I
(RJS) saw Ben Stein's "documentary" movie EXPELLED: No
Intelligence Allowed over Thanksgiving on DVD, or I saw parts of it anyway
- some of the family saw the entire movie. I have also been asked about
this movie at church on occasion. I have to say, I found the movie very hard to
watch because of the format, which is designed for sound bites, entertainment
and sensationalism, rather than accuracy and information.
If you've seen this movie, I have
a question.
Do you think the movie
serves a useful purpose? If so why?
Certainly there is hostility
toward Christian or faith based thinking and a knee-jerk reaction to Intelligent
Design by some in the academy and the scientific establishment. This movie, with it's half truths, makes it worse. It gives rise to the same kind of indignation that Christians feel over sensational documentaries on topics like the DaVinci Code, the Gospel of Judas, or the Jesus Ossuary.
There is also hostility in parts of the church toward the scientific establishment and scientists in general. This film serves to reinforce these stereotypes, intensifying the conflict. Stein's movie is a success (i.e. makes money) because of the conservative Christian market.
I must admit that I don't think that it does any good to promote this "documentary" in a Christian setting. It seems to me that the half
truths and the format only serve to make a bad situation much worse. But what do you think?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Mark, I was simply stating what I thought the message of the movie was. I did not make a judgment on the argument's merits. Evolutionists assume that theories of ID have the burden of proof, as you demonstrate in your response. However, I sincerely wonder on whom the burden of proof rests. Please notice that I did not and have not described my personal opinion in the debate (since my mind is not fully made up) before continuing to lambast my posts with criticism when I was simply answering a question given me. I was not trying to be defensive, or cause defensiveness but instead answered the question of what I thought the message of the movie was.
Jon,
I agree with you on the message of the movie. And - as I've said on several occasions, I think we need productive conversation. I don't think that this movie does it.
But I have another serious question (not directed solely to Jon)- if you are not a scientist what criteria do you use to evaluate information and make up your mind?
Mark is trained in Biochemistry mostly I gather from an earlier comment on another post. I am trained in chemistry and work at the interface of chemistry, physics and biophysics. This training and information plays a significant role in our evaluation of this issue. But how does a nonscientist evaluate the data and reach a conclusion?
My major concern with the movie is that it manipulates information to send home a message that serves to quash profitable discussion.
RJS (#43): the take-home message I got was that Ben Stein is still writing speeches for Richard Nixon.
RJS (#53): I can't speak for non-scientists, but my take on information-processing and decision-making in this country is that it is generally at an 8th grade level. My take on 8th grade is that it was the worst time of my life!
RJS (#63): Amen, sister! (That's a joke for all you sensitive types)
OK Mike, now we just need to keep the conversation going to get to #63.
Jon,
Sorry that my tone came off as attacking you. I don’t ever want to do that. It’s great that you are thinking about these things. I just want to caution Christians to think twice about pushing the ID/creationism agenda which goes against scientific consensus. What I see coming out of movies like these and out of the ID/creationism camps is very akin to conspiracy theories. Working in science, I am seeing Christian beliefs being viewed as nutty, because of its close ties to these pseudo sciences.
Jon, regarding the burden of proof, the burden of proof in the scientific community is always on the new hypothesis that goes against the current hypothesis. When a hypothesis comes that explains the data better, it will take over as the current understanding. This is how science works. The hypothesis needs to explain the data. This just isn’t the case for ID and creationism. This doesn’t mean that God is not in control. It just means that evolutionary theory best explains the data.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.