Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Movie - Review - The New York Times
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.
I haven't read a movie review in the NYT that was quite this direct. Although I admire Ben Stein as a writer and his business sense, I feel he has either been led astray, or lost his mind. His participation in, and support for "Expelled" is a public disservice and humiliation.
My one observation and request for anyone who backs (un)Intelligent Design, or Creationism, is to ask them to submit a scientific paper supporting thier view for peer review and publication. That's it. To date, no one has published any paper supporting ID. I have only read statements to the effect that it is futile because the scientific community is out to get them.
That is crap, and there are lots of examples of papers published that initially were scoffed at, but after peer review, found to be credible. One example was a scientist, Barry Marshall, who believed that some ulcers were the result of bacteria in the stomach and they could be cured through the use of antibiotics. The researcher infected himself, documented the process, and found that antibiotics cured the self-inflicted ulcer. This was sometime around 1984. In the early 90's, one of my co-workers at the time had the same treatment (which was experimental} and she had to shop around for a doctor who would treat her.
Update to my original post. I added Barry Marshall's name, the date of his original research, and a link to Expelled Exposed.
posted by Paul at 4/20/2008 01:06:00 PM
4 Comments:
I enjoyed the documentary and it is clear that there really are two distinct world views and that Stein is correct - the "scientific" point of view has totally bought into the atheist, evolutionist position. The result is a culture of death that has lost the integrity of scientific inquiry and embraced the kool-aid of abortion and eugenics. Cheers to Stein for having the courage to call them on it!
Frank -
Your comment does not address my point about publishing ID theory for peer review. There is only a scientific point of view, any other view is Philosophy or Religion, not Science.
Evolution is not a religious issue, it is just a scientific issue. Evolution has nothing to do with abortion and eugenics. Abortion is a medical procedure I do not condone. Eugenics was disproved years ago (which also reinforces my original point about publishing and peer review.
I happen to be a Christian. It is my experience and my belief that the more we understand about nature, the more it reinforces the existence of God.
On the other hand, the more people continue to combine religion and science, the more science is diluted. Philosophy and Religion classes are separate from Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics.
I also believe accredited universities need to police incoming students. Home or private schooled students who have studied Creationist or ID based course work should be given credit for Religion or Philosophy coursework, but not Science.
And in this case, Ben Stein remains either misguided by others, or he has lost his way. This could also be an example of an individual who is skilled in one area (law, economics), who has exceeded his area of expertise. I am a Chemical Engineer, but you will not see me teaching Law or Accounting.
-Paul
a point that's made pretty clear in the movie is that neither secular science nor creationists can go into a lab and conduct a controlled experiment that demonstrates the origin of the universe. your suggestion demonstrates the kind of "inside the box" thinking that Stein advises against... so, whether you meant to or not, you just validated the whole point of Stein's movie
Patrick - again, you are digressing. The point I made originally addresses the implication in the movie that people are not free to question evolution as a scientific theory.
The origin of the universe has nothing to do with Evolution.
In the movie, and in subsequent interviews, Stein demonstrates that he is out of his depth by attempting to tie evolution into every discussion.
As I stated before, no one is prevented from publishing a paper with valid observations or experiments which counter the current view of Evolution. To date, no paper has been submitted for peer review or publication to supporting Intelligent Design, Creationism, or any similar view.
Until this happens, all discussions in our schools about these topics should be restricted to Philosophy and Religion, not Chemistry, Biology, or other Science.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home