EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack

Okay, I did forget that a main theme of the movie was that Nazism was somehow based on the Darwinian evolution. And since the moderators haven't jumped in, I guess we can conclude that a discussion on this issue is on topic.First, an obvious fact: whether or not people draw the wrong conclusions from the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether or not it is factually accurate. Either all known species evolved from a single ancestral species through natural selection acting on heritable variations, or they did not. That some people will draw unwarranted racist conclusions has nothing to do with the accuracy of this theory. Its accuracy can only be determined through the examination of the evidence.Another obvious fact: whether or not some unpleasant conclusions can, in fact, be logically deduced from the theory has nothing to do with its factual accuracy. Whether or not genocide can be justified by evolution, and whether or not you and I find genocide undesirable has nothing to do with whether or not the theory of evolution accurately describes the history of life on earth; its accuracy can only be determined by examining the facts.Now the theory of evolution does not, in any way, in and of itself, imply any course of action, no more than the theory of gravity says that people should crawl on their bellies and avoid tall buildings. The theory of evolution takes the obvious observations that some organisms survive and produce many offspring, and other die after producing few or no offspring, and that this difference in reproduction is due to heritable characteristics, and uses these to explain the patterns we see in the diversity of the species.Eugenics, on the other hand, involves arbitrarily choosing some physical characteristics (and some social characteristics assumed to have a heritable basis) as desirable and other as undesirable, and using selective breeding to promote the desirable characteristics and eliminate the undesirable ones.In fact, this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, at least not the part that is accepted by, say, creationists. Eugenics is applying to humans ordinary, mundane animal husbandry that has been practiced for thousands of years. People already knew that if one allows organisms with certain characteristics to breed and preventing others with undesirable characteristics to breed, one will achieve a population with more desirable characteristics and fewer undesirable ones.The theory of evolution is an explanation for patterns in diversity; eugenics is a policy of eliminating diversity.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

I'm Christian, too, Rand! I can quote half of it by memory! (Maybe that's an exaggeration ).Have you ever read the Old Testament, which was purportedly written by the same God as the New Testament? It doesn't teach the same message of kindness, compassion, forgiveness, not-genocide and not-war, does it? In fact, it very directly supports racial/ethnic persecution, not-forgiveness, vengeance and genocide. How is taking two completely opposite sides in the same volume of scripture not equivocal? I think it us very clear that, even in the presence of God, man makes up his own morals as he sees fit. How can we say for certain that the Christian morals we believe in are not just another of those morals made up by man? In attributing our particular morals to God, we effectively say, "we're right, and all you other people are wrong," which is generally what starts the conflicts. I guess I can't, Rand. What was Joshua's inspiration? It wasn't Darwin. How about the slave-traders in the 1700's and 1800's? It wasn't Darwin.Linking something bad to some interpretation of a certain principle or concept does not make that principle/concept bad. No one's arguing that Nazism didn't use some Darwinist materials: they're arguing that it's not Darwin's (or science's) fault that they did. Expelled seems to think that it is all Darwin's and science's fault that we had Nazis, and that if science had been dominated by IDists, it would not have happened.I think all the racial/ethnic/social/religious persecution before Darwin's time, and in places without Christianity--and, for that matter, everywhere and everywhen since humans first appeared on this hellhole planet--is clear evidence that people are going to find a reason to kill, persecute and otherwise lasciviate, no matter what they have to use as rationalization. And we Christians have shown that we're nothing special in this regard.Just read all the intrigue and controversy about Expelled and you'll see exactly what I mean: they weren't particularly scrupulous about what they did, either.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

I like that term "pretend Science". See, I agree with you. I do not like calling ID, or Creation a Science. In fact I never [or try not to] use the words together (.ie "Creation Science") I admit that trying to speculate origins and where we came from and why we are here is nothing more than religion and philosophy....just like evolution. But a majority of naturalists consider evolution to be science, instead of using science to try to prove evolution. Same with Biblical Creation. Bible believers are looking at the same scientific evidences, and seeing something different. What is different about myself is that I respect both sides. I enjoy debate because the love of science and the never dying quest for truth, knowledge and origin, it will bring out thinking that is outside of the box. Darwin was one of those thinkers that thought outside the box, I respect him for that. Indeed. There are people that could have studied longer and harder who have never payed to go to college and get credentials like Dr X because making a name for themselves is not important. So if Dr. X, as you say, was trained in Geology (ie highly esteemed college degree) and then spent his career of twenty years studying mineral deposition and radiometric dating techniques, and Mr. Z read the same books and studied just as hard (not in a college scenario) then spent his career of twenty years studying mineral deposition and radiometric dating techniques. Wouldn't they have the same authority? only Dr.X payed lots of cash and has papers to say he is smart. How is that authority? I have seen many times where people who have no credentials have more authority than some one with papers. I know right? I get that all the time. Please do not confuse me with the right-wing fundamentalist neo-christian movement. I am "reformed" christian and what I believe goes against everything you would hear in modern churches.

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[ IIX:XXIV] ‘ ‘

Sorry to interject but: Isn't that what one would call credentials?You are ok with a self studied person with 20 years of experience being called an authority but reject a professor with 20 years of the same experience being called an authority? It appears you base this upon the fact that a professor "payed lots of cash and has papers to say he is smart", but given that he has written exams and proved he was smart; how is it that you base a differing conclusion on one or the others authority?

Sure. Dr. X went to an official professional program (and, by the way, it isn't very common for graduate students in the sciences to pay for their training -- they usually can get teaching or research assistantships to defray tuition costs) and was evaluated and trained by professionals who then judged the quality of his work before granting him his credentials.And publishing papers means that he has presented his work to professionals who understand the field to be judged on its merits.This is what science is all about.Meanwhile, it's not clear that Mr. Z understands the books he's read or can actually do competent work until his work is evaluated by professionals who understand the field.That actually is what authority is all about. It's about being able to trust the person's judgment because it her work is constantly being scrutinized and evaluated.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

GDR just posted this link over at Dawkins, ID and Expelled:

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Replying to GDR's OP here as per Admin request. Well, I don't know the context of this scene, but Dawkins has made other comments that I find a bit overblown and even a bit nutty:"Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist."That is another statement he made that is, frankly, a bit too dramatic. So maybe Dawkins has a habit of making odd statements.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

From the article cited by GDR; Well, that's not how Dawkins describes the incident; Source here.I have to say that some of the comments attributed to him in the article cited in the OP just don't sound like Dawkins. Not sure I quite believe that one. It sounds like the last thing that Dawkins would say, it's certainly pretty far removed from his well-known opinions on ID. I suppose that we'll have to wait for the film to be released (or become available on Youtube or P2P) to know for sure what definitely was said, albeit edited by the Expelled crew.Overall, Martinuzzi seems to have fallen for most of the fibs and exaggerations in the movie (that we know of so far), but at least she isn't daft enough to have fallen for the whole "Evolution=Hitler - YOU EVO'S LOVE HITLER!!! SAY IT! SAY YOU LOVE HITLER!!!" bit. Disappointing that anyone falls for any of it really.Edited by Granny Magda, : Added section from article for clarity's sake.

---

Mutate and Survive

From your link...

quote:

---

What’s going to make Richard Dawkins upset about his admission is that he is aggressively anti-religious, a “hater” of the Judeo-Christian God, and he has many times publicly denounced the theory of Intelligent Design as complete and utter hogwash. He frankly states, moments before his alien-musings, that the likelihood of God existing is about the same as “fairies, elves” and other fantastical creatures.

---

Consider the following scenario. We are in a court room where the defense lawyer is questioning the forensic expert.Lawyer: Dr. Langly, are you absolutely 100% certain that the DNA sample you collected belongs to my client?Dr. Langly: No, I am not absolutely 100% certain of that. But I am as certain that the DNA belongs to Mr. Stein (the accused) as I am certain that aliens did not just land right outside this court house.Lawyer: AH HA! Your honor, I would like to disqualify Dr. Langly as an expert on DNA evidence because he is clearly nuts. He just admitted that he believes in aliens.******************Do you guys understand what my point is? What Stein did to Dawkins is downright immoral. I hope Stein will burn in the christian hell for breaking at least 1 of his god's commandments.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Just couldn't let this one slip by.Lots of cash? You don't know any profs, do you?

Dawkins explains if you're interested:Page not found | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and ScienceABE: Yikes. To quick with the ole reply button.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

The hypothetical 1% existant aliens having evolved or not was already contained in Kant's thought (in "The Critique of Judgment")in the difference of reflective and determinant judgment.The question really is, is why the world is arguing and debating this to peices rather than trying to put the parts together.If Richard can cognize the place of possible transition between teleology and theology then perhaps society should have insitutions which can turn the reflection into determinations of natural products.There is no question that I was "expelled" from Cornell for trying to combine them without heeding the current philosophical "realism" from Harvard and Berekely.

And yet, strangely, true, or you would be able to argue against it rather than just calling it "silly".

On your comment on amorality vs immorality, my point on amorality is that there are no absolute morals for Newtonianism. Absent of God, man makes up his own morals as he sees fit, and if he thinks it's fit to artificially select humanity's progress, who is to say he is wrong?How can you say genocide is wrong per se even? Sure, you can say you find it personally despicable and so wrong according to your morals, but who says your morals are right anyway?I don't think it takes a genius to see how the Nazis drew inspiration from Newtonianism.

I know it was meant for Tesla, but I just downloaded this, as well.Works like a charm. Thank you kindly, Percy.