Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed Movie lacks intelligence?

[WhipperSnapper]

One of core logical flaws with intelligent design theory is that while it implicitly claims that complex organic systems cannot arise from natural causality and that therefore an "intelligence" directed evolution, it completely fails to explain how the alleged intelligence came into being or where it came from; it just passes the buck. (It's a rehash of the logical fallacy of the First Cause argument, dressed up as being a self-proclaimed "intelligent" theory.)

Does the new movie, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, explain where this transcendental being responsible for the intelligent design came from? Does it explain how an omnipotent, omniscient being--surely something far, far more complex than human life on this earth--could just exist or come into existence on its own. Does it explain why, how if it's invalid to believe that evolution occurred naturally, why it's valid to believe that a deity existed and created everything without having to explain where the deity came from?

I can definitely understand why folks peddling religion under the dishonest guise of reason might be "expelled" from the academic debate for failure to prove the existence of the intelligent designer and to explain its origins. They're basically advocating religious belief under the implicit guise of reason.

 

[Vic]

Do you have some kind of link to bring those of us unfamiliar with the movie up to speed?

Intelligent design is a very lacking argument, and certainly shouldn't be taught in schools because it has no scientific validity whatsoever, but most scientists just ignore it (for that very reason).
It's been kind of a point of contention and misunderstanding for me here, but the strong anti-religion crusade doesn't have any real scientific backing behind it either (with the exception of Dawkins).
So please don't take up the "reason" mantle, as there's no more reason to strong atheism than there is in devout religious faith.

 

[Tab]

Expelled - The Movie

I thought this guy was actually smart but I guess not as much as we thought.

 

[nageov3t]

clearly he's smart enough to get people to give free publicity to his movie

somehow I doubt he made it for reasons that go beyond a paycheck.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
One of core logical flaws with intelligent design theory is that while it implicitly claims that complex organic systems cannot arise from natural causality and that therefore an "intelligence" directed evolution, it completely fails to explain how the alleged intelligence came into being or where it came from; it just passes the buck. (It's a rehash of the logical fallacy of the First Cause argument, dressed up as being a self-proclaimed "intelligent" theory.)

Does the new movie, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, explain where this transcendental being responsible for the intelligent design came from? Does it explain how an omnipotent, omniscient being--surely something far, far more complex than human life on this earth--could just exist or come into existence on its own. Does it explain why, how if it's invalid to believe that evolution occurred naturally, why it's valid to believe that a deity existed and created everything without having to explain where the deity came from?

I can definitely understand why folks peddling religion under the dishonest guise of reason might be "expelled" from the academic debate for failure to prove the existence of the intelligent designer and to explain its origins. They're basically advocating religious belief under the implicit guise of reason.

To be fair, that's exactly what the movie contends that the theory of evolution is. He contends that while Evolution may have a lot of real science in it, you cannot call the big bang science or whatever theory for how matter came to exist in the first place because it's not provable under what is considered the definition of science.

I'm of the belief that God is real and not only created matter, but also time and the very notion that things needed a creator. If God had to obey our rules, he wouldn't be much of a God nor could he sustain his own creation. The failure of scientists and philosophers to even come close to answering the question of origin is where I draw my biggest observations, personally.

I plan on watching the movie soon but from the commercials of it, and news stories about how evolution is taught in schools but creationism isn't is what his contention is.

Evolution doesn't even answer the question of origins. Evolution is basically thrown around as a replacement for creationism and kids are just meant to accept that they're one in the same. That's where I have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with making observations but the way it's being marketed while hoping everyone just ignores the origins issue is what gets to me.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Duewlon, could you please prove that the deity exists and explain where it came from for me? I'm having a hard time with it. It's not hard to believe that existence exists and that the Earth exists, but I have a hard time believing that this magical omnipotent transcendental being exists. I can point to rocks and to the Earth and say, "it exists" but I don't see this deity anywhere.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Vic
Do you have some kind of link to bring those of us unfamiliar with the movie up to speed?

Just look it up on the Wikipedia or the Internet Movie Database.

It's been kind of a point of contention and misunderstanding for me here, but the strong anti-religion crusade doesn't have any real scientific backing behind it either (with the exception of Dawkins).
So please don't take up the "reason" mantle, as there's no more reason to strong atheism than there is in devout religious faith.

The reason to be an atheist is simply that there isn't any reason to believe in the existence of a deity. You can't "prove" atheism because it's logically impossible to prove a negative, if that's what you're trying to get at. The burden of proof is on the side of whoever asserts that a deity exists. Likewise, if I claimed that Cthulu existed or that Flying Spaghetti Monster existed, I'd expect to have to prove it first before anyone would take the notion seriously.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Duewlon, could you please prove that the deity exists and explain where it came from for me? I'm having a hard time with it. It's not hard to believe that existence exists and that the Earth exists, but I have a hard time believing that this magical omnipotent transcendental being exists. I can point to rocks and to the Earth and say, "it exists" but I don't see this deity anywhere.

No can do. I'm sure there's nothing I can say that can change someone's mind instantly either. I have a belief based on my observations where I refuse to take the stand that there is no God because I can't see him/her/it. There's just not enough information to make such a judgement in my opinion. On the other hand, I can't even begin to explain my own self-awareness. I can't begin to fathom where matter would come from, unless some omnipotent presence, much like a "mind" as we can understand it created it.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
One of core logical flaws with intelligent design theory is that while it implicitly claims that complex organic systems cannot arise from natural causality and that therefore an "intelligence" directed evolution, it completely fails to explain how the alleged intelligence came into being or where it came from; it just passes the buck. (It's a rehash of the logical fallacy of the First Cause argument, dressed up as being a self-proclaimed "intelligent" theory.)

Does the new movie, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, explain where this transcendental being responsible for the intelligent design came from? Does it explain how an omnipotent, omniscient being--surely something far, far more complex than human life on this earth--could just exist or come into existence on its own. Does it explain why, how if it's invalid to believe that evolution occurred naturally, why it's valid to believe that a deity existed and created everything without having to explain where the deity came from?

I can definitely understand why folks peddling religion under the dishonest guise of reason might be "expelled" from the academic debate for failure to prove the existence of the intelligent designer and to explain its origins. They're basically advocating religious belief under the implicit guise of reason.

To be fair, that's exactly what the movie contends that the theory of evolution is. He contends that while Evolution may have a lot of real science in it, you cannot call the big bang science or whatever theory for how matter came to exist in the first place because it's not provable under what is considered the definition of science.

I'm of the belief that God is real and not only created matter, but also time and the very notion that things needed a creator. If God had to obey our rules, he wouldn't be much of a God nor could he sustain his own creation. The failure of scientists and philosophers to even come close to answering the question of origin is where I draw my biggest observations, personally.

I plan on watching the movie soon but from the commercials of it, and news stories about how evolution is taught in schools but creationism isn't is what his contention is.

Evolution doesn't even answer the question of origins. Evolution is basically thrown around as a replacement for creationism and kids are just meant to accept that they're one in the same. That's where I have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with making observations but the way it's being marketed while hoping everyone just ignores the origins issue is what gets to me.

The Big Bang cannot be proved, but much evidence points towards it and that is why it is just a theory. It is also one of the most vulnerable to scientific theories, I agree it is relatively weak but you can't expect science to completely ignore the question of the origin of everything so this is its crack at it.

Evolution doesn't seek to answer the question of origins. It is creationists who mix the two, because the idea of evolution does not fit with their ideas and therefore must be wrong. Most scientists (at least ones I've met/studied under) will have no problem conceding that a creator may coincide with evolution, or may not, that is simply not the question they are trying to answer. Basically the argument between these two ideas is that science teachers want to teach science in the classroom--and science has proven evolution as concretely as it has gravity. Creationists want their ideas also explained but we want them the hell out, because creationism isn't science it is philosophy or theology and deserves a place in those classrooms.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The reason to be an atheist is simply that there isn't any reason to believe in the existence of a deity. You can't "prove" atheism because it's logically impossible to prove a negative, if that's what you're trying to get at. The burden of proof is on the side of whoever asserts that a deity exists. Likewise, if I claimed that Cthulu existed or that Flying Spaghetti Monster existed, I'd expect to have to prove it first before anyone would take the notion seriously.

I'm not going to defend religion, but your expectation is unreasonable and completely misses the point. The concept of deity is not actually what you seem to think it is. It's more an emotion, or a symbol of an emotion, than a real being. It's as though you were asking someone to prove that they love their parents or their spouse or their children. It can't be done. That's why they call it "faith." It's the (positive) emotional response to your logic. That, no matter much we learn and know, we'll never be able to prove every single positive either. There will always be something unknown.

 

[DaveSimmons]

There is nothing in science to disprove the existence of god(s), the most science can ever do is prove that they are not necessary.

As an agnostic I have no faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I accept that His Noodly Appendages might indeed touch us all.

I like the Vatican's current position: evolution is natural law, Man is just a special case where their god tampered with the laws it created to achieve a desired result.

(I don't hold that belief, it's just much more rational than ID as science, or the young earth crazies with their Jesus Horses.)

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
As an agnostic I have no faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I accept that His Noodly Appendages might indeed touch us all.

Brilliant.. this should be the slogan of all agnostics.

I agree with you on the Vatican, I'm a former Catholic but their position on evolution made me think much more highly of the church.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Farang
Evolution doesn't seek to answer the question of origins. It is creationists who mix the two, because the idea of evolution does not fit with their ideas and therefore must be wrong. Most scientists (at least ones I've met/studied under) will have no problem conceding that a creator may coincide with evolution, or may not, that is simply not the question they are trying to answer. Basically the argument between these two ideas is that science teachers want to teach science in the classroom--and science has proven evolution as concretely as it has gravity. Creationists want their ideas also explained but we want them the hell out, because creationism isn't science it is philosophy or theology and deserves a place in those classrooms.

Not true from my experience. Any program i've seen on the History channel that talks about the Big Bang almost always state it as if they were there watching it happen. They peddle theories for real science which slaps religion in the face because they're saying "your false, because I said so".

Many science textbooks are the same way. They give a rough estimate on how old the universe is in a very matter of fact like statement. You can't fault any religion (while I hate organized religion) for taking offense at that.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The universe is not bound by human understanding of it and people on boths sides like to ignore this.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: loki8481
clearly he's smart enough to get people to give free publicity to his movie

somehow I doubt he made it for reasons that go beyond a paycheck.

I have no doubt that he's an extremely intelligent man and I will be seeing his documentary but this is something I disagree with him on.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The universe is not bound by human understanding of it and people on boths sides like to ignore this.

What does that even mean?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The universe is not bound by human understanding of it and people on boths sides like to ignore this.

What does that even mean?

I think it means that the truth of the universe may be beyond our capability to understand it.. just as a rat cannot understand quantum physics. At least that was what I got from it.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Farang
Evolution doesn't seek to answer the question of origins. It is creationists who mix the two, because the idea of evolution does not fit with their ideas and therefore must be wrong. Most scientists (at least ones I've met/studied under) will have no problem conceding that a creator may coincide with evolution, or may not, that is simply not the question they are trying to answer. Basically the argument between these two ideas is that science teachers want to teach science in the classroom--and science has proven evolution as concretely as it has gravity. Creationists want their ideas also explained but we want them the hell out, because creationism isn't science it is philosophy or theology and deserves a place in those classrooms.

Not true from my experience. Any program i've seen on the History channel that talks about the Big Bang almost always state it as if they were there watching it happen. They peddle theories for real science which slaps religion in the face because they're saying "your false, because I said so".

Many science textbooks are the same way. They give a rough estimate on how old the universe is in a very matter of fact like statement. You can't fault any religion (while I hate organized religion) for taking offense at that.

Are you reading what you're typing? You can't not possibly be serious.

What does religion use for their reason of how old the world is? Oh, that's right the earth is 3000 years old 'cause the bible said so. :rolls:

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The universe is not bound by human understanding of it and people on boths sides like to ignore this.

What does that even mean?

I think it means that the truth of the universe may be beyond our capability to understand it.. just as a rat cannot understand quantum physics. At least that was what I got from it.

Unless you're a republican...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The universe is not bound by human understanding of it and people on boths sides like to ignore this.

What does that even mean?

I think it means that the truth of the universe may be beyond our capability to understand it.. just as a rat cannot understand quantum physics. At least that was what I got from it.

That might be what was meant. Just didn't seem that way first time I read it. Seemed more like a, "It's too hard, so both are equally valid" copout. Perhaps that's not what was meant though. I dunno. :shrug:

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The universe is not bound by human understanding of it and people on boths sides like to ignore this.

What does that even mean?

I think it means that the truth of the universe may be beyond our capability to understand it.. just as a rat cannot understand quantum physics. At least that was what I got from it.

That might be what was meant. Just didn't seem that way first time I read it. Seemed more like a, "It's too hard, so both are equally valid" copout. Perhaps that's not what was meant though. I dunno. :shrug:

How about the reality around us isn't limited to our perception of it? Things beyond our current knowlege simply don't just not exist because we don't understand them. Nor are things necessarily so simply because we believe them to be so.

And isn't the only difference between evolution and creationsim the presence or absence of the guiding hand of God? The existence of God should really be kept in the realm of philosophy and religion and not in science class IMO.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The universe is not bound by human understanding of it and people on boths sides like to ignore this.

What does that even mean?

I think it means that the truth of the universe may be beyond our capability to understand it.. just as a rat cannot understand quantum physics. At least that was what I got from it.

That might be what was meant. Just didn't seem that way first time I read it. Seemed more like a, "It's too hard, so both are equally valid" copout. Perhaps that's not what was meant though. I dunno. :shrug:

How about the reality around us isn't limited to our perception of it? Things beyond our current knowlege simply don't just not exist because we don't understand them. Nor are things necessarily so simply because we believe them to be so.

And isn't the only difference between evolution and creationsim the presence or absence of the guiding hand of God? The existence of God should really be kept in the realm of philosophy and religion and not in science class IMO.

You're making a huge assumption: That a God exists. There has *never* been even the hint of that beyond people saying it is so.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The universe is not bound by human understanding of it and people on boths sides like to ignore this.

What does that even mean?

I think it means that the truth of the universe may be beyond our capability to understand it.. just as a rat cannot understand quantum physics. At least that was what I got from it.

That might be what was meant. Just didn't seem that way first time I read it. Seemed more like a, "It's too hard, so both are equally valid" copout. Perhaps that's not what was meant though. I dunno. :shrug:

How about the reality around us isn't limited to our perception of it? Things beyond our current knowlege simply don't just not exist because we don't understand them. Nor are things necessarily so simply because we believe them to be so.

And isn't the only difference between evolution and creationsim the presence or absence of the guiding hand of God? The existence of God should really be kept in the realm of philosophy and religion and not in science class IMO.

You're making a huge assumption: That a God exists. There has *never* been even the hint of that beyond people saying it is so.

And you're assuming he doesn't exist for the very reasons I've been stating.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The universe is not bound by human understanding of it and people on boths sides like to ignore this.

What does that even mean?

I think it means that the truth of the universe may be beyond our capability to understand it.. just as a rat cannot understand quantum physics. At least that was what I got from it.

That might be what was meant. Just didn't seem that way first time I read it. Seemed more like a, "It's too hard, so both are equally valid" copout. Perhaps that's not what was meant though. I dunno. :shrug:

How about the reality around us isn't limited to our perception of it? Things beyond our current knowlege simply don't just not exist because we don't understand them. Nor are things necessarily so simply because we believe them to be so.

And isn't the only difference between evolution and creationsim the presence or absence of the guiding hand of God? The existence of God should really be kept in the realm of philosophy and religion and not in science class IMO.

You're making a huge assumption: That a God exists. There has *never* been even the hint of that beyond people saying it is so.

And you're assuming he doesn't exist for the very reasons I've been stating.

Incorrect. It is only because of the original Assumption, a "God(s)" exist that the position that "No God(s) exist" is made from. It is the same as Santa Claus, the Tooth Ferry, etc, my saying they don't exist does not make the possibility of their existence more possible.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Vic
Intelligent design is a very lacking argument, and certainly shouldn't be taught in schools because it has no scientific validity whatsoever, but most scientists just ignore it (for that very reason).

I wouldn't call it "very lacking", personally. I've done a fair amount of reading on both ID/creationism and evolution, and ID seems just as logical and reasonable, to me, as evolution. Of course, you have to look at all of the evidence from both sides (or evidence that is shared and applied differently) in the right perspective for both sides. I'd say both hold plenty of scientific validity if you do that, though not as fact...just theory. They're both theories, and they both have their own holes in their arguments (and unanswered questions). I'd say, based on your judgement of ID, that you likely haven't read some decent sources on it...some really are just bad and make ID look silly, but some really are quite reasonable.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
One of core logical flaws with intelligent design theory is that while it implicitly claims that complex organic systems cannot arise from natural causality and that therefore an "intelligence" directed evolution, it completely fails to explain how the alleged intelligence came into being or where it came from; it just passes the buck. (It's a rehash of the logical fallacy of the First Cause argument, dressed up as being a self-proclaimed "intelligent" theory.)

That's brought up a lot, and generally people just say that God is "too complex for us to understand", hence our confusion on that very issue. While I think for some that answer might be enough, for others it is not.

I'll go into that a bit deeper based on what I understand about the Christian view of God (and likely other religions) (or at least what I think I know about it). God created everything...our universe, space, and even time. We can only understand our lives through what God has created, what we're living in (space and time, generally). Based on that, God would have to be outside of his creation of (our) time, and even (our) space/matter as we know it. It's not that God "came from" something, and you can't say "he's always been there", because then you'd be thinking in a time-based way (and he created that). One can't look at God in a linear way (time)...it's not that he has an infinite beginning or end (or a finite beginning or end). That's what he created for our lives, and he has always been outside of that.

I know that is not the best explanation you could find for that question, but that's how I look at it. Since he would be outside of time, the First Cause argument really has no use here. This is all, of course, going by the assumption of there being some sort of God in the first place, and one that really did create everything we know in and through our lives.

Like I said, I know that's not a great explanation...but it's the best I can do. It's all sort of a mental process that's hard to get out into words. It's a tough thing to answer, that's for sure.