Have You Seen The Movie “expelled, No Intelligence Allowed”?
NEW VIDEOS DAILY
Its a documentary made by Ben Stein and explores Science’s prejudice against “Intelligent Design” as a theory. It is much more then that though. I believe every one should see this movie.
Oh, and for those of you who will automatically jump to this conclusion:
Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism and isn’t limited to Christianity.
For me, the scariest thing was Eugenics.
Eugenics is something I was unaware of, and almost wish I still was!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
It was inspired by Darwin’s theories and implemented in the Holocaust AND here in the United States in the 1920-40’s
It was (primarily) the extermination and/or sterilization of anyone considered useless to society or unfit to reproduce.
I would like to hear feedback from both sides of this issue, but only if you have seen the movie!
Haven’t seen it yet? We rented it from redbox, go see it and get back to me.
Beyond the normal horror of such a thing, it is even more chilling for me, a wife and mother of 2 with Miyoshi Muscular Dystrophy. Not only would I have been one of those in the gas chambers in Germany, but so would my children as carriers.
Yep. :]
Sigh… please refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.… for answers to all of your questions about evolution.
Eugenics: ” 1. Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).
2. Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based. ”
Intelligent design and creationism: “# Intelligent design is defined and treated as a form of creationism by its supporters. (The ideas listed here are prevalent in the ID movement, but there may be individual members who disagree with some of them.) Intelligent design’s main characteristics — rejection of naturalism, denial of evolution, belief in abrupt appearance and supernatural design, emphasis on gaps in the fossil record, claims of scientific support, claims that evolution is a threat to society, and support for “teaching the controversy” — are essentially unchanged from young-earth creationism of the 1970s (Forrest 2005). ”
I usually don’t copy and paste, but this website puts everything better than I can.
Anyone can make a movie about anything, but that doesn’t make it true. Ben Stein is an economist, right? Does he even know what the scientific method is?
Survival of the fittest is not eugenics. Survival of the fittest says that individuals that are better adapted to their environment will survive. If the environment changes, individuals with previously not-as-good genes may now thrive. If we really apply survival of the fittest to humans, then all we say is that humans whose genes are best adapted will be more likely to survive a certain situation. If there is a pandemic, humans with a stronger immune system will be more likely to survive. If there is a terrible famine, humans with slower metabolisms will be more likely to survive. It’s hard to think of things like this in our modern world, but just a couple centuries ago your ancestors doubtlessly survived pandemics AND famines.
Eugenics says that we can control the future of humanity by sterilizing “unfit” people. Anyone who knows anything about biology, knows that creating a homogenous gene pool is a recipe for disaster. Let’s say, hypothetically, the Germans won and the whole world was populated solely with Aryans. Because their gene pool would not have enough diversity, one pandemic could wipe them all out.
Eugenics in America was the byproduct of racism. I challenge you to find any evolutionary biologist since 1945 who has supported eugenics. You may be able to find one of two, but even then, that is a very, very small minority of biologists.
I am going to try and say this as nicely as I can, you are very confused about what evolution actually is, and what the theory says.
First of all Richard Dawkins never said life on this planet was seeded by aliens, they asked him a hypothetical question about panspermia, and he gave a hypothetical answer. Richard Dawkins does not believe this despite the edit job the producers used to make it look like he does.
Secondly Charles Darwin observed natural selection, that is in no way the same thing as eugenics. Nature is cold and cruel, but that doesnt mean we are supposed to take after it. Dont blame Darwin or science for the Holocaust, blame Hitler and his Nazi-Christian soldiers.
There is no debate about evolution, over 99% of the scientific community accepts it. I advise you do personally talk to a biologist if you are still confused.
Jellybean and Dillici are correct you are a very confused girl. “Intelligent Design” isn’t a theory, a theory is scientific it carries physical evidence and facts, is falsifiable and testable. ID is not science and is not a theory, it’s religious philosophy. The Holocaust has nothing to do with evolution, the eugenics movement tried to ground itself in Darwin’s work to try to gain acceptability. Eugenics is now considered junk science.
I included an excellent video made by a research scientist to help clear up your confusion.
I’ve also responded in R&S. I’ll give the same response here:
Science isn’t “prejudiced against ID”. Science is a method. It doesn’t have feelings and opinions.
ID, on the other hand, has nothing to do with science. It is a creationist response to what science has discovered and it has no merit whatsoever.
Darwin didn’t have a theory of “evaluation”.
That humankind evolved is beyond dispute. Darwin’s main contribution to evolutionary theory was natural selection. This did not “inspire eugenics”, it just made some people realise that what was possible.
Yes, I’ve seen the film and it’s a crock.
“The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms.”
Please try to be a bit more objective and learn about what evolutionary theory actually says before embarrassing yourself further.
Edited to add:
No scientist ever lost his/her job just for *mentioning* ID. The scientists in question did rather more than just mention ID – they attempted it to give it a credence that is not borne out by serious science. For that, they deserve to lose their jobs.
ID IS creationism. The suggestion that the earth “could have been seeded etc” does not support ID. Even saying that God spoke the world into existence does not support ID. Nothing supports ID because it is unsupportable. ID is a response to evolutionary theory – a desperate attempt to come up with alternative explanations for what science has proven about the evolution of humankind.
No, eugenics isn’t inspired by Darwin. Firstly, people were using artifical selection to breed improvements into animals for a long time before Darwin discovered natural selection. Secondly, Darwin says nothing about *deliberately intervening to improve human hereditary traits*. Darwin simply revealed to the world *what actually happens in nature* and the evidence for this is now overwhelming. Wallace made the same discovery at about the same time and if Darwin and Wallace hadn’t done so, others soon would have. That people should choose to make use of what Darwin discovered to try to make humankind perfect was not Darwin’s fault.
Now why don’t you go and read a serious science book?