Online discussion and chat forum of Premier Christian Radio
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
In last week's show Justin made much of Premier's efforts to arrange a screening of the disgracefully mendacious film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I've seen it, and I urge anyone, whether or not they've already seen the film, to check out the US National Center for Science Education's website about it, Expelled Exposed, which contains point-by-point refutations of all the claims made in this horrible production.
Also well worth your while is the unedited audio (in two parts) of a discussion between the editors of Scientific American and Mark Mathis, associate producer of Expelled.
In addition there is available a subtitle track to enable those tech-savvy enough to know what to do with it to watch the film with explanatory notes that point out each lie as it comes up (warning: it's not just here and there — it's a steady stream of text).
The history of Expelled, from its deliberate deception of its interviewees, through to its pre-release marketing and the production's manifestation of Godwin's Law from the very start, is a sorry tale of dishonest, cynical manipulation. In short, this film stinks.
Also well worth your while is the unedited audio (in two parts) of a discussion between the editors of Scientific American and Mark Mathis, associate producer of Expelled.
In addition there is available a subtitle track to enable those tech-savvy enough to know what to do with it to watch the film with explanatory notes that point out each lie as it comes up (warning: it's not just here and there — it's a steady stream of text).
The history of Expelled, from its deliberate deception of its interviewees, through to its pre-release marketing and the production's manifestation of Godwin's Law from the very start, is a sorry tale of dishonest, cynical manipulation. In short, this film stinks.
Tags: Ben Stein, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Mark Mathis, National Center for Science Education, Scientific American, intelligent design
Views: 10
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on
-
Why not let other people watch the film and decide for themselves what they think of it first?
How bout that? -
-
Permalink Reply by Paul S. Jenkins on -
Why not let other people watch the film and decide for themselves what they think of it first? How bout that?
That's perfectly fine. I just wanted to let people know that it's blatant propaganda — in my opinion (this is a discussion forum, after all). -
-
Permalink Reply by Imago Dei on
-
Sorry to say it folks, but anything associated with the Disco Tute (and ICR, AIG CMI and any other creationist network ) is simply crap of the first order.
My own feeling is that they are atheistic fronts designed (pun) to make Christianity look daft -
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Godfrey on -
looks like the film 'Expelled' is being expelled even quicker than in the US -where at least people got to watch it -maybe theres something afterall in the notion of a ruling worldview (ie exclusivly materialistic) that will not tolerate any disension ?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Paul S. Jenkins on
-
Maybe Expelled should be banned. That would pique people's interest and help sales of the DVD.... :-)
-
-
Permalink Reply by manicstreetpreacher on -
I heard the show of 16 Jan with Myers and Atkins, the latter who was an absolute belligerent hoot as per!
This link on Eugenie Scott's website “Expelled Exposed” gives the true story behind Richard Sternberg's “expulsion” which they discussed on the show:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
I am in the process of rallying friends and fellow atheist bloggers, but it's looking like that I'll be at the screening of Expelled and the debate (which hopefully should get pretty heated!) on the 27 Feb.
I fully intend to ask some very awkward questions to the speaker defending this piece of creationist trash! There’s the previously mentioned Expelled Exposed, as well as a number of alternative versions of the film with sceptic’s subtitles as voiceover interpolations with the truth.
MSP -
-
Permalink Reply by manicstreetpreacher on
-
P.S. I haven’t read Meyer’s book, but from Jeffrey Shallit’s review, it looks like he repeats the common creationist straw man that Darwin did not understand inner workings of the cell. **GROAN!**
This claim has been repeated again and again by creationists, but it is not true. Fergodsake, the nucleus was discovered in 1833.
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-on-signature-in-cell.html -
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Godfrey on
-
Ah... the reasoned voice of the Atheists not using ad hominem attacks as there arguments are so water tight,not needing beligerence or heated debate as they have science on there side.**GROAN!** After all the nucleus was discovered in 1833 !!!! Please!
When in 1833 they saw the nucleus did they see the complexity we see today ...?
Did they see the information storage capacity of DNA -did they see the translation ,transcription ...did they see the gyrases untwisting the dna ..did they see the sos sytem maintaing the fidelity of the information ...I could go on and on ..the point of Stephen Meyers comment I think is that Darwin did not take account of and didnt expect the ammount of complexity and organisation in nature we now see .
Comon surely you can do better than that with your miscasting of Intelligent design as Creationists .. it doesnt move the argument forward -its just the same old boring dawkinese that has been bouncing around the echo chamber of Richard.dawkins.net. for years .
Incredulity all is incredulity ! Snooze .... -
-
Permalink Reply by manicstreetpreacher on
-
Mike G – I recommend you read my response to William Dembki on this very point:
[T]he charge that Darwin did not know anything about the inner workings of the cell is purely an academic point and I corrected Dembski mainly to preserve Darwin’s reputation and correct him on this bogus canard that he and his ilk keep trotting out. There was a great deal that Darwin did not know about and/or where he was plain wrong. Dembski is correct in pointing out that he had no idea about genetic mutations, DNA and molecular biology. However, his theory has been revised, updated and indeed strengthened by the subsequent 150 years of scientific research, experimentation and peer-review by scientists who have had far greater knowledge and far more advanced technology at their disposal.
http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/dembski-re...
Sorry if you are impressed by the name-calling ad homs, but if someone keeps using the same fallacious arguments despite being corrected multiple times from a variety of critics, the only option left it to call them an IDiot.
And yes, I’m afraid ID is
MSP -
-
-
Mike
Ten years ago you could distinguish ID from YEC as ID was usually old earth. That distinction disappeared this century as ID and especailly the Disco Tute worked hand in glove with YECs.
It is not for nothing that the Disco Tute provides DVDs and "textbooks" on evolution for the YEC organisation Truthinscience to send out to schools and that athe ID blog Uncommon Descent frequently has articles by YECs eg Tyler, Sibley and Anderson.
Finally what has Dawkins got to do with all this?
Part of this is seen in the political involvement of ID with things like the Dover trial and the willingness of Behe to testify for attempts to get YEC books used inb schools
ID is nonsense so is YEC and the film Expelled is rubbish -
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Godfrey on
-
Hi MPS,
you say 'T]he charge that Darwin did not know anything about the inner workings of the cell is purely an academic point and I corrected Dembski'
It was you though who brought this up in the forum wasnt it ? Now your saying its not relevant ...ok
Darwin had a very limited understanding of the cell compared to our current understanding; consequently he was unable to take account of the specified complexity and organisation present -the false assumption of very little complexity in cell must of been relevant to the theory and its precursors.
Name call away if you think it helps -good luck with that. -
-
Permalink Reply by manicstreetpreacher on
-
Mike G – As I said in my last reply to my thread on the first show Dembski –v- Wolpert:
I just get fed up of the tactic of creationists, IDiots and general religious hacks of not only attacking the argument, but attacking the individuals who produced them in the first place. It doesn’t actually matter whether Darwin understood the inner workings of the cell or not. Evolution has moved on a lot in the last 150 years (!) and Origins is hardly the last word on the subject.
However, it is a common apologist tactic to distort what a scientist or philosopher actually said, so the burden in the debate doubles for the atheist to correct the falsehood as well as answering the original objection!
I think a lot of apologists seem to think that atheists look at Dawkins and Darwin as infallible Messiahs of atheism, so pointing out their mistakes is like them having to answer Matthew 10: 34: “There’s your perfect preacher! What have you to say about that, eh?”
However, this is view is quite wrong from my point of view. I don’t worship the men. I praise them, I respect them, I admire their methods and their ideas, but I know that they are all too human. There is stuff in The God Delusion that I don’t quite agree with, y’ know...
MSP -
Advertisement
Report an Issue
Have you seen any offensive content? Or abusive postings? Help us make this a safe and friendly environment. Please let us know! We will act on all reports, but may not individually respond to the reporter. We have also established certain rules for using this social site.
A Listening Ear
If any of the discussions or topics on Premier Community have affected you please contact Premier Lifeline. Lifeline is a confidential Christian helpline there for you from 9am until midnight, 365 days of the year. A fully trained team are ready to offer a listening ear.
Free! Hillsong Live music download! Click Here
Badge
© 2012 Created by Premier Christian Media.
