wow!

[maysmith]

Never expected to say this, but Ben Stein has done something AWESOME (more than telling us about Visine getting the red out)
Expelled:"No intelligence allowed"
The 'super trailer' on that page above is a good one to watch if you're interested.
I'm aiming to go see it next weekend, not that many of my LJ friends are in Baltimore, but you're welcome to

Comments

[hawaiibound]

Ok, so you know I would have to comment about this, right? :-) I guess I would need to see the movie before passing judgment, but I doubt it will be able to change many minds. I really think intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools. I'm not sure it can be considered a science. "Science" can only deal with what is observable. The concept of an intelligent designer of life I think falls beyond the realm of the scientific process and into matters of philosophy and religion. Of course all of these fields provide a much bigger and clearer picture of the universe than just one alone. I see God in the wonderous complexity of life (more and more everyday), and I believe the overwhelming scientific evidence shows He used evolution as His main mechanism.
...But then again, it is Ben Stein. He is a pretty smart guy.

[maysmith]

Not everyone looks at evolution the way you do. Many (MANY) scientists look at it as a proof that God doesn't exist and will belittle a person of faith who also believes in scientific pursuits. This movie may not change minds about evolution, but it should certainly bring to light the reality that scientists who believe in a god are being discriminated against. I'm guessing you'll agree that when someone says they believe in God, they shouldn't have to remember they're at risk for being fired or denied federal funding to do research.
Besides, isn't the best scientific advance achieved in the context of heated debate over a topic? (Case in point: how the F1Fo ATP-synthase works: guy who proved it rotated did the experiment in order to prove it DIDN'T rotate.)

[karstenkane]

'"Science" can only deal with what is observable.'

darwinism = not observable. there are not enough transitional species to conclusively say its fact, and to date, i have never seen a monkey turn into a man. (and we are still today screwing up fossil records, and having to amend what was "fact" a few years before)

string theory = not observable. good luck trying to tell a physicist they're not a scientist. Seriously, they would hurt you.

big bang = not observable. no explination necessary.

infinite expansion of the universe = not observable. Yet some how that’s still the accepted theory in the scientific community.

etc.

etc.

And seriously, is the fact that creationism is not “science” a good enough reason for accredited people in scientific communities around the world to lose their jobs? seriously!?