# EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed



## Carrion (Apr 19, 2008)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trailer: 

Eeek, this isn't going to be pretty.

Edit:

Also, Ben Stein on Glenn Beck :/

YouTube - Ben Stein on Glenn Beck's show about Intelligent Design

Some of the comments he makes made me just want to rip my hair out.


----------



## Desecrated (Apr 19, 2008)

I don't think anybody is going to loose their job for seeing a movie. unless it's kiddieporn.

It's not the question they are asking are dangerous, it's that they are stupid and have no proof to back it up.


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 19, 2008)

Apparently it's a satire?  



> As of the weekend of April 12, 2008, the Expelled Chronicle website was claiming the movie to be "satirical"


----------



## Lee (Apr 19, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> Apparently it's a satire?



If it is satire, apparently Rush Limbaugh didn't pick up on that part


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 19, 2008)

What Rush Limbaugh act all clueless? Oh now that can't be. 


[sign] SARCASM! [/sign]


----------



## Lee (Apr 19, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> What Rush Limbaugh act all clueless? Oh now that can't be.
> 
> 
> [sign] SARCASM! [/sign]



 +rep


----------



## Codyyy (Apr 19, 2008)

Well duh. If you're persecuted, you must be right.


----------



## Azathoth43 (Apr 21, 2008)

just go back to selling visine, it gets the red out

just watched that other link, puke


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 21, 2008)

No, sadly, Ben Stein actually believes this shit. There are a lot of scientists that were interviewed under false pretenses and then had their interviews "cut up" to make it appear that the makers of this little piece of propaganda had a leg to stand on - which, in reality, they don't.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 21, 2008)

What a turd sandwhich.


----------



## canuck brian (Apr 22, 2008)

The type of people that they're focusing this at is right in the title of the movie : no intelligence allowed.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 22, 2008)

I used to think Ben Stein was cool.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Apr 22, 2008)

Intelligent design theory as it is usually presented seems like a cop out to me. It's easy for scientists to give up when they hit a brick wall and simply declare that a higher power is responsible. It gives them the satisfaction of having solved a problem and the reassurance that their life has a greater meaning. But if everyone were to take this approach, no more questions would get answered.


----------



## psychoticsnoman (Apr 22, 2008)

i honestly think that it is somewhat interesting, if you really think about it... 
i guess its the mystery of the questions that don't have answers and such, but it is a fun alternative to evolution to think about 

I'm kind of curious to what you guys think "higher power" is referring to ?


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 22, 2008)

Intelligent Design got its start as a way to try and philisophically prove the existence of God. It later became a cornerstone of the Deism movement, which is a belief in God but a rejection of organized religion. Many of our founding fathers velonged to this school of thought. But in a nutshell that's it. It was never science. It was merely try to use philosophy to prove that God exists. No more no less.


----------



## Carrion (Apr 22, 2008)

psychoticsnoman said:


> i honestly think that it is somewhat interesting, if you really think about it...
> ( i guess its the mystery of the questions that don't have answers and such, but it is a fun alternative to evolution to think about) 1
> 
> (I'm kind of curious to what you guys think "higher power" is referring to ?)



1. There's nothing fun about it. It isn't scientific, therefore has no role in the schools.

2. A personal God, not a deist one. A high power would refer to an omnipotent being that allegedly created the universe, etc.

Edit:



ohio_eric said:


> Intelligent Design got its start as a way to try and philisophically prove the existence of God. It later became a cornerstone of the Deism movement, which is a belief in God but a rejection of organized religion. Many of our founding fathers velonged to this school of thought. But in a nutshell that's it. It was never science. It was merely try to use philosophy to prove that God exists. No more no less.



Well, at least they are actually trying now with irreducible complexity, although, it hasn't held much water (Much-so because it's pseudoscience, but whatever).


----------



## psychoticsnoman (Apr 22, 2008)

Carrion said:


> 1. There's nothing fun about it. It isn't scientific, therefore has no role in the schools.
> 
> 2. A personal God, not a deist one. A high power would refer to an omnipotent being that allegedly created the universe, etc.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying it should be in schools because clearly it has nothing to back up the claims it makes, just merely that it is somewhat interesting to think about.


its one of those things where you go "what if..." really quick then go on with life as you know it thats all


----------



## wes225 (Apr 22, 2008)

im not even gonna get in this. cuase i know everyone here is athiest to extreme.


----------



## Carrion (Apr 22, 2008)

I am not an extremist, what do you wish to discuss? Also, what do you accomplish by posting that?


----------



## ohmanthisiscool (Apr 22, 2008)

From my view I see bens point. Long story short: My hardcore catholic friend gets into science and soon after becomes athiest. Also I know what it is like to be in a field that just for saying MAYBE ID is the answer to the creating of "life", but the evolutionary theary could be right too, but I'm an IDIOT for even suggesting ID as plausable. It's biased but, there it is.


----------



## wes225 (Apr 22, 2008)

does it really matter? when we die we'll find out whats real. so why worry about it now?


----------



## Carrion (Apr 22, 2008)

Says who?


----------



## TomAwesome (Apr 22, 2008)

Somehow I've never heard of this. You'd think something so controversial would get a lot of talk. This is a bit surprising coming from Ben Stein. I do think of him a bit differently now.

People who argue for intelligent design tend to aggravate me. It's not that they believe in it so much as how they go about trying to convince people they're right. Ben was talking about how people who try to teach intelligent design in school or talk about it within the scientific community are or at least would be met with hostility. He says basically that it's because evolutionists are afraid of scrutiny and afraid of being proven wrong. That's not it at all. Creationism isn't science. It's a belief system. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a similar amount of right to be in our schools and sciences. If there was proof that an omnipotent God created all life in its more or less present form, I'd be more open to the idea, but I have never been presented with any shred of such evidence. That leads me to my next point.

For proof, creationists just point out how complex life is. Yes, living organisms are impressively complex, and the whole intelligence thing really is amazing, but the mere fact that life is complex does not in any way prove intelligent design. The way Ben was talking about that "lightning striking mud" thing irked me. What he was doing there was something I've seen religious types do quite a bit. He was oversimplifying the scientific theories of the possible origins of life on Earth to a degree that made it sound silly, thereby making the theory he's pushing seem more logical by comparison. I think there's a term for that, but I forget what it is.

Then when you call them out on the fact that they have no actual proof or evidence to back intelligent design, they point out that despite having some theories, current modern science doesn't actually know how life started. This one especially irks me. No, evolutionists don't _know_ how life started. I'll admit that for all I know, God really may have made all life on Earth as written in the Bible. The fact is, though, that nobody can say he or she _knows_ how it happened unless that person was actually there when it happened. I don't know how life came to be on this planet, but I'll choose to believe what the evidence supports rather than just believing what I want to be true. I can believe that the Ibanez LACS will make me custom 8-strings for free all I want, but that doesn't make it true. If God opens up the clouds one day and says, "Hey guys, it was me!" then all right. At least thus far, though, I don't think there is any real evidence that that's how it happened.

After all that I feel I should clarify that I'm not trying to bash on all creationists here. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever he or she wants. I'm just bitching about the general lack of real thought present when I see people trying to argue against an established and, more importantly, evidenced set of theories in these kinds of ways.


----------



## Codyyy (Apr 22, 2008)

TomAwesome said:


> The way Ben was talking about that "lightning striking mud" thing irked me. What he was doing there was something I've seen religious types do quite a bit. He was oversimplifying the scientific theories of the possible origins of life on Earth to a degree that made it sound silly, thereby making the theory he's pushing seem more logical by comparison. I think there's a term for that, but I forget what it is.



That rubbed me the wrong way too. He was speaking of it in such an oversimplified, subtly condescending way. 

Intentionally misleading


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 23, 2008)

I watched the Ben Stein interview with Glenn Beck. 

It amazes me, they're saying how universities and the like "Pushing their views on everyone." No one is pushing views on me at my university. There's plenty of people on both sides of the fence, both in the student body and the faculty. And as far as science, why are these neocons going out of their way to try to disprove shit they dont know anything about? Hell yes i'm gonna trust a person with a PhD in at my, or any other major university over some talking heads or film actors, on everything but being an ass or acting.

"Armed against your professors"? Why should you be? why are you even going to learn if you're going to try to refute everything. This is fucking rediculous.


----------



## kristallin (Apr 23, 2008)

Expelled Exposed

This site debunks large portions of the movie. All I can say is I'd have thought better from Ben Stein.


----------



## Vegetta (Apr 25, 2008)

eaeolian said:


> No, sadly, Ben Stein actually believes this shit. There are a lot of scientists that were interviewed under false pretenses and then had their interviews "cut up" to make it appear that the makers of this little piece of propaganda had a leg to stand on - which, in reality, they don't.



THey must have went to the Michael Moore school of film creation :lol


----------



## Naren (Apr 25, 2008)

wes225 said:


> does it really matter? when we die we'll find out whats real. so why worry about it now?



What if you don't find out ANYTHING when you die? What if you just go to sleep and never wake up? Like shutting off a computer and never turning it back on. What if the idea of a soul and a spirit is just an idea people long ago created to represent the part of their mind that controlled their feelings and expressed an interest in religion?

If there is no afterlife (which none of us can know for sure), then we won't find out anything at all when we die.



TomAwesome said:


> For proof, creationists just point out how complex life is. Yes, living organisms are impressively complex, and the whole intelligence thing really is amazing, but the mere fact that life is complex does not in any way prove intelligent design. The way Ben was talking about that "lightning striking mud" thing irked me. What he was doing there was something I've seen religious types do quite a bit. He was oversimplifying the scientific theories of the possible origins of life on Earth to a degree that made it sound silly, thereby making the theory he's pushing seem more logical by comparison. I think there's a term for that, but I forget what it is.



This reason oftentimes seems a cop-out to me. And it's the same reason people have been giving for thousands of years for God. "Well, we can't think of another reason, so the easiest answer would be God."

Now I'm not saying there isn't a God, because there is always that possibility, but I have never seen any evidence to support it. I'm more an agnostic than an atheist, but I tend to lean further to the "no God" side.

Choosing intelligent design shows the tendency of humans to always choose answers based on their limited personal experience. "Hey, this tree looks complex... almost like a person made it. It must have been made by God." I know why God comes out in the conversation, but I don't think it's very logical. It's almost a kind of circular logic.


----------



## TomAwesome (Apr 25, 2008)

Naren said:


> This reason oftentimes seems a cop-out to me. And it's the same reason people have been giving for thousands of years for God. "Well, we can't think of another reason, so the easiest answer would be God."
> 
> Now I'm not saying there isn't a God, because there is always that possibility, but I have never seen any evidence to support it.
> 
> Choosing intelligent design shows the tendency of humans to always choose answers based on their limited personal experience. "Hey, this tree looks complex... almost like a person made it. It must have been made by God." I know why God comes out in the conversation, but I don't think it's very logical. It's almost a kind of circular logic.



Exactly. Agreed on all points. The further back you go into human history, the more often you see religious/magical explanations for things that seem simple to us now but that back then were difficult for people to figure out. It's in our nature to want to have explanations for how things work and how things are, but it makes more sense to try to figure it out rather than making something up or just attributing it to something else with no real logical reason to do so.


----------



## Trespass (May 1, 2008)

Fuck, can't you guys realize the reason us ID/Creationists try to convince you guys is not for some crazy self-serving scheme, were doing everything we can to help you guys reach a paradise we believe in. We are moved by compassion! 

Forget the method, (their are too many of us, and were all lumped in the same group for me to argue whose method is in the right, whose in the wrong) but damnit were trying. 

For us, its the same as someone dying in the desert, and we know the location of the oasis that would save your life, and only ask that you trust us to help guide you there. We're not carrying you, you have to get to the water yourself. We do these things because we try to love one another, for peace and prosperity, and freedom of speech.

I have many problems myself with the various denominations within Christianity, not because their message is bad, but because each denomination has a different method of getting people to the end result. I feel nearly all methods these days are just terrible and contradict the point of freedom of choice on a religious level, and usually just put people against religion itself (Muslim extremists/Crusades/Spanish Inquisition etc.).

I'm open to any religious talk, and will happily listen to anything you have to refute of what I say now or in the future in regards to religion. If anything needs to be discussed on PM, or MSN, I'm happy as well. 

Thanks,
Kris


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 1, 2008)

I always thought evolution was a cop out too  "we evolved from goo"  it's an easy answer to a complex question. It's just gotten way more embellished as people have discovered new crap to add onto it.


----------



## ElRay (May 2, 2008)

ohmanthisiscool said:


> ... but I'm an IDIOT for even suggesting ID as plausable. It's biased but, there it is.


It's not biased, it's simple logic. ID is inherently flawed. 

If the claim is that life is to complex to evolve on it's own, then somebody must have created whomever created us and somebody must have created the folks that created the folks that created us ... All the way back to the first creators. Whom either sprung-up on their own (negating you initial premise) or are some divine, omnipotent entity and ID collapses into just another version of Creationism.

And that's without any science. If you study biology, you'd see that there are far, far, far, too many stupid "design choices" that even if ID wasn't logically flawed, it doesn't make sense that any entity intelligent enough to design us would make such amateurish mistakes.

ID proponents essentially fall into two main groups: Arrogant Scientists (If I can't figure it out, it has to be "magical") and Creationists trying to sneak a disguised version of their claptrap into schools.

Ray


----------



## Carrion (May 2, 2008)

Trespass said:


> Fuck, can't you guys realize the reason us ID/Creationists try to convince you guys is not for some crazy self-serving scheme, were doing everything we can to help you guys reach a paradise we believe in. We are moved by compassion!
> 
> For us, its the same as someone dying in the desert, and we know the location of the oasis that would save your life, and only ask that you trust us to help guide you there. We're not carrying you, you have to get to the water yourself. We do these things because we try to love one another, for peace and prosperity, and freedom of speech.



Sorry, but I can't determine if this is a joke or not. ID is justified and should be taught because the reward is better for believing it than not? That's not how schools determine what should be taught. We don't have anything to honestly learn from ID (In its current form).


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 2, 2008)

I can guarantee that no one who watches this film will ever lose a friend or a job. 

I love the way they made Richard Dawkins sound like a xenophobe.


----------



## Vince (May 3, 2008)

IMO, both Atheism and Faithfullness are ridiculous to me because either way you're just guessing and assuming a position. No one knows for sure one way or another.

I look at it this way... picture a huge circle, maybe 20-30 meters wide. That big circle represents all the knowledge in the universe. Now imagine a tiny dot on that circle, made with let's say a pen or marker. That dot represents what humanity, us, actually know about the universe. There's almost an infinite amount we do not know. Science & research is there to expand that dot and through those academic pursuits we learn more about the universe we live in. Religion, or faithfulness, on the other hand, guesses in the darkness, trys to fill in the void without reason, research, or critical intelligent thought.

We do not know what is out there. We only have 5 senses, can only see & hear a small amount of wavelengths we know exist, and if you follow any peer-reviewed research about things like string theory, there are as many as 9-13 dimensions we do not understand or know about that potentially hold the universe together.

SO, to say there DEFINITELY is a God, or you DEFINITELY know about what happens to you after you die is close minded, just as saying there DEFINITELY isn't a God is just as close-minded, because we simply don't know. Ideas are good. Intelligent thought & discourse is good. Beliefs are bad. No one dies for an idea, but people will go to war over beliefs.

I'm a Recovering Catholic, and I'm proud to say I'm agnostic. I do not know, do not assume the arrogance to say I know, and either way I believe life is beautiful and we're all very lucky to be alive.


----------



## TomAwesome (May 3, 2008)

That's more or less how I see it, too, Vince. Agnostic is probably the closest religious description to what I am as well.


----------



## daybean (May 3, 2008)

i dont think you can picture all the knowledge of the universe, since we dont know what is out there. we dont even know what is all that is our own planet, this topic is open for different views, some hold water and some just cant be reasonable. my post may not be reasonable, hell, my spelling might be way off as well.

...2 cents


----------



## TomAwesome (May 3, 2008)

daybean said:


> i dont think you can picture all the knowledge of the universe, since we dont know what is out there. we dont know what is all that is our own planet, this topic is open for different views, some hold water and some just cant be reasonable. my post may not be reasonable, hell, my spelling might be way off as well.
> 
> ...2 cents



That was actually his point with the analogy. He was saying that if that large circle was everything there was to know, that tiny insignificant dot is what we do know.


----------



## daybean (May 3, 2008)

my point was to agree, but x ?. or not we just don't know, and some off the shit we think we know, is wrong. thats where religion and other stuff that cant be anwsered, dead or alive or what ever this universe, planet, god, gods have for us in the future.


----------



## TomAwesome (May 3, 2008)

Oh, well nevermind that last post then.


----------



## Trespass (May 3, 2008)

Carrion said:


> Sorry, but I can't determine if this is a joke or not. ID is justified and should be taught because the reward is better for believing it than not? That's not how schools determine what should be taught. We don't have anything to honestly learn from ID (In its current form).



I'm not arguing whether or not it should be taught in schools. That whole post was defending the motivation behind some of us. "Bible Thumpers", "Religious Fanatics" etc. etc. are titles thrown around far too easily. As soon as someone says "Well I believe thats how God wanted it to happen" and bam, some of the people that hear it will immediately think he is an ignorant, backwards Televangelist wannabe. 

I'm just saying that the reason that some of us are doing our best to non-intrusively help people who we feel will experience a painful afterlife. Were doing it because we care.

Trust me, as someone who battles within the church and challenges various openly religious people's motivation to do what they've done, I hold no illusions on what has been done for my faith. (Once again, I disagree with the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition).

And if I'm not clear enough (as I'm known to lose track; apologies): I'm defending the motivation of those who I feel are doing whatever they can to help others. And not televangelists, who are pretty much sellouts.

I'm not entering the ID vs. Evolution debate, as I believe in Creationism/ID. I don't believe in the science behind ID. I don't have to. 

My stance: I believe Evolution is much a religion as Creationism/ID is. (And I'm versed on both sides of this debate). Until they can force or recreate a macro evolution within a species, and not a micro-evolution, then I'm game.


----------



## Carrion (May 3, 2008)

Evolution isn't religion. Religion is the belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 

Observed Intances of Speciation:

Observed Instances of Speciation

29 Evidences of Macroevolution:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent



A lot of people make the mistake that evolution is somehow an alternative for religion, this isn't true. You can easily believe in both if you read the Bible with an open mind and acknowledge that some verses aren't meant to be taken literally. Ken Miller for example is a practicing Roman Catholic and a biology professor. DonExodus2 of Youtube fame has 8 semesters at Cathedral Preparatory in theology, and a Doctoral from UNC-Chapel Hill in evolutionary biology and opposes the ID movement greatly.

"Until they can force or recreate a macro evolution within a species, and not a micro-evolution, then I'm game." <- See above links. If they were to force evolution, that would throw the idea of natural selection out the window.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (May 4, 2008)

Trespass said:


> Fuck, can't you guys realize the reason us ID/Creationists try to convince you guys is not for some crazy self-serving scheme, were doing everything we can to help you guys reach a paradise we believe in. We are moved by compassion!
> 
> Forget the method, (their are too many of us, and were all lumped in the same group for me to argue whose method is in the right, whose in the wrong) but damnit were trying.
> 
> ...



Except that the "oasis" you speak of could very well be a mirage. In which case, you lead us in circles until we die of dehydration.

I appreciate your concern, but I think you get my point. 



Vince said:


> IMO, both Atheism and Faithfullness are ridiculous to me because either way you're just guessing and assuming a position. No one knows for sure one way or another.
> 
> I look at it this way... picture a huge circle, maybe 20-30 meters wide. That big circle represents all the knowledge in the universe. Now imagine a tiny dot on that circle, made with let's say a pen or marker. That dot represents what humanity, us, actually know about the universe. There's almost an infinite amount we do not know. Science & research is there to expand that dot and through those academic pursuits we learn more about the universe we live in. Religion, or faithfulness, on the other hand, guesses in the darkness, trys to fill in the void without reason, research, or critical intelligent thought.
> 
> ...



+ Rep. I too have recently turned from Catholicism. I guess I just feel religion serves to safeguard the mind against unanswerable questions. You really hit the nail on the head here.


----------



## JBroll (May 8, 2008)

Vince, atheism can also be the lack of a belief in god. Also, if your conception of a god is internally contradictory (like an omnipotent or omnipresent deity) it can be impossible from a logical perspective, and unless you consider logic to be inherently flawed you can arrive at atheism that way.

For the guys who think they're called stupid or being persecuted for believing in ID... I think you can believe whatever you want, and honestly most people who you think are persecuting you agree. The problem comes when you try to pass something like that off as science... when it isn't.

First, ID is NOT falsifiable, which immediately disqualifies it from serious scientific consideration. Second, no research is done in ID to the best of the field's leaders' knowledge, and no medical breakthroughs come from it, so it is in practice useless. Third, it is a non-answer - until it possesses explanatory and predictive power, it is of no use to a mind that wants real answers. 

"God did it" is no better an answer than "It just is"; further, by saying that everything needed to be created you're actually making the problem more complex. If the creator was created, where did the creator's creator (and the creator's creator's creator, and so on) come from? This has no value since it raises the complexity of the issue infinitely and answers nothing more. If the creator was not created, no sound explanation is given as to why the creator did not need to be created and the simpler creation did, and you've still complicated the problem further for no good reason.

You can believe it, but from the scientific perspective it is simply a non-answer. As for religion... as always I appreciate the concern, but I simply think you don't have as beautiful an oasis as logic, so I'm trying to help you to the one I like more.

(And some would find it silly if someone didn't believe science but still used the fruits of simply incredible solid-state physics to transmit arguments against it.)

Jeff


----------

