence allowed" today. I know people have mentioned this in other parts of the forums. I wanted to say the part that stood out to me was when they showed the hideous concentration camps where people who were "disposable" due to illness etc. were killed, cremated.It goes with the theme I started about illness and the impact it has on society. Someone with a disability would definitely be eliminated.

This is still interesting to me in how MBE in her time was trying to create some system that was ultimate, absolute and would heal people. Unfortunately it appears that it created in many cases a culture of fear and denial. Perhaps we need to learn to love and care for those we would otherwise ignore. 100 years ago sick persons were placed in poor houses which were awful places where contamination and fatal illness spread amongst innocent children. Poverty seems to go hand in hand with illness. I actually worked in a community long term hospital that was originally one of these poor houses for the disenfranchised.

I think this is all interesting relative to MBE's period. The Civil War was involved, women's rights were just beginning, also African Americans and the underground railroad, to mention a few. Perhaps today her view on things would be different.Just thought this was interesting.Perhaps it could bring some perspective to this whole thing. Also, the church had a major role in caring for the sick, but that has seemed more recently to be put in the hands of the hospital. My Pastor had to have special permission to see me in the hospital related to hippa. Let's make some room for these thoughts. Perhaps we can learn something.

RE: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Linda — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:53:59 GMT

A Bioloist,

Thanks for sharing your perspective on the issue.

[quote]Typical responses: "So, does that mean you believe in evolution?" or "Sorry, I don't believe in evolution because I am Christian." I have also heard silence, gasps/shock, and laughter.[/quote]

That has to be REALLY frustrating.

[quote]How do you think it is possible to test for design/God in molecules so that other chemists could repeat the experiment in their own labs? [/quote]

I don't "test for design/God in molecules," but I certainly don't ignore evidence for design just because it doesn't fit the current scientific premise that science shouldn't recognize a designer. And I can certainly study molecules without having to assume that they were NOT designed.

[quote]Science REQUIRES the ability to test whatever force is at work in your study...[/quote]

Unfortunately, much of the science in question can't be repeated in anyone's lab. We'll never be able to recreate the conditions under which life first emerged. We'll never be able to recreate the the Big Bang to determine whether it could have really happened. We'll never be able to reproduce the deposition of sediments and dead animals all over the earth to prove exactly how and when they happened. We can't bring small pieces of debris together in space quickly enough to prove that that's how planets are formed (which is what I heard on a science program yesterday). My point is that much of what science addresses cannot be directly tested with experiments.

That's why, as you know, much of scientific interpretation involves proposing models (mathematical and otherwise) and testing those models to see whether they can accurately describe or predict the data. If the data don't fit the model, then the model has to be discarded or modified until it fits the data. A good example of this is our description of the atom. We can't see individual atoms, so over the years scientists have proposed a series of models to describe what they think atoms look like. Those models been revised as more data has become available (Bohr's model was great for hydrogen but doesn't adequately describe the data we see for more complex atoms). Right now the quantum mechanical model is serving scientists fairly well although it's not perfect.

Evolution also involves the use of models. (I'm talking about the slime-to-man part of evolution here, not natural selection which is easily observed). As you pointed out, Darwin didn't have all the answers -- that's why you and others have expanded his model. Creationism also involves models, as does Intelligent Design. From a scientific standpoint, none of these models can definitively answer the question of how the life came into being. Each (including the evolution model) is best evaluated by comparing the data we have to what the model predicts. The evolution model says that life and its diversity happened without any outside influence, while the intelligent design model says that an outside influence played a part in the diversity we see. Each model is an equally valid starting point from which to evaluate the data; the "unscientific" models will be disproven if the data do not support them.

What REALLY bothers me about the theory of evolution is that it is being presented to the public as FACT rather than as a a working model -- and its "factual" nature is being promoted to the point of being indoctrination. For example, last time I visited a small but prestigious science museum in our area there was a dinosaur exhibit designed for school children. It had a dinosaur literally surrounded by birds. The big message of the exhibit was that dinosaurs evolved into birds (never mind that the study of dinosaurs is interesting in its own right...). Soon after that I visited the new amphibian exhibit at our local zoo. The main focus of the exhibit (in bold letters, displayed over the cage) was "EVOLUTION" -- as if the amphibians had to be viewed not for their own interest but in terms of their part in the evolutionary chain. And in school, the slime-to-man concept is pushed in the books as if it's a proven fact and not a working theory.

I own a copy of the DVD [url=http://www.illustramedia.com/tppinfo.htm]The Priviledged Planet,[/url] a fascinating documentary which lines up several pieces of scientific evidence suggesting that "the conditions that allow for intelligent life on Earth also make it strangely well suited for viewing and analyzing the universe." While such a collection of evidence cannot prove that the universe was designed, it would certainly be bad science to ignore the possibility of design simply because it doesn't fit one's premise that the material universe has to be the result of random forces. On a side note, my son wanted to share the DVD with his 8th grade class, but when he offered it to the teacher she immediately (and without discusing the matter with him) gave it to the principal, who sent it on to the head of science curriculum for the entire school district -- who agreed that it was a great DVD but nixed it because there was one line near the end that raised the possibility of a creator.

[quote]There have been many great scientific achievements in evolutionary biology that will help people all over the world. We provide the initial research for many projects that end up as medical research like disease evolution (have you ever gotten a vaccine?) [/quote]

I truly applaude your advances. I know that much has been done to document and use mutations. But (and this is a sincere question) has anything been done to turn amphibians to reptiles or birds to mammals? Mutated bacteria fall within the "natural selection" realm, but the real issue at the root of the evolution-creation debate is whether life happened on its own and whether reptiles can really breed their way into birds.

[quote]If someone could come up with an empirical way to test for the presence of design, then it would have a place in science.[/quote]

Perhaps science also needs to come up with a good explanation for why the study of nature has to assume that no design was involved. As I suggested above, nature is fascinating and can be studied for what it is; its origin doesn't make what it is any less fascinating. The eye is a marvelous piece of equipment -- no less marvelous and interesting if it is the product of design than if it just happened by chance. In either case, it's worth studying.

RE: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Do_Go_Be_Man — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:51:35 GMT

A Biologist,

Your perspective on Expelled is and will be interesting.

[quote]In a way, I don't see why there isn't as much controversy about physics and the origin of the universe. You don't hear many people complaining about the Big Bang Theory, even though it doesn't provide a role for God. There are no vehement protests about the hypothesis that there may have been some form of life on Mars at one time (even though the Bible doesn't discuss life on other planets).[/quote]
Big Bang Theory doesn't bother me so much because I figure it's an attempt at explaining what we can see of the beginning of Creation. From our perspective, I imagine that speaking the universe into being created a fairly significant bang that we can only partially comprehend. In a minor way, it's like the blind men trying to describe an elephant. Big Bang is just dealing with bigger data. Scientists who pursue Big Bang also don't seem to treat it as a Law. Science has few laws and I don't think Evolution or Big Bang are included.

Life on other planets doesn't bother me. I figure God is big and mobile enough to get around as He needs. I would be more surprised to find He limited life to Earth than not.

There is even a large church that has belief in extraterrestrial life as a tenet. Each male adherent of their denomination is said to have the potential of being a messiah of his own planet if he does everything outlined for him by their faith. Can't say I've found the Biblical basis for that one yet.

I heard an interesting paradox recently. As scientists see deeper and deeper into the building blocks of life, they see design and deny its relevance. As astronomers conduct searches for extraterrestrial life, they view chaotic patterns as potential intelligence.

Do Go Be Man
<><

RE: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Do_Go_Be_Man — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:06:43 GMT

A Biologist,

Many of the points you make are quite valid. I'm concerned, however, with the concept that anything that can't be tested must be ignored.

From my bias, I don't understand how the mathematics of the species works out without some intelligent designer. Virtually every society except that portrayed in [i]Expelled[/i] has some explanation for life that involves some sort of ID. The probabilities involved to accept chaos as the designer use up too many zeros and I've never seen evidence such as transitional species to demonstrate it. Yet, anyone who tries to fit ID into their investigation appears to be considered a flat worlder.

Have you seen or do you plan to see Expelled? I'd be interested in your perspective on actually seeing it though that sounds that it may be like suggesting I go see [i]Fahrenheit 911[/i] or [i]An Inconvenient Truth[/i]. :)

Do Go Be Man
<><

RE: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Linda — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:38:02 GMT

I just saw the movie and I highly recommend it. It's a fascinating look at how the scientific "establishment" in America is trying to silence colleagues who raise legitimate questions regarding Darwinism and dare to publish scientific evidence suggesting that there may be design (not purely random chance) in nature. The movie is a sobering commentary on how freedom of thought and expression are being stifled under the guise of science.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Do_Go_Be_Man — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:24:19 GMT

Accepting the hazard of reigniting discussion on evolution, I'd like to recommend a movie I just saw - [url=http://www.expelledthemovie.com/]Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[/url].

While I'm not as set in my ways regarding evolution as you may expect, I was fascinated by the presentation of the consequences in the "scientific" community of pursuing any data that does not support Darwinism. My recommendation has more to do with the stifling of science than the merits of evolution vs. intelligent design vs. creationism vs. etc.

The movie reminded me of times as a CSist when I posed difficult questions in the belief that query itself is healthy not evil and serves as the basis of science, Christian or otherwise. Questions appropriately addressed should serve to strengthen faith not demonstrate a lack of faith. In teaching, I often say that the only stupid question is the unasked question. You never know what you may learn trying to understand something you don't understand.

If faith in MBE, Joseph Smith, Charles Darwin, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jesus Christ, or God is so weak as to be incapable of honest exploration perhaps that is reason enough to rely upon works or deny faith. Having explored the worldviews of each of them and many others, I am comfortable where I stand.

Should anyone choose to contribute to this discussion, may I respectfully suggest addressing the suppression and repression of scientific or theological inquiry rather than amoebas to monkeys to man, which we have beaten to death in other threads? I don't mean to sound immediately hypocritical, however, those other threads would be the more appropriate venue for such discussions.

Do Go Be Man
<><