Expel this.
I’m interested in seeing this movie. Oh, don’t get all ticked off, I saw Fahrenheit 911 too. It opens up today in theaters even here in Massachusetts. I can’t believe they’re showing it here!
So check this out, and let’s allow the discussion to begin.
New fundamentalism or just good science?
Related posts:
I want to see it, too. I’m going to work hard at entering into it with an open mind. However, here are some prejudices that I’m going to have to overcome before I even walk in the door.
#1) I’m quite annoyed that the term “Intelligent Design” has been co-opted by the creation scientists. It used to be a position quite distinct from creationism. In an act of linguistic terrorism, it’s been stolen from those it originally belonged to and used to give a sense of scientifc credibility to some poorly done science.
#2) Ben Stien used to write speeches for Nixon. Unless he’s repented this doesn’t make me one of his favorite people.
#3) Sources I consider quite reasonable and fair have pointed out several major problems, including:
A, Pervasive imagery that Darwinian evolution leads directly and inevitably to Nazism. The problem is that it was an utter pervasion of Darwinian understandings that lead to this. As Christians, this is a destructive precedent to set, allowing for any pervsion of an idealogy to impugn the idealogy as a whole. If we say that Darwinism lead to Nazism how can we deny that Christianity lead to the crusades, the inquisition, the enslavement of native peoples, etc.? If we deny Darwinists the escape clause of ‘that’s not real Darwinism, it’s a perversion of what we believe” then we lose that escape clause for ourselves and can no longer say “that’s not real Christinaity that lead to those things: it’s a perversion.”
B) The guy who they claim was expelled for believing in Intelligent Design had a number of other major problems that would’ve lead to any academic being dismissed.
C) The ID folks in the movie keep saying that they just want a voice and a chance at debate. The problem is twofold with this claim:
1) They’ve released and filmed the movie under a veil of secrecy and misdirection, when respected evolutionists have tried to enter into this dialogue they’ve been shut down.
2) It’s my opinion that the ID folks overall have a few powerful arguments and a number of arguments that have been disproven dozens of times. The higher-ups in this movement have to know that certain often-touted arguments simply have no real value. The fact that they recycle these over and over again demonstrates that they simply aren’t interested in a real dialogue or have engaged in an inexcusable lack of preparation.
I realize that this comment is both vague and long… If anybody wants to debate my various points I’ll be happy to supply some specifics. And again, I am interested in seeing the movie to verify that what I have heard is accurate, though I do so with mixed feelings because if what I understand is correct, then I’d rather not line the pockets of the film makers.
Jeff- i’m interested in hearing your thoughts after you view the movie.
Before seeing the movie – or hearing your thoughts – my beliefs are based on the truth of Gods Word – not theories
David-
Yes– God’s word trumps science forever: yesterday, tomorrow, and today.
But I don’t believe it’s as easy as your words imply to work these things out.
Many people sieze on the fact that Evolution is described as a theory. (I don’t know if this is why you used the word, it has been my experience that many people have atleast been subconsciously influenced by the leaders of the anti-evolution movement who focus on just this fact, that evolution is described as a theory.) Siezing on this word is exactly the sort of thing that ought to be laid to rest if the ID folks and the creationists want any real credibility with the mainstream scientific community. I don’t fault folks like you and me, who aren’t claiming to be pros. But the people who do claim to be pros can do better. It’s meaningless to focus on evolution’s status as a theory. That’s all science can construct is theory. Every peice of sceinfitic knowledge we have is a theory…. calling neo-darwinian evolution a theory only means it was scientifically discovered, and nobody is debating that. (Again, you may not have meant to imply otherwise, but lots of folks seem to find this a clever observation. And it’s a really silly thing– there are many much more persuasive ways to attack evolution.)
The other, perhaps more relevant issue here is that when we don’t know how to interpret a claim made by Stephen Jay Gould or some other scientist we have a variety of paths open to us; the results of these paths are ones that will yeild fairly universal agreement. For example, we can ask them for clarification, replicate an experiment, etc.
While I totally agree with you that biblical truth trumps scientific claims, many of the ways that we seek out clarification of biblical truths are much more controversial. Scripture is divine but interpretation of scripture is human. It’s not fun or easy to admit this, but as I see it the bottom line is this: it’s easy to say “my beliefs are based on the truth of Gods Word – not theories” however, the truth is that your beliefs and my beliefs are actually based on our individual interpretations of the truth of God’s word. Some of these will be right and some of these will be wrong, but interpretation is a human enterprise.
i want to go too!
http://owlhaven.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/the-movie-expelled/
My friend Mary has a post on this… more interesting tho’ is the comments! Check it out…