MOVIE: "Expelled"

I want to see this, but I think I missed it. It’s not still February is it? :stuck_out_tongue:

Actually, the scientist who study evolution have demonstrated repeatedly that random mutation + selection can produce complex structures. Speciations have been observed both in the lab and in the wild, and the evolution of novel structures have been observed.

Additionally, scientists and engineers who do not study evolution have shown that random change + selection can rapidly produce structures that are well suited for their environment/task.

So far the ID proponents simply claim that there is some barrier that prevents this observed phenomena from working on a larger scale, but they won’t propose what the barrier is or how we can find it.

Maybe you missed it but no scientist in the movie actually said they knew how life began.

I wasn’t talking about how life began with my comment, “Science can test many past events that were not witnessed by man. Forensic scientists do this all of the time.” I was talking about studying anything that pre-dates history, specifically evolution. Given that the ID scientists in the movie run the gammet; from those that reject evolution completely (Crocker) to those that don’t seem to have any publicly stated opposition (Gonzolez), It would be unreasonable to claim that the movie only deals with how life began, especially when most of the featured scientists’ normal rhetoric is focussed on attacking evolution.

How in the world do you think we test for how life began when we do not have close to all of the pieces of the puzzle?

Same way we study anything, start from the pieces we do have.

Actually, I already said this about evolution and I could even say this about common descent if it were true. That said, my problem with common descent is that I believe it based on faulty science. I’ve said it from the beginning and I even think I said it in one of my last posts.

How is common descent based on faulty science? There is no fundamental difference between change within a species or type and larger changes. If the mechanism of random mutation + selection can produce small changes, what barrier prevents those changes from building up to a large change?

Tested as it has been, you’d think some conclusive evidence would have been found yet.

Lot’s of conclusive evidence has been found. The extensive fossil record is consistent with evolution and common descent, the study of genetics has repeatedly found evidence for common descent (locations of endogenis retrovirii, evidence of chromosome fusion locations, genetic similarities between closely related animals, etc.), and evolution on a smaller scale has been directly observed.

Remember at least one of the scientists in the movie said that he believed in evolution. These folks were scientists and Christians long before this movie. They certainly don’t believe that one has to reject God to embrace science. My husband is a scientist. He doesn’t believe this and he’s highly respected in his field.

Then why did you phrase it as:
"If we can’t test for that and the we can’t test for God, why should one be accepted and one be rejected?"
Thereby setting up a god/science dichotomy?

Well then, all people should just shut up about how life began.

I never said anyone should shut up. I said they should put up. Form a hypothesis, test it. Do something other than cherry picking quotes and studies while ignoring the totality of the evidence.

To which writings of Darwin are you referring?

The Descent of Man

There’s a link to the book on this post:

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=3614939&postcount=246

It might be a stretch to link Darwin to Hitler, but it’s not a stretch to link Darwin–particularly his book The Descent of Man-- to the eugenics movement.

The link between the two is at least as strong as the link between Karl Marx’s philosophy and the Bolshevik revolution. (I’m assuming we can agree that Karl Marx influenced the Bolshevik’s.)

Darwin’s book The Descent of Man is **his interpretation **of the implication of evolutionary theory as applied to human beings. It is not a science book. Yet, you’ll find many of the ideas he puts forth in this book accepted as a scientific fact and embraced today–especially the idea that morality is not set and is ever evolving to meet the needs of a particular culture (i.e. moral relativism.)

His philosophy, put forth in this book, is incompatible with Christianity.

Once again, thanks for your reply and all the references.

Janet S - I looked at the last article you listed above, and it is quite interesting. Thank you for posting it.

Your description of the book is woefully innacurate. Given that you have provided a link to the actual text of the book, I find this rather dissapointing. An honest reading of the book shows it for what it is: An examination of the evidence and and a speculative discussion of how man fits in to the scheme of evolution. (Indeed, in the conclusion Darwin states that the work is highly speculative) It may strongly show the biases that existed in society at the time (Note these were not the concoction of Darwin), it displays some now debunked beliefs of the time (miasma theory of disease), lacks some of the rigor we see in modern texts, cites work from other naturalists that does not stand the test of time, and, indeed, draws some incorrect conclusions, but it does not promote a philosophy like you claim it does. The book contains only a few paragraphs that fit your description, and few of those are, or were, considered, or intended to be considered scientific fact.

The reason that many of the parts of the book are accepted as scientific fact, is that they have stood the test of time and have been consistent with more modern observations. This in no way implies or requires that those who accept the things that have proven correct accept the things that have since been discredited or dismissed.

Additionally, I think you’ll find moral relativism has little support in the scientific community. The historically accurate observation that morals vary from culture to culture in no way implies that all moralities are of equal value.

Very eloquently put, tonyl. Charles Darwin has become the whipping boy for many, for “reasons” now known to be quite false.

Have you an interest in discussing the evolution of morality, or evolutionary ethics? Pre-human morality is to me a very exciting area of philosophical and scientific discussion, particularly in the work of ethologist Marc Bekoff.

Petrus

I’m not sure why I’d need to do so. Suffice it to say that your example blurs two questions: “how” giraffes have long necks (i.e. the mechanism by which long necks came about–which is a scientific question), and “why” giraffes have long necks (i.e. the “purpose” for a giraffe’s long neck, which presupposes something beyond mere utility–and this is a question for philosophy and/or theology). As for “how”, I really don’t know–and I have no special problem with the idea that giraffes could have developed longer or shorter necks, over time; but I’d invite you to observe the fact that the “Darwinian Model” (for lack of a better term) doesn’t even touch the “why” question, and its answer for the “how” question is a raw conjecture, with virtually no data to give it weight (above and against any other model, whatever that might be).

That God designed them that way because She foresaw that they would need to browse on tall trees on the open savanna?

I would gently suggest that such is certainly possible, and that the biological sciences are completely silent on this question of “meaning” or “purpose”; biology seeks to explain “what” and “how”, not “why” (in the sense of “purpose”).

As a side note: I’m a bit puzzled why you used the pronoun “She” when referring to God; some would do so as a mere “jab”, or attempt to introduce inflammatory satire–and I’m assuming that wasn’t your intent. Could you explain?

Or might there be an evolutionary adaptive explanation for that?

Certainly, there might… but one of the main points of discussion is that the “Darwinian Model” has overreached its competence by asserting such a conjecture (i.e. “natural selection might explain this!”) as (for all intents and purposes) “canonical”.

Do we detect divine design in the false “eyes” on the wings of some butterflies, put there to fool predators?

(ahem) I do detect a bit of lapse into “appeal to the gallery”, here…

What are the parameters of design theory? How would we test for intelligent design?

You seem to be under the impression that it’s only “Darwinian Model” or “Intelligent Design” model, with the two being mutually exclusive… and, aside from the questions of “origin”, “macroevolution” and “purpose”, I don’t see why that need be the case.

To be continued; must dash!

In Christ,
Brian

I didn’t take the time to see if Al Gore’s un-scientific movie was discussed on this forum. Did the same posters who are defending evolution also defend Gore? I didn’t see Gore’s movie but what I heard was that Gore believed everything he presented. Ben, in his movie merely asked questions.
Gore did not do all that well in science in college. He depended on the knowlege or lack of knowlege of others when he researched his movie. Ben, on the other hand has a reputation of being a genius but acted quite humble in his movie.
I don’t trust people who give as an argument…many Catholics and priests I know believe such and such…therefore it must be “Catholic” teaching. Sadly, that is not true today. There are many very bright priests and other Catholics who are not following the true teachings of the Catholic church and many of them are the professors who are leading our Catholic children away from the faith. My very intelligent daughter who was a wiz at science and math lost her faith in college. Being brilliant does not guarantee being “right”. One third of the most brilliant angels in heaven thought they were “right” when they proudly told God “I will not serve!’”

Janet << The link between the two is at least as strong as the link between Karl Marx’s philosophy and the Bolshevik revolution. (I’m assuming we can agree that Karl Marx influenced the Bolshevik’s.) >>

What is this Jeopardy? :smiley:

Who was the last king of Russia?

What social movement started because the middle class had more free time?

What idea represents the concept of the movement to eliminate certain undesirable ethnic groups?

What is the concept that the most fit, and most able, will rise to the top and survive in society?

What is the idea that incorporates the need for companies to market to large numbers of people around the world or country?

Who were the communists who disagreed with Karl Marx about the need to eliminate capitalism?

What is the communist term for the lower economic class? The middle economic class?

What is the name of the Russian lawmaking body similar to the US Congress?

Very Simple Research Essay Questions:

  1. At the time of the February Revolution, the Bolsheviks numbered no more than a few hundred members in Moscow, and little more than that in other large Russian cities. What were the chief reasons, in your view, for their rapid growth during 1917 into a mass party, and their ability not only to seize but also to hold state power?

  2. Even many Western observers considered the Soviet Union of the 1930s an economic success story. Discuss the economic difficulties faced by the post-revolutionary regime, the various strategies and methods used to overcome them, as well as the costs and the limitations of that success.

  3. Was Stalin the legitimate heir of Lenin?

  4. Outline the constitutional development of the USSR through the three constitutions of 1918, 1924, and 1936, and discuss the extent to which these constitutions reflected the realities of the time.

  5. Compare and contrast the main historiographical interpretations of the October Revolution.

Phil P :thumbsup: :stuck_out_tongue:

“Prehuman morality?” Wouldn’t that be as speculative as the praeterrnatural gifts of Adam? Jack London wrote a book called
"Before Adam," which dealth with such a creature.

onetrue << I didn’t take the time to see if Al Gore’s un-scientific movie was discussed on this forum. Did the same posters who are defending evolution also defend Gore? >>

I don’t necessarily defend all of Al Gore’s movie, but I discovered that the majority of scientists do support the human-induced “global warming” idea. There are always uncertainties about the future, but I’ll go with the majority of scientists on this issue. I compiled a couple of TV/audio/debate programs into an MP3 here (includes a rebuttal to “Global Warming Swindle” program).

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (many groups listed)

Scientists Opposing Mainstream Consensus

But that’s for another thread.

Phil P

Yep, another thread. But here’s a good site with opposing viewpoints.

icecap.us/

The Expelled movie site has this interesting feature where viewers post stories of religious discrimination they’ve experienced in science classrooms or other scientific and academic environments …

expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php

In these cases I wasn’t talking about evolution as I understand it and have learnt it. You stated that species turning into (eventually) something different doesn’t occur. So that means all species as we observe them today have always been roughly as they are. Dogs become other dogs, horses become other horses etc… Am i correct in understanding you so far?

Okay now we can see horses and dogs in todays world. Now according to you (and i have no idea who else) these species would not have strayed off of being horses or dogs. Now if this is the case we would expect to find at least one fossil of a horse like creature throughout different stages of history. There have been HEAPS of fossils found in that whole triassic, jurrasic and cretaceous periods. Now why has there never ever been found anything remotely resembling a horse or any other large modern creature? We can find a Stegosaurus but not an elephant? I know they have found small mammals, which makes sense as small mammals took over after the dinosaurs got wiped.

Also for what you say to occur means that there has always been animal X, that it didn’t stem from something simple and evolved over billions of years and for that to occur something needed have… created… it… like… that… By the bolt of zeus are you insinuating that the flying sphegetti monster actually created animals as they are? OMG the pastafarians were right…

I’m trying to stress how your logic doesn’t make sense with the corrent data we have. I really think it’s just that you don’t understand evolution or you feel that by excepting it it somehow demeans your god. I don’t think anything scientific has anything to do with anyones god. Concepts like god, zeus, Frigg and the like are completely unproveable and are personal.

I have an imaginary friend that i still see as clear as a tree in daylight, and i’m nearly 21, sure that means i’m probably crazy or maybe I’m not. Either way i know no one else sees her/it or hears her/it so it’s irrelevent to everyone else, it’s personal like your god. I don’t try and push on every one else that she/it’s real…

I’m afraid it wouldn’t be much of a discussion, since I have little knowledge of that area. My real expertise is in Physics, and most of what I know about biology and anthropology is what I’ve picked up on the side and in the handful of electives I took as an undergrad. If you have any reading suggestion, It sounds like it could be an interesting topic.

The evolution of morality is a whole new subfield of study at the interface of biology, ethology, ethics, and philosophy. Just as humans evolved into moral consciousness over hundreds of thousands of years, other animals with increasing neural endowment have a proto-morality. A very interesting place to start is Marc Bekoff’s The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy - and Why They Matter. A Catholic theologian who has double doctorates (theology and biology) is Celia Deane Drummond. Her The Ethics of Nature (New Dimensions to Religious Ethics) might be helpful.

I have to prepare my graduate seminar; hasta luego.

Petrus

Okay now we can see horses and dogs in todays world. Now according to you (and i have no idea who else) these species would not have strayed off of being horses or dogs. Now if this is the case we would expect to find at least one fossil of a horse like creature throughout different stages of history. There have been HEAPS of fossils found in that whole triassic, jurrasic and cretaceous periods. Now why has there never ever been found anything remotely resembling a horse or any other large modern creature? We can find a Stegosaurus but not an elephant? I know they have found small mammals, which makes sense as small mammals took over after the dinosaurs got wiped.

Why is it that you think that proteins and whatever else needed. could only form once and then evolve into many different species from one origin? Why is the thought that proteins and whatever else needed couldn’t have been organized a certain way to organize one species and then another set of proteins and whatever else is needed could organize a different way and form another species at a different point in time? Even if you believe in the random coming together of the necessary components to being life, why is it that this could only happen once a certain way?

Also for what you say to occur means that there has always been animal X, that it didn’t stem from something simple and evolved over billions of years and for that to occur something needed have… created… it… like… that… By the bolt of zeus are you insinuating that the flying sphegetti monster actually created animals as they are? OMG the pastafarians were right…

Actually, no. See above.

I’m trying to stress how your logic doesn’t make sense with the corrent data we have. I really think it’s just that you don’t understand evolution or you feel that by excepting it it somehow demeans your god. I don’t think anything scientific has anything to do with anyones god. Concepts like god, zeus, Frigg and the like are completely unproveable and are personal.

Again, wrong. Again, I believe in evolution. I don’t believe in evolution from one origin and despite all of the claims, I don’t believe it’s been scientifically proven.

I have an imaginary friend that i still see as clear as a tree in daylight, and i’m nearly 21, sure that means i’m probably crazy or maybe I’m not. Either way i know no one else sees her/it or hears her/it so it’s irrelevent to everyone else, it’s personal like your god. I don’t try and push on every one else that she/it’s real…

Well, it my be why you keep calling God “your god”.:wink:

The discussion of the underlying subject matter of the film aside, can we please get back to the original topic?

If you’ve seen the movie, please share your thoughts about the film over all.

If you haven’t seen the movie share if you plan to, why or why not?

If there isn’t more to contribute to this discussion about the film itself then I will close it.

Thank you.

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.