MOVIE: "Expelled"

Darwinism is a theory of a possible mechanism that drives evolution. Evolution is regarded as fact by the scientific community.

According to Douglas J. Futuyma, in Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15 makes the following comment:

*"A few words need to be said about the “theory of evolution,” which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, “theory” often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, “theory” means “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.” as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors–the historical reality of evolution–is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved “facthood” as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled “New evidence for evolution;” it simply has not been an issue for a century. "
*

Monty,
Sorry, but I don’t believe you. I have at least four books by authors trained in Biology and evolution that will tell you “Evolution” is not a fact and it never has been a fact. Darwinians could believe it as it is a theory, but not me.

I answered you without any fact present in my side of this question, but then that’s how you answered your side of the question.

Now I do believe that a Lab. has been descended from a wolf. This would go along with animals that have common ancestors. However, the most important point is that they are both dogs. This knowledge, under no circumstances, proves evolution to be a fact.

What you have presented, with or without you knowing it, is more double-talk from a typical Darwinist.

The more I hear the more I doubt the validity of anything a Darwinist says.:rolleyes:

bean << Sorry, but I don’t believe you. I have at least four books by authors trained in Biology and evolution that will tell you “Evolution” is not a fact and it never has been a fact. Darwinians could believe it as it is a theory, but not me. >>

What books would those be? Name the authors, give me the page numbers, and I will look them up. :thumbsup:

Evolution is both a fact and a theory depending how you understand “fact” and “theory.”

If a “fact” is a well-confirmed observation, evolution is a fact. It has been directly observed in a Laboratory, new species have evolved. This is commonly called “microevolution.” If a “fact” is defined as something lke “the earth goes around the sun, and takes a year to do it” then evolution would also be considered a fact in that bigger sense. Here we are talking evolution as “common descent” or “macroevolution” which the 2004 International Theological Commission statement signed by Cardinal Ratzinger has called “virtually certain” :

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” (“Communion and Stewardship” ITC statement 2004)

What they call virtually certain is common descent or macroevolution.

Stephen Jay Gould also on evolution as fact and theory:

“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome…In science “fact” can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent [or assent].’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.” (Stephen Jay Gould “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Discover magazine, May 1981)

According to how scientists understand “fact” and “theory” evolution is both.

If “fact” is supposed to mean absolute or 100% certainty, then no scientific theory is a fact. This article on “scientific proof” explains why.

Phil P

bean << Now I do believe that a Lab. has been descended from a wolf. This would go along with animals that have common ancestors. However, the most important point is that they are both dogs. >>

If Labs are descended from Wolves, then what are Wolves descended from?

Answer this question and you go a long way to accepting common descent as true (i.e. as a “fact”).

Wolf Evolution or
Evolution of the Wolf

All about the Gray Wolf (wikipedia)

Wolf to Woof: The Evolution of Dogs (National Geographic)

Phil P

Irreducible complexity wasn’t talked about because Behe wasn’t in the film. They had Dembski talk about his ideas on complexity.

The short clip of the animated cell movie was produced by evolutionists from Harvard. I bet no one told you that. Apparently there is a detailed Darwinian commentary on the animation, but I haven’t seen the original.

Overall I give the production a 4 out of 5, but content is a one out of 5 stars.

All of this has been talked about in the other long thread. Most of the stuff presented in the movie is simply wrong. For a rebuttal consider:

www.ExpelledExposed.com

Phil P

What I mean by fact are that things like gravity, evolution and matter… These things occur in everyday life, we observe them. So they are a fact, the theory is the current best explanation for how these events work, or our understanding of how these events work…

If a “fact” is a well-confirmed observation, evolution is a fact. It has been directly observed in a Laboratory, new species have evolved. This is commonly called “microevolution.” If a “fact” is defined as something lke “the earth goes around the sun, and takes a year to do it” then evolution would also be considered a fact in that bigger sense. Here we are talking evolution as “common descent” or “macroevolution” which the 2004 International Theological Commission statement signed by Cardinal Ratzinger has called “virtually certain” :

It’s interesting to note what the Holy Father has said and done since being elevated to the pontificate.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

It’s also quite interesting that Lawrence M. Krauss, Prof. Francisco Ayala and Prof. Kenneth Miller’s letter seems to have fallen on deaf ears since no condmenation of Cardinal Schsnborn has been given.

I’ll have to add this to my wish list of Vatican clarifications I’d like to see.:wink:

No Australia’s education system is good, The way students are managed and chosen for universities could be refined, and perhaps free university education be brought back again. Either way were doing pretty well…

I’m guessing, by your first statement, you never really paid attention in grade 9, 10 science nor did biology in 11 or 12…

Care to explain how an M1 bird flu virus went to an M5 and jumped bird to human. and how the possibility it could mutate again and jump human to human? What would you call this kind of process?

Also have you by any chance visited a museum at any time during your life? Did you manage to see the fossils there? Do you understand what radiometric dating is?

And finally do you know what the speed of light is and how the distance of stars are calculated? Do you know how old the location of our earth would have to be for us to be able to see some of these stars.

Rather than saying “god did it” to all these questions perhaps you could take a small amount of your time and try and figure them out. And perhaps you may reconsider your position…

I think everyones just really misinformed on all these issues, because for me evolution just makes a frack load of sense. There are so many retarded species of creatures out there with ridiculous vestige features or ridiculous acts of breeding and feeding. For a “designer” to have created all this, well he’s either lazy or extremely cruel.

So what your against education, or your against it when it conflicts with your narrow bandwidth of belief, or the belief that someone else instilled in you? Isn’t htat exactly what the christian movement is trying to do? Remove the discoveries of science because it begins to conflict with thier dogmatic beliefs. Of course we will be moulding the minds of our children, we just have to teach them fairly, neutrally and rationally. On evidence not on dogma…

And what’s wrong with a so called pseudo-word, languages change and evolve. The english language has changed much since it’s past. Even the spellings, for example the ridiculous way of spelling color. Its actually colour (even spell check says I’m worng).

A prime example of language changing and becoming virtually different yet in the context completely understandable and able to communicate with is in Fiji, which i have observed my self. The Indo-Fijians there speak a very broken hindi, virtually different in many ways to hindi. They use what could be described by practitioners of traditional hindi as “pesudo-words”.

Anyway the point is this, words are given meaning by us, if a word has meaning and is understood by the other party then it is effective and in reality becomes an actual word.

In regards to your use of pronouns: When you said, “your narrow bandwidth of belief”, I would like to point out that you personally have no concept of how wide or narrow my belief is. It would be logical, since I have more than double your time on this world, that my band width would be wider than yours. No doubt there are some in the Christian movement that do wish to foister their belief on others, just like their are atheists that wish to undermine the faith of children using the public eductation system.

This brings me to the second pronoun you used in and interesting fashion when you said, “moulding the minds of our children.” The point in fact is that “we” do not have children. The mind of my children is primarily my responsibility to form, not yours and not the government’s. Under the current school system we have, I will pay my school taxes and then pay a second time to provide a good Catholic education, at least in the most formative years. No, I do not wholly trust the public school system.

Hi Abbadon,
I see higher education still doesn’t teach humility.

Let’s see: how did an M1 virus go to an M5 virus. Then this virus went from a bird and eventually into a human.
How about this for an answer: It was manufactered to do just this sort of thing. I find it very difficult to believe that a new strain of virus is endangering the whole human race. It sounds fake to me, just like everything associated with Darwin and his friends.
Now by fake, I don’t mean that the bird virus doesn’t exist. I mean that it was produced by men. After all these millions of years, all of a sudden we have a virus that is really dangerous. I don’t buy this at all.

I have visited a museum many times. Looking at those fossils is truly fascinating. All of that doesn’t say one word about evolution and Natural Selection.

Are you actually trying to prove Darwinism by the speed of light and the distance planets are to the earth. The speed of light is 186,000 miles/sec.
This indicates that if we see a sun exploding and can estimate how far that star is to our solar system, then we could give a pretty good guess as to when the explosion took place.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism. You’re trying to fake out not only me but everyone else that reads this thread.

Smoke and mirrors. That’s all you have!!

“Darwinism before Darwin” is what I don’t understand. Is this like “Newtonianism before Newton”? “Galileanism before Galileo”? I’m just not clear on what you mean by this term.

Charles Darwin was himself a good observational naturalist, and a deep theorizer about what he observed. That why he is so admirable as a scientist.

Petrus

Gravity and evolution are not facts – they are good theoretical explanations of observed facts.

All those protons and neutrons and what not need to be just right for life as we know it to exist. Besides maintaining that, as He is in control of everything, why would God need to change these things?
You don’t know what I know so lower your nose. There are smarter ones than you who know better than you.

If a theory does not allow for predictions then it is useless.
What predictions? Who needs predictions? The prediction is for creationism is, then, that the same species God created will still be around. What variations within and interbreeding between species will happen does not make or break creationism. Creationists have no problem with those things happening providing, regarding the values of devout, practicing Christian ones, the interbreeding happens only between animals. Of course, to macroevolutionists, what’s the difference between man and other creatures called animals? What’s the difference to them between mankind and aliens? The only predictions I think macro-evolution theorists have are that aliens will beam down and say “You are made from our seed”. They (the theorists) probably think we’re their descendants. What you make of seeing what appears to be transitional species is better left to theorists. You can take evidence from a crime and find someone guilty, but that won’t change anything if the judge is biased.

This is why “scientists” who seek to discredit evolution are rarely acknowledged in the scientific community. The “Intelligent design” theory does not contribute to the predictions scientists can make (or want to make?). Can they make predictions about weeping statues of Mary? Some will never believe it, despite scientific conclusions that there are no hoaxes. Does Darwin or other paleontologists’s data really prove anything or is it just data? Creationists predict the same species will exist naturally, anyway, and not become another species.

In addition, rejecting evolution rejects not only a large body of evidence. Evidence of what? A corrupt courthouse could find plenty of “evidence” to make one guilty, even fabricating some, and, because they are authorities in the field of law, who’ll implicate them? Some crusty old bones that look similar can mean many things. It takes an imagination to make the story.

but it also rejects the ability of the evolution model to account for whatever the basis for the rejection was. Creationists may say whatever they like, but scientists will not listen to them unless they have something both accurate and useful to say

(when scientific theorists have something to say both accurate and useful about macro-evolution, the non-Kipling-esque theorists, who can debunk macro-evolution even if Creationism could not be proven either, will listen to them play back their politically-correct conclusions or the conclusions that come from politically-correct subconscious preconceived notions of what “evidence” implies).
Since we have no empirical evidence of one creature becoming another, these “scientists” have nothing accurate. They just have probabilities amongst many possible ones that could come if they but look for them.

Ha!Ha! That’s funny! Back off, I’m a scientist!" Peter says to the layman who states the obvious fallacy of a sophmoric scientist.

I.e. Science and the freedom of speech are not the same thing.
Science is the grunt work, free speech is for theorists to debate macro-evolution vs. creationism–2 theories that haven’t been proven, though the latter is most likely as it is from infallible book which has not been officially made merely symbolic. Guess which I’ll choose. It’s not the one that is yet to be proven, yet has been used by ones already believing in certain races (the ones with heavier brows, short, wide noses and/or rounded chins–you know, the overpopulated ones we give chairs to on the UN while giving their infected people defective condoms poisoned vaccines) as inferior. The U.N. and others in influential positions, by the way, I think, are like the groups that got the rings and got their logic perverted by them while one controls them all (hmmm, who could it be…uhhh, let’s see…oh, I know…Satan’s Anti-christ!).

BTW Darwin tried to interbreed with a couple others in his scientific family to make intelligent kids, but just got Rain Mans–at best (I wonder if phrenology, which almost kept him off the Beagle, was really a pseudo-science). This was after years of royalty doing that had the same effect. Then we had Fr. Teilhard with his made-up primitive hybrid, which fooled the elite scientists who bought it hook, line, and sinker because they wanted to (they probably had slaves) to show how much they really believed in their theory over time. You have the propaganda religious-esque painting in a famous natural history museum. Now, there’s alien seed becoming us over time. You really think anything is different in the scientific community? Do you think they would be so unscientific if they really bought their own bull? Wounded animals often growl loudest and attack viciously when cornered. That happens in academia because they cannot logically debate their beloved theory. Creationism may never be proven, but theirs have been recognized as wanting by real scientists. Maybe intellectual humility and responsibility are in order for the posers in the once-great halls of academia.

Bear06, Catholic Answers even offers you help in spelling words correctly: when I’m composing a post on my computer, if I misspell a word it appears underlined in red. You will catch most of your misspellings simply by correcting the red-underlined words.

Petrus

Foolishmortal, maybe there is no debate about evolutoin among scientsts because there is nothing to debate at the fundamental level. What we have with ID is a “manufactroversy” – a manufactured controversy. Some ID proponents have made up a controversy and then complained that academe is not willing to debate the controversy.

I think it’s good to keep the discussion going. I hope others bring it up as they go see it. The DVD will be a useful tool. I hope the parts about people getting fired for expressing their scientific opinion isn’t as wide spread as the film portrays but what else do evolutionists have at this point. To some extent I don’t blame them. They are protecting their world view and way of life.

I think the interviews with the Darwinists were the most telling. Hawkins is a devout Darwinist who says that he would accept that the first cell may have been intelligently designed on another planet because he can not explain the existence of the first cell. Another Darwinist says that some people believe that the first cell might have formed on crystals or have been planted by aliens but he would not commit to either theory. In any case they offered no explanation for the formation of the first cell. This left Hawkins open to intelligent design on another world as long as it wasn’t God. It was pretty clear that the non-existence of God is a driving force behind their work, not objective scientific inquiry.

That’s what I felt about the film Inconvenient Truth.

Steve << The DVD will be a useful tool. I hope the parts about people getting fired for expressing their scientific opinion isn’t as wide spread as the film portrays but what else do evolutionists have at this point. >>

All the cases of people being “expelled” for their views on “Intelligent Design” are dealt with in some detail at www.ExpelledExposed.com

It’s not as outrageous as the film portrays. I’m all for cosmological ID and I was rooting for G. Gonzales, and I like his “Priv Planet” book/DVD, but it appears Gonzales wasn’t producing enough substantial work the past few years. He seems to have peaked around 1999. That’s why he didn’t get tenure.

Steve << I think the interviews with the Darwinists were the most telling. Hawkins is a devout Darwinist who says that he would accept that the first cell may have been intelligently designed on another planet because he can not explain the existence of the first cell. >>

Hey his name is Richard Dawkins, as in Dicky D. :stuck_out_tongue:

I dealt with this in the other thread: At that point Dawkins was trying to be “sympathetic” with ID, and suggested IF life was somehow seeded here by another intelligence, that intelligence itself would have evolved by natural means. He mentions this in The God Delusion and other of his writings. So he limits “intelligences” to the universe itself. Eventually, at same point, there has to be a natural explanation for everything, since he is a naturalist / materialist. He didn’t say he bought into the “directed panspermia” idea, it was suggested in the past by Nobel prize winner Francis Crick.

Dawkins explains his position clearer in his negative review of “Expelled” titled “Lying for Jesus?” at his site. Obviously he’s a little ticked off since he was “burned” by creationist filmmakers in the past.

Phil P

Thank you for putting this where I can understand it. I think you finally explained why I have always been confused about the label.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.