Creationism / Evolution / Intelligent Design???

Thoughts and opinions?

Just watched or still watching a documentary of some sort called, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
I will have to watch it again, it is late and I am very tired but the idea is how "Intelligent Design" is portrayed in a false way as a form of creationism and is the enemy of evolution. It seems to end with how evolution created the nazis, but again, I haven't finished it yet, so I don't know for sure. The flick seems to be very fair and showing both sides evenly, for the most part. Will say more about it when I have watched the entire film again.

But, that film aside, any opinions on the matter?

I am fascinated by how unlikely it is that DNA formed itself. If you know what I want to say

And the Earth, being probably the only planet to have intelligent lifeforms on it.


@ear-sighted: Whats the name of that film you were watching?

Expelled. No Intelligence Allowed.

I just finished watching this too, since ear-sighted is my girlfriend and I'm over at her haus.

I thought it was really well done.

ear-sighted wrote:

Just watched or still watching a documentary of some sort called, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

heavy matthi wrote: Whats the name of that film you were watching?

Haha, mannoman...

I think my thoughts were already somewhere else...

It seems to end with how evolution created the nazis

if someone blames the holocaust on evolution, he would have too blame the inventors of electricity for every single car accident...

as for what i think it depend on what you mean by I.D... if it is just evolution but directed by a +10 dimensional creature? sure, thats something you would have to be ignorant and foolish to call impossible.
i find it really interesting that if you think of the start of genesis as a metaphor it actually don't contradict the theory of evolution one bit...

as a archeology student i often touch local objects that are alot older than 6000 years old... only 4 kilometers from here they where fishing and hunting reindeer 9000 years ago. i have always felt that the 7 days must have been a metaphor and that at least the earth has to be alot older then that. it is only the last couple of years that i have coem to terms that mankind must be very old too, and the complete miracal that homo sapien sapien is, primates are known for having larger brains and growing older then they are supposed to compared to their size, but humans excel at this to the point that it is almost freaky.
there are marks on the skulls of our ancestors showing how quick our brains grew.

The whole point of the movie is that Freedom needs to be returned to Science and Scientific academia. The fact eh you get "expelled" for following science that may lead outside of Darwinism is only hurting Scientific progress, not helping it.

Also, people often confuse ID with Creationism, and they are not the same thing. ID doesn't makes assumption as to whom the creator must be.. only that certain things.. like the cell and dna and the mathematical complexities of these things ten to show the influence of an intelligetn design...rather than accidental occurrence.

Speaking of interesting ancient history evidences... I've always like the egyptian symbols that looks exactly like a helicopter and such...

sorry ash that mystery was a mystery for five minutes until a specialist took a look at it...

A very good movie, I watched it about a month ago.

Explanation for the formation of life by evolutionists interviewed,

"molecules rodes on the backs of crystals"



How stupid do you think I am? I mean, all of the scientist's interviewed had absolutely no proof, evidence, or any solid anything to show us that evolution has any substance as science whatsoever.

It's also interesting to point out how most of the proponents of IT, were the scientists who were doing the new research and development. Intelligent Design is simply what mathematics and Biology is bringing us to, plain and simple. Not all where even religious by any means, just doing the work and running into this truth.

the old THEORY of evolution is on its way out, it will take a little while, but it is inevitable. Then science can really progress.

dude what kind of dream world do you live in? if the theory of evolution was on its way out, why would people get fired?
tell me this, if you where the head dr of a physics institution, and one of your underlings wrote an article on why he does not believe in gravity, but that the earth was really flat because of the fact it says so in the holy scripture of his religion. would you take that as a valid scientific hypothesis and continue to grant him fundings for his research, or would you get rid of him and employ someone that could put the university's money to better use, and actually teach us something about the laws of physics??

i would... and these scientists see creationism as nothing but mythology. as for ID, well right or not, they do not follow the objective scientific process that most university's and research centers require of their employees. ID simply starts in the wrong end, they already have their theory "god created the world" and then they try to do experiments or calculations that point to that. the proper scientific way is to start with a question in this case "how was the world created" then you do your calculations, add up all of em' and write your theory based on what those point to.

there is nothing wrong with scientific religion, but no one that wants to be called a objective scientist can practice religious science.

i have started to watch expelled now, and so far i see nothing but propaganda an pictures chosen for that purpose. i have not seen more then half yet, but so far i find it no better Bill Maher's Religulous, or any other of these kinds of documentaries it's the same propaganda just the opposite message. stefan i bet you don't trust what is said in Moores movies and books, then please realize that this movie have been made in the exact same way...

darwinists are the most Ideological scientists in the world, in my opinion.

It's really the war of ideology's, not science.

Just as Newton was once the standard for physics... Einstein came along...and now we've gone beyond Einstien.... so it will be with Darwin.. he is already outdated, even honest Darwinist will admit that.

For example, he believed that the cell was a a very simple thing. We now know today that a single cell is practically a Universe unto itself, and more complex than our most advanced computer.

For anyone who doubts the fuel that Darwin's ideology gave to the Eugenic elimination philosophies of the nazi's.. just read Darwin.. here's one quote, of many that propagate that idea..

"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process
of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the
sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost
skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason
to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak
constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak
members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has
attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must
be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a
want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a
domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one
is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

-Darwin, the decent of man.

ahhh... not really not most anyway... and yes we are far past darwin, darwin was only the start and it is creationist that keep using Darwinism as a label on the current ruling theory. evolutionary theory is what is practiced today, not darwinism. some people like dawkins do call themselves it sometimes, but then add neo- infront to signify that they do hold darwins text as the absolute truth.
i think modern scientists have some kind of vatican-complex where they feel that religious superstition can not be allowed to rule again, science was suppressed for far to long by the church and far to many lost their lives. even though many parts are "cloudy". many parts of evolutionary theory are proved. and the docs feel it important to protect them. they don't want another medieval age where religion freeze scientific advancement for 700 years or more. thats is why they find it so important not to mix science and religion.

yes i am aware of the fact that darwin had those ideas, but you must remember that many of these text are letters and diary's... i too have when discussing evolution pondered on that question, not in terms of race but when along the way did man become so strong that even the weak could find someone to mate with.
in other letters he writes that he have now met savages and found them to be just as bright as him. for darwin it remained something he philosophic question to ponder over. it was galton that put the whoel thing in a book and called it science.
you could say that darwin invented the steel, but that it was galton that formed it into a knife

I disagree that Darwin has "invented" anything that has withstood scientific evaluation without being debunked. He did not invent the idea of micro-evolution. He invented the "idea" of macro-evolution or the idea that all species evolved from one common ancestor.

And the "science" that has been built on Darwinism is ridiculous. Sorry, I hate picking on Darwinism so much, but it just is ridiculous.

And the notion that ID is some sort of instrument for bringing religion back into science is blatantly false. The Majority of ID proponents are not religious.. At All!

All I'm saying is.. let scientists come to what ever conclusions their science brings them too,, without being expelled from academia because they don't adhere to an antiquated and incompatible Darwinian ideology.

I have no problem with people believing in Darwinism and whatever they want.. but I do have a problem with people not letting scientists challenge that view and point out it's many problems.

There has to be a better explanation for the existence of the cell than Lightning hitting a primordial mud puddle or lightning hitting a crystal ( which is the newest view). None of those things, when tested for years in labs.. yielded any supporting results whatsoever.. and yet if you challenge these things you are labeled "unscientific" or "religious".

Let the truth be sought, not ideology.

Please don't take offense at my argument, Ecth. I just passionately believe in freedom of dissent.

Wow...Ummm...hard to know what to say since there are so many different ideas to respond to!


As for the movie, what I liked about it was the fact they were trying to defend the right of all view points and theories to be taught and discussed equally. For that reason, I did not feel it was propaganda driven. I think one might say it was if they disagree with the intelligent design idea and so on. I personally do not believe in creationism or that the world is 6000 years old. But it is rather normal for people to call any documentary propaganda if they don't agree with it.

About documentaries, I don't think a movie like "Sicko" had anything to do with propaganda, it was simply true stories about the American health care system and the terrible problems it causes. That and a look at other health care systems and employment practices in other parts of the world compared to ours. Not to say there are not documentaries out there that are not just propaganda, but not all of them are.

I would agree the earth is very complex, beyond human understanding sometimes and could possibly have some sort of "intelligent design" behind it. But I also believe it is possible that this "design" mutates and evolves as time goes on.

Which leaves me more or less, moderate on the subject. I can see both intelligent design and evolution both being correct. Rather than one or the other.

As far as the Nazi's are concerned, I don't think the theory of evolution created the nazi regime. Darwin may have some personal views that influenced or are similar to that of hitler or the nazis but I don't think the theory of evolution in general created the regime.

And I will agree with Eth., that evolution is what is studied today not pure darwinism and any extreme views he may have had.

they were trying to defend the right of all view points and theories to be taught and discussed equally. For that reason, I did not feel it was propaganda driven.

o please... how you ever studied film? that movie was full of the oldest moves in the giant book of propaganda...

as for sicko sure i am a person who agree with moore, but he does use some cheap tricks... his depiction of europe was a we bit to glamorous, he picked up the nicest stone on the entire beach and brought it in to be filmed

ecthelion of the fountain wrote:

they were trying to defend the right of all view points and theories to be taught and discussed equally. For that reason, I did not feel it was propaganda driven.

o please... how you ever studied film? that movie was full of the oldest moves in the giant book of propaganda...

as for sicko sure i am a person who agree with moore, but he does use some cheap tricks... his depiction of europe was a we bit to glamorous, he picked up the nicest stone on the entire beach and brought it in to be filmed

yea, there is alot of Euro-glamorizing that goes on in the US. Bu the healthcare issue is in fact horrendous in the US.

I think most Europeans would have no idea how bad the healthcare insurance problem really is.. over here.

People are literally dying because of conditions that are easily treated if taken care of before they worsen... and not just poor people.. many of the highly educated and upper class can barely afford or nto get healthcare.. due to pre-existing conditions.. which is just plain evil.

true but because a film shows the truth it does not make it less of propaganda. if a documentary is made to get through a specific message and use a few well known tricks to do so it is simply propaganda.

propaganda is often true too

no not really, i'd say it's 50/50 maybe...

I have seen plenty of films that are nothing but propaganda. Propaganda is not necessarily bad, but it certainly can be, especially when directed at uneducated people who believe whatever they are told.

I don't think someone using successful film techniques/tricks as someone trying to make a false statement. Moore, does a lot of approaching random people on the streets, which I find to be an honest perspective on the subject matter. There are some planned discussions as well, but his films are not solely that.

I personally work with a man who has cancer in every organ of his body. Of course he cannot work much, but he does whenever he can. He lives alone, does not have a car and barely has money for food, let alone health care. He has to take a bus to and from radiation therapy alone...Can you imagine? A three hour bus ride to and from that? Just to arrive at an empty house with no food. My coworkers have come together to offer rides and by him grocery store gift cards but we should not be doing this, while living in the wealthiest nation on earth. These are the very stories shown in Sicko, where is the propaganda in that? Im sorry, it breaks my heart to see this man, he looks like he would fall over if you tapped him with your finger and our gov't does nothing to help him. So, showing that story, regardless if it is done with film tricks is not what I consider to be propaganda. Sad part is, this is just one of many with similar stories and I am glad someone out there cares enough to tell their stories to the public.

Of course healthcare is a very specific subject matter. His 9/11 and gun control films were indeed propaganda, not that the info is untrue but indeed propaganda! The film he made about jobs in detroit (i think) and how they are all being shipped oversees, those were true stories that have cause severe problems for our economy and job market...you kind of have to look at each film on its own i guess.

As for the expelled film, it seemed to show ideas and thoughts from both sides, which is what I liked about it. There was a lot of dramatic clips and such in it too, which was obviously the propaganda parts of it. Personally, when they interrogated Richard Dawkins in an attempt to make him look "wrong", I thought it actually made them look stupid and desperate.

I thought the Richard Dawkins segment was good.

I just showed that he actually accepts Intelligent Design in it's basic premise, which is ironic and funny.

Doesn't Richard Dawkins believe that it is likely that extraterrestrials seeded human life on earth?

I might be thinking of someone else, I don't know.

Ash wrote:I thought the Richard Dawkins segment was good.

I just showed that he actually accepts Intelligent Design in it's basic premise, which is ironic and funny.

I don't know that I got that from the segment. To me it felt like they were trying to force him to claim that he knew all the answers to the creation of our world or to prove that god is definitely not the creator, when all he really said was that he did not know the truth and nobody really does. I would definitely say he does not believe in religion and finds it to be as much a fairytale as Sleeping Beauty. If you look at it, all he was trying to say is that Intelligent Design is as possible as anything else, he just does not think it has to be from a religious being and that it could be designed by anything or anyone...he is not saying that aliens definitely did it...just putting the idea on the table...he obviously does not follow any religion but that does not eliminate intelligent design in his mind, it is just another possibility.

Oh, i agree with you, i just thought it was funny, both because Ben Stein and Dawkins are funny to see go at it.

And the reason it is ironic, is because Dawkins regularly refers to ID as a creationist conspiracy to infiltrate darwinism.. so to see him use that terminology with ID to explain his own understanding I have to say , to me , is incredibly ironic.

And I think Ben Stein wasn't "interrogational" in the least. he was just asking direct questions.

Hi there! In comes a die-hard evolutionist.
The nr 1 problem with intelligent design is that their way of working is at the core EXTREMELY unscientific. They don't do any testing, they don't come up with hypotheses they let others test, they don't publish any papers in any journals, they don't even try to earn the scientific consencus, but go straight to the schools and schoolboards. That is not teaching the controversy, it's an intellectual kick in the groin.

Blixi wrote:Doesn't Richard Dawkins believe that it is likely that extraterrestrials seeded human life on earth?

I might be thinking of someone else, I don't know.

no what he said was that he does not believe that god as of traditional definition created the world. and that if some hyper intelligent lifeforms created that first organism, it would have to have been one that just like us evolved from a single cell organism. he believes that if there exists some god like creature it has not been there for all eternity but has itself evolved into that state.