Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched it. It was pretty one-sided. I noticed they didn't go into too much detail about the Intelligent Design theories and exactly what they entail. There was no real defense of Intelligent Design. Instead, they just focused on the treatment of those in the scientific community who promote intelligent design, without ever asking why other scientists weren't buying it. Come to think of it, they didn't talk about evolution either. Bear in mind, evolution has nothing to do with the original creation of life, and no one is advocating the teaching that life came from crystals or asteroids or what have you. Most "evolutionists" want the theory of evolution taught, and are happy to say "I don't know" when asked how the first life was created. I would like to see an actual documentary on intelligent design from an impartial source, if one exists. It was a documentary in the same way that Ferenheight 911 was considered a documentary.
Perhaps the sequel in which they explain why Stork Theory has been suppressed by "Big Science" as a viable explanation for newborns will pull them out of the hole after Yoko Ono gets done suing the pants off of them for copyright infringement.
But, other than that, I heard the movie basically fell flat on its' face. Bummer.
'Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed' by RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2478,Sexpelled-No-Intercourse-Allowed,RichardDawkinsnet - broken link)
I watched it. It was pretty one-sided. I noticed they didn't go into too much detail about the Intelligent Design theories and exactly what they entail. There was no real defense of Intelligent Design. Instead, they just focused on the treatment of those in the scientific community who promote intelligent design, without ever asking why other scientists weren't buying it. Come to think of it, they didn't talk about evolution either. Bear in mind, evolution has nothing to do with the original creation of life, and no one is advocating the teaching that life came from crystals or asteroids or what have you. Most "evolutionists" want the theory of evolution taught, and are happy to say "I don't know" when asked how the first life was created. I would like to see an actual documentary on intelligent design from an impartial source, if one exists. It was a documentary in the same way that Ferenheight 911 was considered a documentary.
REPLY: I saw it and thought it was a superb documentary . Im sorry to say this, but, you seemed to have missed alot for you to say what you did above -- perhaps i can jog your memory a bit. First, they did go into what intelligent design entails by explaining extremely highly complex designs such as the Cell and all of its various workings and sub-systems incl. the messages required for cell reproduction (DNA)...could only come from a Programmer just as a Computer requires a Programmer for it to operate . It then went on to explain the chances that a cell could come about by chance by showing that a protein molecule has at least 250 different parameters which must be 100%exact ; the chances were shown to be so astronomical that it is near incomprehensible . And that is just for ONE protein molecule to form. Many more are required before a Cell is finally produced. It then went on to show another impossibility of Darwinnian Evolution, and that was via Irreducible Complexity , or, the fact that there are many things that dont work at all if any one part of the entire structure is missing , therefore making gradual evolution totally non viable. Darwinnian Evolution was discussed at length including the sort of instruments Darwin had when he examined a Cell under his microscope ; he was unable to see the deep inner workings of the Cell which scientists today indicate is as complex as a major City with different Departments, Duties, and Functions. Finally, Darwinnian Evolution/survival of the fitest/desire for a more Superior Race... was linked to some of the worse Tyrrants of the 20th Century who embraced Darwinism such as Hitler,Stalin, and others thru exterminating what they percieved to be people who had not evolved as much as others , including the iphysically nfirmed. Modern day social consequences were also touched on briefly. The analogy using the Berlin Wall showed the bigottry associated with many Educational Facilities to purposely keep ANY competing construct from being offered for consideration when students desire to have any and all alternatives to Darwinian Evolution presented so they can be better informed and decide for themselves what the truth is. The same case was made for notable Museums such as the Smithsonian and the public that frequents them. During the interviews with Darwinnian Evolutionary Scientists, it was clear to see that they had a prior personal philosophical bias against Creationism . The Movie culminated with Ben interviewing one of the most ardent atheist British Evolutionists of our time, Prof. Richard Dawkins, who (uncoersed) admitted that there must have been Intelligence that brought about first life on earth ... which was an incredible admission when his entire career has been centered around trying to show that Intelligence (a personal Being) isnt necessary for our personal/highly tweaked Universe nor for first life to arise ; he summed it up by stating that Aliens from Outer Space with superior intelligence must have brought the technology to Earth !
I found the Documentary clearly showed how all of us have been utterly brainwashed by the atheistic propoganda of Darwinnian Evolution which is just a desperate attempt to keep on rejecting the obvious personal Theistic Creator of this universe and...the immense personal implications for doing so.
Regarding ID, the film only used the complexity of life to support ID, or more specificlly, "Irreducible Complexity". Irreducible Complexity basically says that life is so complicated that God must have done it.
Regarding evoltion, instead of discussing Darwin's work on the Galapogos with finches and other divergent species, they focus on his house and his microscope with no real discussion of the science behind the theory.
The chance argument is also used. i.e., things had to happen just right for our world to exist, and the chances of those things happening are 1/billion, therfore someone must have planned it. OK, but when you think about the vastness of the universe and all of the failed galxies that probably exist, I'd say you'd have your 1 billion chances.
Regarding Panspermia, instead of any real critique, they ridicule it using UFO footage from 50's movies, ala Michael Moore.
Like I said before, if the film wanted creditibility, they should have used Science to critique evolutionary theories, not ridicule them with stock footage.
I don't disagree that scientists who promote ID are not taken seriously by their peers, but that is probably because there is no actual science to back it up. Evolution is backed up by experimintation phisical evedence. ID is a wild guess based on the complexity of the cell and the randomness. Where is the tesing that every other scientific theory relies on?
The parrallels between evolution and tyrants is ridiculous, and even if there were a basis, how does this disprove evolution?
Seriously, I'm waiting for someone to explain the science behind ID.
Seriously, I'm waiting for someone to explain the science behind ID.
From what I gather... apparently reinterpreting experiments a certain way is considered science by those in the ID community. Complete disregard for the scientific method is also apparently a necessity and so is the lack of empiricism.
The Scientific Method by definition does not prove anything. It can only DISPROVE something. So technically, those that are attempting to disprove the existence of God should use it. It doesn't work the other way around. Actually the fact that the ID community does not regard it is...well, scientifically correct.
Regarding ID, the film only used the complexity of life to support ID, or more specificlly, "Irreducible Complexity". Irreducible Complexity basically says that life is so complicated that God must have done it.
Regarding evoltion, instead of discussing Darwin's work on the Galapogos with finches and other divergent species, they focus on his house and his microscope with no real discussion of the science behind the theory.
The chance argument is also used. i.e., things had to happen just right for our world to exist, and the chances of those things happening are 1/billion, therfore someone must have planned it. OK, but when you think about the vastness of the universe and all of the failed galxies that probably exist, I'd say you'd have your 1 billion chances.
Regarding Panspermia, instead of any real critique, they ridicule it using UFO footage from 50's movies, ala Michael Moore.
Like I said before, if the film wanted creditibility, they should have used Science to critique evolutionary theories, not ridicule them with stock footage.
I don't disagree that scientists who promote ID are not taken seriously by their peers, but that is probably because there is no actual science to back it up. Evolution is backed up by experimintation phisical evedence. ID is a wild guess based on the complexity of the cell and the randomness. Where is the tesing that every other scientific theory relies on?
The parrallels between evolution and tyrants is ridiculous, and even if there were a basis, how does this disprove evolution?
Seriously, I'm waiting for someone to explain the science behind ID.
REPLY: Gradual evolution could not have produce an irreducibly complex structure which real science showed in the movie. Darwins Galapogos findings showed that the many varieties of Finch's were still Finch's with no jump into another Kind and even Darwin himself profusily apologized for his seriously lacking research . They did use real science to disprove Darwinnian Evolution by showing the limitations of new information in the genome which is required for his 'THEORY" to be valid. There was no ridicule , only a showing of how biggotted Educational Facilities are by not presenting other very viable alternatives . If other life forms were found in our immense Universe, it wouldnt negate the need for a Creator/Designer...it would multiply the need for one. If ONE house requires a designer/builder, then so does an entire row of houses. The scientific discoveries that show creationism is credible is very widespread in all of the sciences ; in the science of Cosmology, over 250 extremely razor precise physics constants are needed for our Universe to exist , to sustain the operation of our universe/solar system/earth ...whereby ALL of the constants are required simultaneously and ALL must work in unison with one another . If that isnt design for the purpose of US being able to live on earth, i dont know what is. You dont get this kind of tweaking from non intelligent Materials thru naturalistic causes. Pamspermia was addressed by atheists Dr. Francis Crick and Dr. Richard Dawkins and the later even gave indication that there had to be Intelligence for first life because of its near incomprehesible complexity which runs counter to his entire evolutionary career MO. The parallel between Tyrants and Darwinnian Evolutionary tenets , were that there are and were social consequences thru viewing what is percieved to be 'less fortunate evolutionary developed' races and the actions of these Tyrants were based on this fallacy. Instead of 'waiting to be educated on intelligent design' thereby displaying apathy and a prior philosophical bias, why not dive in and go looking for it ??? Its out there, always has been, and its just a 'click' away. Many dont want to because of the implications to ones lifestyle choices if a personal, holy,moral Theistic Creator exists ... so its better to keep distance for the benefit of personal maximum autonomy , thereby making truth-seeking undesirable. If im wrong in your particular case, then you may want to obtain the best book on this topic called :'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist' by Dr.Norman Giesler at www.impactapologetics.com (the book that even atheists call extremely compelling ).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
