MOVIE: "Expelled"

  • Thread starter Thread starter wisdom_3_5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Janet, I work with numerous scientist colleagues who are Catholics; not a few are Jesuit, Dominican, or SVD priests. So, clearly, they do not subscribe to the “culture of death” as you term it, but neither have they ever felt the need to invoke intelligent design in their teaching or scientific research.

Petrus
Actually, you were responding to my post, not Janet S’s, so I’ll comment further.
  1. You seem to be saying exactly the same thing I said.
Clearly, those folks you mention believe in evolution, within the context of a God-is-involved framework.
  1. This discussion had nothing to do with ID. It had to do with dangerous ideas and philosophies, especially without the involvement of God.
 
I love the fact that they used the Kanamits’ spaceship.

To Serve Man: kanamits
Code:
 An alien visits the earth. He says they've come as friends, and they desire to help the earth and set up reciprocal visits to their planet. The aliens have noticed that the earth is plagued by both natural and un-natural calamities, and they only wish to help. They offer a new power source, an end to famine, and a force field to be used as a defense shield. The alien states, "We wish only that you simply trust us." As he departs, he leaves a book behind.

 At this point, the decoding experts for the U.S. government go to work. A man named Chambers is part of a team assigned to translate the book, which turns out to be a most difficult task. While he is discussing the situation with several army generals, his assistant Pat rushes into the room with news that the title of the book has been deciphered. The title reads To Serve Man.

   Meanwhile, the delegates at the UN watch a film of several tests given to the alien. It's basically a lie detector test, and the results show that the Alien is making truthful statements. He repeats his motive of coming to earth only to offer help.  The countries of the world offer their thanks as deserts become gardens and armies are disbanded. Next we see people standing in line to board spaceships as the reciprocal flights to the Alien's planet begin.  They are weighed upon entry, and speak of upcoming events as we would speak before embarking on a vacation.

Chambers and his assistant, Pat, discuss all the recent events. They note that there are no more codes to decipher, that nearly 2000 Aliens are now on earth, and how easily man decides to go off to a strange planet. In fact, they are both on a waiting list to go. Although Chambers has given up on deciphering the book, Pat states that she is still working on it and getting close to a translation.

Chambers is now in line to board the spaceship. As he is ascending the steps, Pat rushes up desperately trying to get his attention. As she is held back by the Aliens, she warns Chambers, "Don't get on the ship! The book, To Serve Man, IT IS A COOKBOOK!"  A struggling Chambers is forced into the ship.

   Chambers is taken to a solitary room. He is offered a meal, but he tosses it on the floor. An Alien enters the room, picks up the meal, and gives it to Chambers stating, "Eat. We would not want you to lose weight." 

   Chambers faces the camera and speaks directly to us.

   He says, "Whether we are on the ship with him or back on earth, it does not matter; we will all be on the menu.

   I could not say it any louder. We will all be on the menu!!

  This was a short episode of the Twilight Zone played back in 1962.
sherryshriner.com/sherry/to-serve-man.htm
google.com/search?hl=en&q=TwiLight+Zone++%22to+serve+man%22+cookbook+zone+kanamits

:ROFL
 
So, Brian, would you use intelligent design to explain why giraffes have long necks? That God designed them that way because She foresaw that they would need to browse on tall trees on the open savanna? Or might there be an evolutionary adaptive explanation for that?

You’re actually getting at the crux of the arguments. One can believe both. I can’t remember which one of the scientists interviewed in the movie said it but one of them pointed out that evolution doesn’t have to be devoid of God. I don’t think most of the ID people are against an evolution within a species. Like I’ve said, it’s evolution within a species that they doubt.
Do we detect divine design in the false “eyes” on the wings of some butterflies, put there to fool predators? What are the parameters of design theory? How would we test for intelligent design? Why is one phenomenon designed, and another possibly not?
 
In your opinion, are all ideas neutral? Are there no inherently dangerous ideas/philosophies, just dangerous people who take up neutral ideas and run with them?
I think your conflating different concepts here. There is a difference between a scientific theory and a moral philosophy. Scientific theories don’t tell us how we should live or should behave. They simply help us understand how the world works. Evolution is not a philosophy that tells us how to live. Neither are quantum mechanics or Newtonian mechanics. As such they have no inherent moral value.
Is the Christian’s view of the human person created in the image of God no different than Darwin’s view of the human person as just another animal when it comes down to comparing the two philosophies and their impact on society and human behavior?
Once again, evolution is not a social philosophy that tells us how we should live or who we are. It is a framework to help us understand the world around us. Any philosophical inferences drawn from that are the separate concoctions of people, not a necessary derivative from the scientific theory. “Social Darwinism” is a philosophical idea that is distinctly different and is not a necessary derivative of Darwin’s work.

Darwin is not to blame for the holocaust or Eugenics.
Newton is not to blame for the use of ballistic missiles.
 
And, again, ID basically says that radomness can’t produce the complexity found.
But they don’t explain why random change + selection can’t produce the complexity found.
The answers pre-date history. How did the world begin? Nobody will ever know because it pre-dates history.
Science can test many past events that were not witnessed by man. Forensic scientists do this all of the time.
How do we test for the “backs of crystals” theory? We can’t.
First, that’s not a theory, that’s a hypothesis. One that is separate from evolution. Second, we can test it the same way we test any other hypothesis. First, we test the basic plausibility, can we do something similar in the lab? Then, if it passes that test, we ask, “if life started this way, what characteristics would life have and what characteristics would we expect to be impossible.” We would then go out an see if life has any of these characteristics. If that works, we try to refine the theory further.
If we can’t test for that and the we can’t test for God, why should one be accepted and one be rejected?
Evolution and common descent do not require god to be rejected.
Why should one theory be allowed to be mentioned as a possibility and one not?
Because evolution through variation and natural selection is a scientific theory that has been tested repeatedly. So far, intelligent design is no more than speculation, with no consistent theory, no tests, and no results. If the ID proponents want people to listen to them, they need to do the work. Develop some testable hypothesis and test them. Right now all they do is PR and speculation.
 
Well, you might want to research that first then. It’s even found in the dictionary.

I don’t know that alternative is the word. There is a difference of opinion in the scientific community between evolution within a species and evolution between species. There is plenty of evidence to support the former and even the scientists in the movie don’t debate that.

Which theory. The “popular” theory? That’s rather the point of the movie. It’s harder to discuss “alternate” theories.

Again, the debate is not that evolution exists but what kind of evolution exists.
Okay fine then like i asked before where are the rabbits in the jurrasic? How about horses in the pre cambrian how about monkeys in the cambrian. Why are such fossils never found?
 
oh also i have to ask how can you have deviation within a species say a frog and after 10 million years all deviations still resemble a frog? The genetic structure only needs to be changed by 3% and you get a completely different animal as indicated by the genetic difference btwn us and primates.
 
But they don’t explain why random change + selection can’t produce the complexity found.

Uh, I don’t think those who do believe in random complexity have proven it either. Again, why should one theory be excluded.
Science can test many past events that were not witnessed by man. Forensic scientists do this all of the time.
 
oh also i have to ask how can you have deviation within a species say a frog and after 10 million years all deviations still resemble a frog? The genetic structure only needs to be changed by 3% and you get a completely different animal as indicated by the genetic difference btwn us and primates.
You seem to think deviations are mandatory. Also, am I missing the 10 million year old specimen that proves your point?
 
Okay fine then like i asked before where are the rabbits in the jurrasic? How about horses in the pre cambrian how about monkeys in the cambrian. Why are such fossils never found?
Are you saying the “missing links” specimens have been found for all species? Well, heck then, why would anyone anywhere ever dobut Darwinism?:rolleyes:
 
I think your conflating different concepts here. There is a difference between a scientific theory and a moral philosophy. Scientific theories don’t tell us how we should live or should behave. They simply help us understand how the world works. Evolution is not a philosophy that tells us how to live. Neither are quantum mechanics or Newtonian mechanics. As such they have no inherent moral value
.
Chesterton said science is either a tool or a toy but not a philosophy.

The problem is that many people today think science is a philosophy.
Once again, evolution is not a social philosophy that tells us how we should live or who we are. It is a framework to help us understand the world around us. Any philosophical inferences drawn from that are the separate concoctions of people, not a necessary derivative from the scientific theory. “Social Darwinism” is a philosophical idea that is distinctly different and is not a necessary derivative of Darwin’s work.
Darwin is not to blame for the holocaust or Eugenics.
Newton is not to blame for the use of ballistic missiles
.
Darwin was a naturalist who made some wonderful observations and contributions to the study of biology, but I think we can classify his ideas about the origin and nature of man as a philosophy. A lot of the things he wrote about this subject are pure mythology, not science at all. Are you saying it is impossible for a scientist to come up with bad ideas–ideas that lead to dire consequences-- just because he is a scientist?
 
.Are you saying it is impossible for a scientist to come up with bad ideas–ideas that lead to dire consequences-- just because he is a scientist?
Not at all – the World Trade Towers fell because of gravity, but we don’t blame Newton. The Nazis did some nasty stuff, but we don’t blame Darwin or the Catholic Church!
 
Janet << Is it your contention that there is no connection between Darwin’s writings and the eugenics movement? >>

I haven’t read all of Darwin’s writings (just Origin of Species) but – I’ll contend that there is no necessary connection between "Darwinism" i.e. defined as the theory of macroevolution (“universal common descent”) with “natural selection” as the mechanism, and the eugenics movement. The former is strictly about science and has been confirmed over and over again in field and laboratory; the latter is a philosophical/social/political/moral position about the supposed “inferiority” of races/people, and the attempt to “improve humanity” by sterlizing/eliminating the “inferior” folks.

Richard Weikart links Darwin to Hitler and the early eugenics movement in From Darwin to Hitler (MP3 lecture), but I haven’t read his book yet.

There is "Darwinism" as science (TalkOrigins site), and "Darwinism" as a philosophical position (Wikipedia article). The former is neutral science, the latter has philosophical/metaphysical implications.

Janet << In your opinion, are all ideas neutral? Are there no inherently dangerous ideas/philosophies, just dangerous people who take up neutral ideas and run with them? >>

Scientific data is neutral, e.g. the data supporting macroevolution/natural selection. “The earth goes around the sun, and takes a year to do it” and “we are all descended by common ancestors in a natural process that took place over millions of years” are neutral, scientific concepts accepted today by the vast majority of practicing scientists who are atheists, agnostics, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and every religion.

Ideas/philosophies are not neutral. There is “Darwinism” the neutral scientific concept (defined above) and “Darwinism” the not-so-neutral philosophical concept. The not-so-neutral position leads some to “naturalism” and/or “materialism.”

Hitler used whatever he could to support his “Jews are inferior” position, including “positive Christianity” and whatever “science” he could. However, Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) and his later writings speak mostly of creation and creationism.

“From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today. A glance in Nature shows us, that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is (now).” (Hitler’s Tischgespraeche from 1942, German translated by Steven Carr)

The word “evolution” (Entwicklung) appears once in Mein Kampf and does not refer to biology. Hitler accepted “changes” with regard to plants and animals, but believed God created some races “inferior” –

“Rather than basing his racism on any evolutionary theory, Hitler based it squarely on his view of white Aryans as the favored people of God.” (from a page on "Creationists, Hitler and Evolution" by Lenny Flank). According to Hitler, white Aryans are the special creations of God, the ‘highest image of the Lord’ put here specifically to rule over the ‘subhuman’ races:

“Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.” (Hitler’s Mein Kampf)

Janet << Is the Christian’s view of the human person created in the image of God no different than Darwin’s view of the human person as just another animal when it comes down to comparing the two philosophies and their impact on society and human behavior? >>

The Christian’s view of the human person created in the image of God is not a scientific concept. The human soul is not testable or detectable by science. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. The scientific method is neutral with respect to God and religion. That is also the Catholic Church’s position. We are “animals” in our physical makeup as descended from the primates with respect to our bodies, but our souls come from God (CCC 362-368, 1702-1706, etc) and that makes us special and different from the animals. That’s my position! 👍

As you can see, I take care to link everything in my posts, and back up with massive documentation! 😃

Phil P
 
Wanted to correct Lenny Flank’s article I used above. Hitler does use the word “evolution” seven times (at least in English translation) in volume 2 of Mein Kampf, but zero times in volume 1. Lenny might have been referring to volume 1 only, and used a different translation. As in normal English usage, the word is often used as a synonyn for “change” but Hitler seems to refer to “biological” evolution at least twice (in red), and “cultural evolution” once.

Weikart also disagrees that Hitler was a simple “creationist.” Hitler does refer often to “Nature” and uses other “Darwinian” phrases like “struggle for existence” (e.g. “My Struggle” is what Mein Kampf means).

volume 2, Chapter IV: Personality and the Conception of the Folkish State –

“In order to elucidate this point of view it may be worth while to glance once again at the real origins and causes of the cultural evolution of mankind. The first step which visibly brought mankind away from the animal world was that which led to the first invention. The invention itself owes its origin to the ruses and stratagems which man employed to assist him in the struggle with other creatures for his existence and often to provide him with the only means he could adopt to achieve success in the struggle. Those first very crude inventions cannot be attributed to the individual; for the subsequent observer, that is to say the modern observer, recognizes them only as collective phenomena. Certain tricks and skilful tactics which can be observed in use among the animals strike the eye of the observer as established facts which may be seen everywhere; and man is no longer in a position to discover or explain their primary cause and so he contents himself with calling such phenomena ‘instinctive.’ In our case this term has no meaning. Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again; and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscience of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as ‘instinct.’ This is more easily understood and more easy to believe in the case of man. His first skilled tactics in the struggle with the rest of the animals undoubtedly originated in his management of creatures which possessed special capabilities.”

volume 2, Chapter VIII: The Strong Man is Mightiest Alone –

“The general evolution of things, even though it took a century of struggle, placed the best in the position that it had merited.”

volume 2, Chapter X: Federalism as a Mask –

“He [Bismarck] trusted to the levelling effect of time and to the pressure exercised by the process of evolution, the steady action of which appeared more effective than an attempt to break the resistance which the individual states offered at the moment. By this policy he showed his great ability in the art of statesmanship.”

volume 2, Chapter XI: Propaganda and Organization –

“I have never been in favour of hasty and pedantic methods of organization, because in most cases the result is merely a piece of dead mechanism and only rarely a living organization. Organization is a thing that derives its existence from organic life, organic evolution. When the same set of ideas have found a lodgement in the minds of a certain number of people they tend of themselves to form a certain degree of order among those people and out of this inner formation something that is very valuable arises.”

volume 2, Chapter XII: The Trade-Union Question –

“Here also the principle holds good that the spirit is always more important than the external form which it animates; since this form can be created mechanically and quickly. For instance, the leadership principle may be imposed on an organized political community in a dictatorial way. But this principle can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are necessary for its own evolution. These stages lead from the smallest cell of the State organism upwards.”

volume 2, Chapter XIII: German Alliance Policy after the War –

“The oppression which we suffer from at the hands of our enemies is no longer taken, as it formerly was, as a matter for laughter; but it is resented with bitterness and anger. There can be no doubt that a great change of attitude has taken place. This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation; but the blame for this must be attributed to those utterly incompetent people who have no natural endowments to qualify them for statesmanship and yet have been governing our nation since 1918 and leading it to ruin.”

So I guess it is debatable whether Hitler was a (strict or simple) “creationist” in Mein Kampf (published in 1925-26).

Phil P
 
On April 29, 2008, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued this statement about Expelled:

“The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.”

The ADL press release also said, “Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”

from Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust (April 29, 2008)

courtesy of www.ExpelledExposed.com

Phil P
 
Are you saying the “missing links” specimens have been found for all species? Well, heck then, why would anyone anywhere ever dobut Darwinism?:rolleyes:
By that reasoning, you should be claiming that the the Standard model of particle physics is invalid because we haven’t found the Higg’s boson yet.

Thousands of “missing links” have been found. Claiming that we have to find every one is like claiming that Chemistry is invalid because we haven’t figured out every possible chemical reaction, or that Atomic physics is invalid because we don’t have the computing power to precisely model complex atoms. Why are you holding Biology to a different standard?
 
I had not heard about this one at all. Thanks for the head’s up.
When I saw Ben Stein’s name there I was worried that another intelligent God loving person was going to go the way of others in Hollywood. I was relieved when I looked at the "overview" page of that site to read:

*Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance. *To which Ben Says: “Enough!” And then gets busy

I am most interested in seeing this film when it is released in February. Ben Stein is a marvel to watch when he’s on a mission.
I want to see this, but I think I missed it. It’s not still February is it? 😛
 
Uh, I don’t think those who do believe in random complexity have proven it either. Again, why should one theory be excluded.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top