Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[BathTub]

The most controversial part of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how Darwin's theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by Adolf Hitler. If there is no God, but only a planetary lab waiting for scientists to perfect the human race, where can Darwinism lead? Stein insists that he isn't accusing today's Darwinists of Nazism. He points out, however, that Hitler's mad science was inspired by Darwinism.

And I'm going to blame 9/11 on the Christians! 

See, that's just retarded.  When someone says something like the above, it's obvious that they are trying to play on emotion rather than fact to back their debate.  You can't judge a theory or belief by the way it's been twisted to do evil.  If you could, religion would win anyway.

The thing for me, is how people take Darwins Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, and make the leap to Eugenics and Genocide. Eugenics is the exact opposite of Natural Selection. I just don't get that at all.

[Tripe]

The most controversial part of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how Darwin's theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by Adolf Hitler. If there is no God, but only a planetary lab waiting for scientists to perfect the human race, where can Darwinism lead? Stein insists that he isn't accusing today's Darwinists of Nazism. He points out, however, that Hitler's mad science was inspired by Darwinism.

And I'm going to blame 9/11 on the Christians! 

See, that's just retarded.  When someone says something like the above, it's obvious that they are trying to play on emotion rather than fact to back their debate.  You can't judge a theory or belief by the way it's been twisted to do evil.  If you could, religion would win anyway.

The thing for me, is how people make the leap from Darwins Evolution through Natural Selection, and make the leap to Eugenics and Genocide. Eugenics is the exact opposite of Natural Selection. I just don't get that at all.

Ok this is how they do it:

1: Evilution is something to do with genes or something
2: Eugenics is something to do with genes or something
3: Darwin caused Eugenics

Because they like to have dualism coming into play, that way they can white out Satan and scribble in Darwin as the opponent of goodness (and Eugenics is a very bad thing, in fact it's a quintessential road to hell paving stone) represented by Jesus.

Now of course Darwin didn't say much about DNA/genetics per se somebody else did that, but hell why bother looking up his name, Howie Mandel wasn't it? Much easier to not even bother to learn the first thing about Darwin rather than up your confusion level by leaning another scientists name.

Oh and since it's mentioned The Big Bang theory was also first posited by a priest, just like the studies that would lead to the science of Genetics were.

[AmandaGal]

The thing for me, is how people take Darwins Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, and make the leap to Eugenics and Genocide. Eugenics is the exact opposite of Natural Selection. I just don't get that at all.

I do agree, but I can see where the theory of natural selection could inspire it.  If natural selection can change a species, then if we create unnatural selection, we should be able to eventually change a species too.  Llike what ebeth was talking about with artificial selection pressures.

A theory doesn't have to be the same to inspire another theory. 

Then again, I can see where Christianity could be used to inspire a theory for genocide too, if you just pick and choose what you want to use.

Edit: I think Tripe isn't giving them enough credit.    The base of the theories aren't that different, it's just the selection pressures that are.

[Tyrant]

Oh and since it's mentioned The Big Bang theory was also first posited by a priest, just like the studies that would lead to the science of Genetics were.

  I bet they left that little tidbit out of the movie too along with the interviews from the theist-evolutionists, from all I'm reading about it (although anyone who's actually seen it can say if I'm wrong or not). It comes down to a literal vs metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. If you interpret it metaphorically (which should be likely since metaphor and parable were big teaching tools at the time), then Genesis goes from mere theistic dogma to a cripplingly accurate account of modern day scientific theories about our origens.

   If Creationists had wanted to make a movie with some real fat to chew on, they probably should have left Atheist-evolutionists out of it all together and gone to town with theist-evolutionists. A good better popcorn movie for all.

The thing for me, is how people take Darwins Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, and make the leap to Eugenics and Genocide. Eugenics is the exact opposite of Natural Selection. I just don't get that at all.

I do agree, but I can see where the theory of natural selection could inspire it.  If natural selection can change a species, then if we create unnatural selection, we should be able to eventually change a species too.  Llike what ebeth was talking about with artificial selection pressures.

Which is why the ethics of science should always come into question. As movies like Jurassic Park has pointed out, just because we could, does it mean we should? Some very hardworking, long term processes took place to bring us about assuming evolution is more than a theory. Do we have the right to start messing with them?

[Tripe]

Of course, Mendel and Lemaître were both Catholics so for many a ID proponent they like me are devils spawn anyway.

[BathTub]

Edit: I think Tripe isn't giving them enough credit.    The base of the theories aren't that different, it's just the selection pressures that are.

I think Tripe is giving Howie Mandel plenty of credit!

[Tripe]

See I'm glad I changed that joke it's much cooler to imagine Mandel crawling around the pea pods 

[AmandaGal]

Edit: I think Tripe isn't giving them enough credit.    The base of the theories aren't that different, it's just the selection pressures that are.

I think Tripe is giving Howie Mandel plenty of credit!

Of course.  I don't think any one on either side can argue about his role in the theory of evolution.  Deal or No Deal is really just a metaphor.  He is the great unifier. 

[BathTub]

Now of course Darwin didn't say much about DNA/genetics per se somebody else did that, but hell why bother looking up his name, Howie Mandel wasn't it? Much easier to not even bother to learn the first thing about Darwin rather than up your confusion level by leaning another scientists name.

But in seriousness, this is what makes the "Darwinism/Darwinist" moniker so funny.  Darwin had essentially no knowledge of DNA/Genetics because it wasn't discovered for another 100 years. So of course it's really a whole new branch of science that has developed since his time, and one of the areas where new science has completely replaced anything he might have ever considered. While he is considered the modern father of the idea, science has moved past his writings and there are many things about it that he wouldn't recognise.

[torgosPizza]

a cripplingly accurate account of modern day scientific theories about our origens.

I'm confused. Cripplingly accurate? I'm really not sure how the metaphor of being animated from dust and then having woman created from a rib can be translated into anything remotely close to the theories of life's origins. (Which, again, I emphasize is not what evolutionary theory is really involved in).

Perhaps you could elaborate a little more as to how you think genesis could be an accurate description of the big bang theory? I'm not convinced parable and metaphor were the intention for stories like these - to be honest, I think it was the best that the literate classes could come up with at the time.

The best argument I've heard is that the time these things were written, it was during the childhood of our species. They were our "best efforts" to explain things - we didn't know what caused plagues, so our first - and best - explanation was that it was a divine punishment. We didn't understand that we were but a tiny sphere in an immense universe, and that the stars were gaseous bodies millions of miles away - so for our puny minds, they were holes poked in a firmament that hung over our heads like a tent.

Sure, they are metaphors to us now because we know better. But back then, I think they were serious explanations of the then-unexplainable.

[Tripe]

Of course.  I don't think any one on either side can argue about his role in the theory of evolution.  Deal or No Deal is really just a metaphor.  He is the great unifier. 

One day somebody will correctly select the case in one go then impregnate all the case holding girls spreading his case selecting genes through out the species.

Actually sadly enough DoND could I suppose be used as a metaphor for Natural Selection if I give it a little thought 

Edit: And I don't mean a nasty "all the contestants are the unevolved" type thing, I mean the selection of the cases.

[daltysmilth]

Yeah, or "Maybe YOUR ancestors evolved from monkeys but mine didn't! huhuhhuhuh..."

That response always puzzles me. How is being created from mud (as the Bible says) more dignified than evolving from a relatively intelligent animal?

See and that's a very good point because the criticism creationists throw around is that the scientific explanation is all about randomness. However, in the bible the only precise act of creation god does is the little rib surgery procedure he performs on Adam. the rest is all on the level of clicking his fingers or wriggling his nose.

Well, to be fair, Adam and Eve the only act of creation where it goes into specifics on how God did it.  Maybe the writers of the Bible didn't think it was necessary to go into great detail on how God constructed fish or trees, and they didn't understand enough about things like air or stars to even begin to contemplate how God might have pulled them off.  I mean, they thought the Earth was basically a big underwater terrarium.  Seriously, they thought the sky was a big dome protecting them from a bunch of water.

Oh and if Moore did make a film about evolution it would be like his others: A flawed film about a valid subject. He makes very flawed films but at heart there is some validity to the subject matter, that is there is some potential for a useful discussion. The same cannot be said about ID, which is predicated on ignorance (often willful) of even the most basic scientific concepts and method and  even outright lying to serve a theistic agenda.

So it's okay if Michael Moore manipulates the facts, spouts propaganda, slanders people, and even makes stuff up to support what he believes, because he's making a valid argument.  I wonder if you would feel that way if Michael Moore made a documentary supporting a viewpoint you disagreed with.  Say, if he made a documentary that alleges that violent videogames lead directly to real-life violence.  Or... I don't know... I guess it doesn't matter since it's purely hypothetical.  I guess the real question is is the final message any less important than the means of conveying the message?  If I told you not to drive while drunk, and you asked me why, would you be more or less likely to listen to me if I said because I'd seen a news report somewhere that said that one time a person's car exploded when they were driving drunk than if I handed you a newspaper with a story about a drunk-driving accident where the driver was killed, and cited a number of statistics related to drunk driving?

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

RETARDED FISH-FROG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tripe]

So it's okay if Michael Moore manipulates the facts, spouts propaganda, slanders people, and even makes stuff up to support what he believes, because he's making a valid argument.

No, it isn't and no he's not, however the subject matter is valid, ID is not valid as a subject matter.

I wonder if you would feel that way if Michael Moore made a documentary supporting a viewpoint you disagreed with.

I don't feel that way (as I've already explained), He does, and again the subject matter is still a valid one even if his film and his arguments are flawed.

Say, if he made a documentary that alleges that violent videogames lead directly to real-life violence.

I'd expect him to make a deeply flawed movie on a subject that is worth debating: How stimuli is related to action

Or... I don't know... I guess it doesn't matter since it's purely hypothetical.  I guess the real question is is the final message any less important than the means of conveying the message?  If I told you not to drive while drunk, and you asked me why, would you be more or less likely to listen to me if I said because I'd seen a news report somewhere that said that one time a person's car exploded when they were driving drunk than if I handed you a newspaper with a story about a drunk-driving accident where the driver was killed, and cited a number of statistics related to drunk driving?

Well that would again be a completely ludicrous way to do it, but the subject, the advisability of operating machinery while inebriated, would be a valid one.

However since you agree with me on that point (that sometimes idiotic rhetoric might be employed in support of a valid topic or brought to bear on that valid topic)  it does nothing to change the fact that ID is not a worthy of respect as it is not science and has no place in the science class room. And since it's essentially going "duuude that looks so cool" it doesn't need any funding either. You don't need lessons to be able to say "duuude that looks so cool" In fact the less education you have, the easier it is for you to say "duuude that looks so cool" instead of actually putting the brain you do have (which God/Ra/Zeus may or may not have given you) to use.

But again this isn't actually a debate about the existence of nonexistence of god, it is about the validity of ID as science, and there is no validity to ID as science, none whatsoever.

[AmandaGal]

Now of course Darwin didn't say much about DNA/genetics per se somebody else did that, but hell why bother looking up his name, Howie Mandel wasn't it? Much easier to not even bother to learn the first thing about Darwin rather than up your confusion level by leaning another scientists name.

But in seriousness, this is what makes the "Darwinism/Darwinist" moniker so funny.  Darwin had essentially no knowledge of DNA/Genetics because it wasn't discovered for another 100 years. So of course it's really a whole new branch of science that has developed since his time, and one of the areas where new science has completely replaced anything he might have ever considered. While he is considered the modern father of the idea, science has moved past his writings and there are many things about it that he wouldn't recognise.

But in that way, Darwin has come to mean more this his theory. It's really just semantics and how language has evolved. It's similar, but not exactly like, to how some people "google it" in yahoo or how someone asks for a Coke and you hand them a Pepsi.  Now, Darwin is a huge umbrella that holds all of these ideas. I don't think ALL people, when they talk about "Darwinism" and then go on to talk about genetics are ignorant.  Some of them know he was before genetics.  It's just that "Darwin" is a name people associate with evolution.  I've never heard anyone learned say that Darwin discovered genetics, but I have heard them talk about Darwin's theory and "modern day" genetics as evidence.  Of course they don't mention the names of the contemporary scientists.

Is it technically correct? Of course not.  But if you're talking to normal people, it's no more incorrect, imho, than when they ask what brand of Coke you want.  I think it's fine since he was the father of the idea (although I've read some argument about that).  I don't think giving it the moniker "Darwinist" is necessarily meaning you only follow Darwin, just that he was, perhaps, the initial catalyst to those ideas.

But, I try not to get caught up in labels.  They really only have the meaning you give them.

And Tripe, I can also make a metaphor out of Deal or No Deal explaining natural selection...but that makes me a sad, sad person