A rousing SRO preview on Tuesday of the new Ben Stein documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, brought a Kansas City audience to its feet.
And with good cause. Stein’s often funny, always engaging frontal assault on the oppressive neo-Darwinist establishment is arguably the smartest and most sophisticated documentary ever produced on the right side of the cultural divide, on any subject, ever.
As such, Expelled represents still another blow to the progressive orthodoxy of government-issued science in its winter of discontent.
The winter started early when in November two separate labs, one in Wisconsin, one in Japan, announced the breakthrough discovery that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to mimic embryonic stem cells.
Just two years earlier, the elfin journalist Chris Mooney had likened adult stem cell research to creationism and assured the readers of his best seller, The Republican War on Science, that this “dogma” had been “resoundingly rejected by researchers actually working in the field.”
As the winter rolled on, and as all four major global temperature tracking outlets showed a precipitous drop in annual global temperature, and as snow fell in Baghdad for the first time in recorded history, only Al Gore remained in meltdown.
Meanwhile, on a seemingly daily basis, the neo-Luddites from the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front have been putting a distinctly left wing face on the “war on science,” in this case a real war on real scientists.
And into this breach, armed with his trademark tennies and bemused grin, marches Ben Stein, America’s only economist/ presidential speechwriter turned comic actor. The producers at Premise Media could not have recruited a better on-screen presence.
Although the role Stein plays has been compared to the one Michael Moore plays in his film, the Stein persona is conspicuously brighter and more benign.
Nor do Stein and his producers resort to the kind of editing that make Moore movies something other than documentaries.
In Bowling For Columbine , for instance, Moore cobbles together five different parts of NRA honcho Charlton Heston’s Denver speech a week after Columbine.
Moore then inserts into the mix a “cold, dead hands” remark from a speech Heston gave a year later. In the process Moore turn Heston’s conciliatory Denver address into a provocative call to arms.
This isn’t film making. This is fraud.
Stein resorts to no such tricks. He gives certain interview subjects all the time and all the rope they need to hang themselves, unedited.
One highlight among many is Stein’s one-on-one interview with Richard Dawkins, the dashing Brit who has made a small fortune as the world’s most visible neo-Darwinist.
To his credit, and to the utter discomfort of the public education establishment, Dawkins does not shy from discussing the atheistic implications of Darwinism.
Indeed, Dawkin’s anti-deity call to arms, The God Delusion, has sold more than a million copies worldwide. Where Dawkins wanders into a black hole of his own making is in his discussion of the origins of life on earth.
To Stein’s astonishment, Dawkins concedes that life might indeed have a designer but that designer almost assuredly was a more highly evolved being from another planet, not “God.”
Stein does not respond. He does not need to. For the past hour of the film, the audience has met one scientist after another whose academic careers have been derailed for daring to suggest the possibility of intelligent design.
If only they had thought to put the designer on another planet!
The choice of Stein as narrator is inspired for another reason. That reason becomes most apparent when he and two “creationist” allies, mathematician David Berlinski and nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder, visit a remnant of the Berlin Wall, the central metaphor of the film.
At the wall, the three discuss the value of freedom, the central idea of the film, and the need for the same in science. The audience has already met Berlinski, an amusingly sophisticated American living in Paris.
The audience has seen less of Schroeder, but he is wearing a yarmulke. All three are Jewish.
Indeed, it would be hard to imagine any three individuals on the planet who less resemble the Inherit the Wind stereotype that Darwinists have been scaring soccer moms with for the last half century.
Expelled opens nationwide on April 18 th. The neo-Darwinists and their allies in the major media will do their best to kill it.
Co-producer Mark Mathis tells me that two network news producers have already chosen not to cover the film because it was “biased,” unlike, say, the much-covered Fahrenheit 911.
The producers have contracted with the same firm that marketed Mel Gibson’s The Passion to get the word out. They will use much the same strategy.
Central to this strategy is the creation of a powerful buzz and a strong enough opening weekend to catch Hollywood’s attention and hold it.
Put April 18 on your calendars. Bring the kids. You won’t be disappointed.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
So, you kept competent critics (scientists, etc.) out of the preview, stacked the audience with religiously-biased poorly educated sorts, and played your Godwin’s Law-evoking, science-avoiding, and ignorant-of-scientific-methods diatribe. And wow, you were cheered by the ignorant folk to whom you intend to bamboozle with your snake-oil.
You must be so proud.
You can manipulate the ignorant and the prejudiced by displaying ignorance and prejudice. It’s one of those Kodak moments.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
March 6th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Blast, let’s try that again:
March 6th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
No ignorant, incompetent, people were allowed, that’s why you weren’t invited.
You’re sucking air like a drowning blowfish.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I’d seriously like to know who “Guest Lecturer” is so I can send him a prybar to get his head of his ass.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I’ve heard the theory that life was designed by highly evolved aliens from other planets. Surprisingly, it’s taken more seriously than you might think.
It doesn’t shock me that Professor Dawkins entertains such a notion. At its core, it’s not an unreasonable hypothesis. However, when it comes to scientific investigation, what benefits can studying the origin of life bring? I mean, if we want to create life ourselves, or use it for terraforming purposes during future space colonization, I can see some benefits. But still…don’t we have more pressing matters at the moment?
Positing an intelligent designer is not the buisiness of science. Science is merely the study of existing patterns in nature, and extrapolating from those patterns in order to predict the outcome of a given set of events. And by events, I mean material events, not things related to freewill or the supernatural. This doesn’t mean such things don’t exist, it’s just that science can’t talk about them.
Science uses material objects to measure material phenomenon. A thermometer can measure temperature, it cannot tell you if you’re lab partner is a self-aware entity. You need the mind and philosophy to ascertain that.
Do I think that life is intelligently designed, has a purpose, has a destiny? Yes, yes I do. But I don’t see how this conclusion can be reached by measuring shifts in Mercury’s orbit, recording mutation rates in ecolli bacteria, or noting that water boils at different temperatures, depending on altitude.
In order to discover that something is intelligently designed, intuition, philosophy, and the human mind should be used.
After all, there’s one thing that we know is beyond the scope of the material world: the phenomenon of self-awareness. Like all of mankind’s other pursuits, I think it’s best to start here when considering the question of intelligent design.
Science is the study of how material processes operate. Let’s keep it that way, lest it cease to be science. I am completely against someone claiming that they are using “science” to prove or disprove God. They are engaging in philosophy, not science.
Saying that science supports the existence or non-existence of God makes just about as much sense as saying that the Mona Lisa implies that eating a balanced breakfast every morning reduces the amount of dentist appointments you need. There’s no logical connection.
God belongs to the realm of theology and philosophy. Unlike science, philosophy concerns itself with how we perceive our world, what purposes our world might have, and why we should trust our mind. Discovering a certain relationship between gas pressure and temperature does nothing to answer any of these questions. Asking why things behave in such a logical and orderly manner, and noting the harmony that exists in patterns within the natural world…that is what helps us answer philosophical questions.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Dear Glen Davidson,
Belittling your opponents, and using crude colloquialisms to insult them results in nothing. If you wish to change hearts, use the balm of charity, not the flamethrower of outrage and disgust.
Honestly, please debate courteously. Yelling down opponents, no matter how idiotic you think they are, is never the right thing to do. Listen, and respond intelligently to your opponents.
And no, just in case anyone has the idea in mind, mentioning that idiotic, childish, annoying, and downright stupid “spaghetti monster” is not an intelligent response. It doesn’t do anything. It’s like a kid sticking his tongue out and saying, “you’re stupid!” There are more charitable and effective ways to communicate a point.
Don’t be mean, don’t be nasty. Okay? Now, play nice.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
LMAO @ the idea of a God! That’s like saying there’s a SPAGHETTI MONSTER in space!
You stupid morons and your fantasy land. Think of how stupid and fake the idea of a God is! A flying spaghetti monster is more like it! LMAO! Everyone knows the world was created by a magical soup that magically appeared and magical lightning striking a magical mud puddle that magically produced life forms that magically knew how to reproduce and so on and so on! Now that’s a believable scenario science says so! And for those saying that it’s impossible - Frankenstein would like a world with you. It not only can happen, it DID happen and Frankenstein is PROOF! So up your nose with a rubber hose you dumb God believers!
Flying spaghetti monster believing fools! ROTFLMAO!
March 6th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
So they’re actually comparing the laws banning religion from being taught in public science classes with the Berlin Wall?
Brought to you by the promoters of “The Passion of the Christ”.
But don’t worry, ID has NOTHING to do with religion.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Geoffrey,
That was a very eloquent description of the purpose and more importantly the limitations of science. Thank you for sharing you point of view. I hope to see more comments that agree and disagree in an equally well expressed manner.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Dear Geoffrey, try to learn something before you go off accusing falsely as you did.
We have answered Ben and the rest copiously and well. They have not had, choose one or more: the courtesy, decency, intelligence, knowledge, or the evidence, to give us a decent and intelligent response.
The fact is that the audience is as tilted, biased, and ignorant as I wrote. You only complain because you don’t like the truth.
If you wish to actually debate something, look at my past posts, tell me how ID accounts for the fact that all vertebrate wings happened to be modified legs of their apparent ancestors, why taxonomy closely fits the predictions of (non-teleological) evolutionary theory, and why it is that the macroevolutionary patterns of prokaryotes and of eukaryotes look so different, as would be expected of a combination of clonal/conjugating evolutionary processes in the first case, and as expected of sexual processes in the second case.
I have asked that repeatedly here, and the IDists/creationists have been too rude, too ignorant, or most likely, far too fundamentally wrong, to give me a fair and honest answer to those questions.
You, too, have failed to engage with me properly, or to fault the endlessly dishonest prattle of the IDists on these forums. Not that I’m surprised, since I have yet to meet an IDist who will engage with the issues in an intellectually honest fashion.
And I’m already probably out of this thread (not a promise, a present intention). The fact is that I have properly characterized the dishonesty of the blog article posted here, the evidence that supports this fact has been presented copiously by myself and others on these forums, and the mere fact that you prefer not to engage the substantive posts does not give you warrant to complain when I simply repeat the judgment that has been rendered in so minute detail in former posts.
I really lack the patience to deal with someone who won’t engage with the many issues I and others have brought up, but only faults us for dealing with IDists/creationists as they have exhibited themselves to be, at least on this blog.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
March 6th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution. Evolution is unscientific and mythical. Atheists have to believe in something.
http://wallsofjericho.50megs.com
March 6th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Oh yeah, intentions change, things are found, and I decided I’d point out how Expelled fits Geoffrey’s prejudicial “concerns” to a T, you know, “Belittling your opponents, and using crude colloquialisms to insult them results in nothing.”
Here, it’s should be interesting both to those who like the belittling that Expelled engages in (but doesn’t trouble the hypocritical Geoffrey), and those who do not:
Well, there you are, Kevin Miller, Ben Stein, and the rest spend a great deal of time simply trying to belittle and make fun of scientists and what they have done. IDists, on the other hand, are empty-handed on the science front.
Still, Kevin Miller tried to shame me with Geoffrey’s concern troll post on the TalkOrigins forum, after he has participated in a film which is little more than a nasty attempt to belittle science.
The hypocrisy is astonishing, but not unusual for ID.
And yes, I expect that I’ll most likely be out of here, since I have yet to have an intellectually honest engagement with an IDist. But this was just too much to pass up, imagine Kevin Miller and Geoffrey telling others to “play nice,” when Expelled does quite the opposite, and did so well before we noted what a mean little bunch of dishonesty it turns out to be.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
March 6th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I will try to apply scientific principles to a characteristic of mankind that could only have originated from a higher power. Every homo sapiens sapiens on earth has some form of innate shame that he/she experiences due to being viewed without clothing. Even primitive tribes will cover up. There is no other animal species (including primates) that clothe themselves because of shame. My dog runs freely no matter what. Now with our advanced intellect that evolved from Homo Habilis, we would assume that clothing would only be used for functional qualities, i.e. armor, weather protection, class distinction. Why would we wear clothing indoors, in a controlled environment such as our house? Why would be ashamed to answer the pizza guy in the nude? Why is it that we don’t take every piece off during hot weather (bikini’s) and leave only enough to stop us from being ashamed? If we are like every other animal, and only are advanced intellect separates us, then why wouldn’t we use logic to only wear clothing when necessary? Why is the thought of sitting down naked with your family at Thanksgiving repulsive (beside’s Uncle Phil’s beer belly). Somewhere in our origins, something happened that caused every human being to carry this innate shame, and I can only speculate that it is due to a fall from God’s grace. Somewhere between Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens, God’s bond with us was broken. Even if you argued as an atheist, “Well there’s nudist colonies!” The nudists answer is always, “It’s just like what God wanted us to be!” Face it, there is no scientific explanation to our innate shame, and there never will be.
We need to take a middle ground on evolution, God’s fingerprint and direction is in every aspect of creation. The extremes (dinosaurs didn’t exist, earth is 6,000 years old, God doesn’t exist, randomness is the answer to everything) are emotional responses to principles that are not properly meditated upon.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Geoffrey: It looks like Bob the Atheist took up the mention to belittle opponents, using crude colloquialisms.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Wow, the open-mindedness of the science geeks on this site is astonishing. For what it’s worth, I consider myself reasonably intelligent and with more schooling than the average bear. Undergrad in Math and Masters in Finance and Information Tech. Good grades through all and I consume books on all subjects, at least 2 a week.
Soooo, I can generally read a book or listen to another person and see the agenda pretty clearly.
And it’s not pretty with the neo-darwinists.
Put simply, Darwin is the religion, and it’s built on faith, because the proof doesn’t exist. When you get to the end of all the claimed proofs on Darwinism, what you end up with is a fantasy story.
Darwin himself explained it best:
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.”
“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”
The missing pieces haven’t been found, and not for lack of trying. For almost 150 years, they have been looking.
I especially liked Dawkins comment that man may have been designed by superior creatures from another world. If this doesn’t show his biases, you really are looking the other way.
For what it’s worth, I really don’t care what the guy says, I just hope he can get to the point of tolerating differing opinions. Seems at this point stuck with the civility of the terrible two year old who hasn’t learned to share.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I just reread a couple of comments and realized it would be nice to have the comments of those who can’t participate in civil discourse removed.
While they are amusing in their own way and show the degree of contempt they may for others, they fail to realize they are proof of their own lack of a convincing argument.
Shakespeare said it best “the lady doth protest too much”. The writer’s ardent denial is nothing more than covering up the embarrassing truth of the weakness of their own beliefs .
March 7th, 2008 at 1:10 am
To Those Incessant Scribblers Who Besmut this Blog:
(You KNOW who you are!) In spite of your incessant ad hominem and personal attacks on the great persona of Mr. Ben Stein, HIS MESSAGE will prevail. Your blasphemy will damn you. Please do not say that you have not been warned. Furthermore, you do not own the Truth. You speak of facts when all you have are THEORIES.
The simplicity of the Truth is: “And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”
(Matthew 5, 1-12 (KJV))
YET, you probably follow THIS as truth: “Brief and powerless is Man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned to-day [sic] to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.”
(B. Russell, Myst. & Log.,1903)
I ask you: WHO are the ignorant ones that demand suppression of discussion? WHO are the courage-challenged followers of insane belief? WHO is moral? (I think you KNOW the answer.)
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
March 7th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Geoffrey — You are correct in saying (if indeed this is what you are saying) that Intelligent Design, if taught at all in school, should be taught in Philosophy class and kept out of Science class. That SHOULD be the end of that discussion.
On to philosophy, and why I’m an atheist. Why do things behave in such a logical and orderly manner? They don’t. Or, more accurately, they do, but only because we observed their behavior over and over until it makes sense to us, then we developed language and defined terms like “logic” and “order” and applied them to the world around us. Things that happen in a way to which we are accustomed are orderly. If something happens that is inconsistent with our experience, or happens for seemingly no reason, it is illogical. Terms like “logic” and “rationality” have absolutely no meaning outside the realm of human experience.
We think life is special because we ARE life. I see a lush, green forest and I think, “Wow, what beautiful [special] trees!” But then a theoretical intelligent extraterrestrial comes along, and he saw his mother get murdered in front of his eyes, and her insides looked like tree bark, and he thinks “Wow, what disgusting trees!”
I guess what I’m saying is: our experience on Earth, and the “wonder” and “beauty” and “order” of life on Earth, is completely subjective. It should not be the basis for a rational argument for the existence of God.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Glen Davidson, Im surprised that you are beginning to stoop to the scum levels of other nasty evolutionists that slither on to this Blog!
Are we to understand that your decision to replace scientific dialog with Ad hominem attacks represents your defeat?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:44 am
I guess we can add Stupidity to that ever growing list of Atheisism…
Thanks Bob, Your doing great! Keep up the good work. We IDers love your imput…
____________________
Bob the Atheist Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Everyone knows the world was created by a magical soup that magically appeared and magical lightning striking a magical mud puddle that magically produced life forms that magically knew how to reproduce and so on and so on! Now that’s a believable scenario science says so! And for those saying that it’s impossible - Frankenstein would like a world with you. It not only can happen, it DID happen and Frankenstein is PROOF! So up your nose with a rubber hose you dumb God believers!
Flying spaghetti monster believing fools! ROTFLMAO!
March 7th, 2008 at 3:09 am
I am intrigued to see what arguments will be used for “intelligent design” and what aspect of creationism will be selected as a valid hypothesis, rather than an alternative to evolution. At this point in time, evolution is no more a theory than the earth revolving around the sun. The real question to be probed is did evolution on earth come about as purely chance, or has it been guided and begun from a divine spark.
I am hoping this film will investigate how evolution and an Ultimate Divine being as creator can coexist, and do in many academic communities. For those that doubt this, I recommend Francis S. Collin’s “The Language of God”. This book is a least a good starting point for those few scientists that describe themselves as athestic or agnostic and pure creationists alike.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Let’s cut to the chase with respect to this film:
One is free to espouse whatever notions one wishes anywhere in the US (as long as it doesn’t qualify as hate speech, involves death threats, or endangers others) but to be employed as a competent scientist that is ACTIVELY doing science, requires that one knows what science is and isn’t and does actual science (note this is a verb). This isn’t a special criterion of scientists, but goes for any discipline or field. If one is hired as a corporate manager and one chooses to do interpretative dance and then call it management, you can rightfully get fired for this. This isn’t to say that interpretative dance is bad or that it should be banned, it isn’t to say that you don’t have the right to call interpretative dance management, it just means that it isn’t management. Get it? And who judges what management is? Managers generally do, not interpretative dancers.
My guess is that the illogic of this film boils down to: Managers violate the free speech rights of interpretive dancers. Bad managers! Bad!
Now insert the word “scientist” for “managers” and “Intelligent design theorists” for “interpretative dancers” and ta-da!, you got yourself a propaganda (I mean, documentary) film.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Do NOT belittle the FSM! His Noodly Appendage is everywhere.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
QUOTE -
To Stein’s astonishment, Dawkins concedes that life might indeed have a designer but that designer almost assuredly was a more highly evolved being from another planet, not “God.”
- END QUOTE
If Dawkins really said this….then wow. The most respected neo-Darwinist on the planet conceding that life may have a designer, with millions of people about to see it, is sure to stir up the pot in a big way. A big, nay HUGE victory for proponents of I.D.
Expelled may end up being the most important movie ever made. And I say that with absolutely no hyperbole attached.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
This movie is definitely a must see considering all the negative reviews it has received from people who have never watched the movie. I’ve always enjoyed being an outcast, and I hope it pisses off a few of my friends that I am seeing this.
It is false to claim this movie wants religion taught in schools, but many people are choosing to argue against that straw man rather than face the possibility that science is suppressing dissent.
Stating an alternate explanation for the nature of life does not harm science or create mindless zealots. Dissent actually strengthens arguments, because it requires proponents to better define their ideas.
Stating that life is possibly designed is indeed a scientific hypothesis, just as much as stating that life is a direct result of adaptive random mutation. Based on physical properties, one can make arguments that life indeed had a designer or that nature was life’s designer.
Imagine discovering the pyramids for the first time. Were they created by natural geologic forces, or was there a designer? Based on the physical properties of the pyramid one can surmise that they were indeed designed. The stones that built the pyramids were cut (or poured as some now claim) and inscriptions in the pyramids show that it had a religious purpose. Thus, it is very possible for science to conclude whether something was designed or is the result of natural processes.
Asking questions and making assumptions based on the physical properties of an object is science, and we should allow as many theories as possible to exist in order to strengthen our knowledge of the world. Science can prove the possibility that life was designed, without having to make any claims about who that designer was or is.
If you haven’t seen it yet, you really should view the trailer for the movie before making incorrect assumptions about it. You might find your review embarrassing a few months later when more people have seen the movie and realize how unfounded your claims have been.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
[…] March 7, 2008 Ben Stein’s “Expelled” to hit April 18! Posted by davidtjordan under Politics, Theology, creationism, global warming | Tags: Ben Stein, creation science, creation vs. darwinism, creationism, darwinism, expelled the movie, intelligent design, Neo-Darwinian, schools teaching darwinism | […]
March 7th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
ATTENTION: There was an error in the title of this blog.
It should be “Ben Stein’s ’smart’ bombs”.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
To Mark E. Witt, I see you have your own blogspot, at http://instituteoftheory.blogspot.com.
Excellent! I’ve seen some of your postings on other Evolution websites/blogs, your perseverance and dedication to this parody are awe-inspiring!
I’d almost think you are actually a team of bloggers, working hard to lampoon IDer.
In any case, keep up the good work, well done!
March 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
What exactly is a Neo-Darwinist? Can you please tell me who refers to themselves as such?
Why is that term used exclusively by the ignorant minions who do not understand science?
After the ID case got laughed out of court, you think your little movie will make one iota of difference?
How amusing, and yet pathetic at the same time.
Talk about faith based.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Now it seems this movie is the perfect fodder for global warming deniers too, how convenient.
No wonder these people encourage home schooling.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
The idea that a missing link or any signs of evolution can possibly dispell the idea of creationism is rediculous.
If you believe in Darwinism you beleive that matter just existed forever without origin.
If you beleive in Creationism you beleive God existed forever without origin. If this is reality then God created all the complexities of this world to go along with man’s free will to think and reason. Therefore; he may have chosen to add evidence of evolution to add to the lack of faith and to the doubt of the unbelievers.
Why would this notion be so hard to imagine?
So how can the Dawinists of the world possibly think that their science can possibly prove anything. Either God existed without origin or life and matter existed without origin.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“Oh yeah, intentions change, things are found, and I decided I’d point out how Expelled fits Geoffrey’s prejudicial “concerns” to a T, you know, “Belittling your opponents, and using crude colloquialisms to insult them results in nothing.”
Here, it’s should be interesting both to those who like the belittling that Expelled engages in (but doesn’t trouble the hypocritical Geoffrey), and those who do not:”
Dear Mr. Glen Davidson,
I think you have adequately demonstrated my point. I’m not being hypocritical. I’m being charitable. If you would have read my post, you’d see that I do not agree with or support this film. I find many of the methods used to film it, well, dishonorable.
However, name calling, and being rude, will not change anyone’s hearts. Atheists, and all people, must learn to debate respectfully.
Shouting, “you’re stupid!” does not eliminate stupidity.
Yelling, “ignorant!” enlightens no one.
Screaming, “hypocrite!” does not increase sincerity.
Love is the way to a man’s heart, and only through his heart, can you truly hope to influence his mind.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Katie - I’m intrigued by your comment
“At this point in time, evolution is no more a theory than the earth revolving around the sun. The real question to be probed is did evolution on earth come about as purely chance, or has it been guided and begun from a divine spark. ”
Where’s the proof. I’ve read Jay Gould and others and all I note is a change in the “theory” to suit the reality of what has been found in fossil records. It used to be a gradual change, then it was punctuated equilibrium,…. What is this weeks theory?
Or to be explicit, if there is proof, why is this still called a theory?
Some people believe if you say something long enough and loud enough, it’s true. Doesn’t work with me.
Here’s a tip, use the lump sitting on your shoulders and examine this with an open mind.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
My words will persuade more people to accept my view of this film. Why? Because I consider humans to have inherent dignity, and I consider them to be intelligent, to be wise, to be capable of making decisions for themselves, and to be capable of reasoning. In other words, I treat them like people.
Negative comments, and belittling words, excite the emotions and thus hinder clear-thinking.
Things such as the “spaghetti monster” serve only to inflate the ego. These things are not used to persuade others, no. They only serve to promote feelings of superiority.
In other words, invoking the “spaghetti monster” is another way of saying, “Oh my! look at how stupid and ignorant those other people are. Let us bask in our brilliance, and thank the stars that we are not dumb like they are!”
If you are convicted that you have the truth, and that the concept of God hurts other people, first start by loving other people. Then, gently guide them to the truth, teach them to think freely, and teach them charity.
It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. Light dispels shadows without a single unkind word or negative criticism ever being said. Curses do nothing, other than allowing one to hear his own voice, and wallow in his own bitterness.
Please, take my advice. This is the way to guide others, and yourself, toward truth.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“On to philosophy, and why I’m an atheist. Why do things behave in such a logical and orderly manner? They don’t. Or, more accurately, they do, but only because we observed their behavior over and over until it makes sense to us, then we developed language and defined terms like “logic” and “order” and applied them to the world around us. Things that happen in a way to which we are accustomed are orderly. If something happens that is inconsistent with our experience, or happens for seemingly no reason, it is illogical. Terms like “logic” and “rationality” have absolutely no meaning outside the realm of human experience.
We think life is special because we ARE life. I see a lush, green forest and I think, “Wow, what beautiful [special] trees!” But then a theoretical intelligent extraterrestrial comes along, and he saw his mother get murdered in front of his eyes, and her insides looked like tree bark, and he thinks “Wow, what disgusting trees!”
I guess what I’m saying is: our experience on Earth, and the “wonder” and “beauty” and “order” of life on Earth, is completely subjective. It should not be the basis for a rational argument for the existence of God.”
Now you’re doing things right! God’s existence is a matter of philosophy, not science.
Thank you Sam, for setting an example. I disagree with many of your postulations here, but I don’t want to sidetrack this blog by discussing philosophy. The point is, you’re looking in the right place for arguments for or against God’s existence. The makers of this film, and several militant atheists, are not.
Science poses as much a threat to religion as clothing design does. Can we please stop pretending that science and religion are equivalent, and can we please have ID discussions in philosophy, not science class?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
And how does Dr. Dawkins propose to avoid infinite regress? If life on Earth was brought forth by a highly evolved extraterrestrial it does not answer the question of how life began. It basically means that life on the designer’s planet had to be designed by a still older, highly evolved creature. Going further back in time one would quickly (since evolution from first cells to complex, intelligent beings takes place on the order of billions of years) reach a point in time where life could not have existed.
So life had to (super)naturally arise on some planet somewhere in the past. Occam’s Razor (which says that the simpler solutions are always more likely) and the Copernican Principle (which holds that there is no privleged point in the universe) would mean that life on Earth probably started on Earth.
There is no reason to bring in unobservable entities to address the insufficiencies of Dr. Dawkins’ own reasoning. I think he should revise his theories on the origins of life.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I hear that the parts skewering Richard Dawkins are quite funny, delighthing atheist and mindlessgodfreak alike. The rest of the movie is apparently a cure for insomnia. Patent medicine, no scientific support provided, no prescription needed.
At the end of the day, its only a movie.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
As a theory, Intelligent Design is not unintelligent. That nature reveals itself in elaborate schemes, complex patterns, and intricate designs is not a novel observation. The appearance of design in nature has been recognized throughout the ages. It’s this apparent blueprint that has underlined the argument that where there is design, there must be a designer.
This is the argument for God. And apparently, not an illogical one. But it becomes problematic when the idea of Intelligent Design is fused with the biblical story of creation, rendering a hybrid concept of, “creationist intelligent design,” which seems more like a marriage of doctrinal convenience than a necessary partnership. After all, while the biblical story of creation implies Intelligent Design, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Intelligent Design implies the biblical story of creation. Creation myths, stories and theories are hardly limited to the Bible. Intelligent Design certainly implies a designer, though not necessarily a specific designer. If Intelligent Design is going make any headway, it may need to forsake the biblical creation story for the sake of the idea.
For the Intelligent Designers, God is the ultimate value. In a world of evolution, there
is no need to invoke God to explain the world. And that is a threat; not only a threat to the existence of God, but a threat to the meaning of human existence; at least as the Intelligent Designers would have us understand it. If, on the one hand, as the evolutionary theorists claim, we are merely the result of natural selection acting on random mutations, then the theological claim that we are all “children of God” is a difficult position to validate. On the other hand, if Intelligent Design gains traction in the lecture halls, then science is undermined.
Science claims to reveal the world; not as we wish it to be, not as we think it ought to be,
but as it is. Science also claims to be value neutral. Whether it’s nuclear fission, global warming or recombinant DNA, the values realized by scientific discovery, good or bad, can only be derived after the fact. So, while it purports to provide us with value free knowledge, science nonetheless creates value; oftentimes good, other times bad and occasionally ambiguous. But, if anything, science has operational value; that is, it works. It states the facts and the facts, acted upon, work. This computer works. Vaccines work. Rockets soar. There’s a 90% chance of showers in the morning.
Because science’s operational value has proven itself a thousand times over, its authority is rarely challenged; an obvious stature that has not gone unnoticed by Intelligent Designers. So it’s not surprising that we now find the Intelligent Designers claiming that its theory too is “scientific.” In order for Intelligent Design to be taught alongside established science, or even in lieu of established science, the Intelligent Designers understand that they need the cachet of established science. What better way to challenge science than to claim scientific validity for itself. For the Intelligent Designers, science is the back door to credibility; a sort of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” strategy.
What of Intelligent Design’s scientific credentials? Does it qualify? Or is it allowed
into the science club by mere insistence? Science explains nature in terms of itself; natural phenomena are accounted for by way of other natural phenomena. But Intelligent Design adduces a supernatural phenomenon to explain the natural world. By this one assertion alone, Intelligent Design fails as a science. If we raise other qualifying questions that scientific theory must address - Does it explain? Can it predict? Is it experimentally verifiable? - its lack of eligibility only compounds the failure. Outside of a faith-fueled logical leap, Intelligent Design fails to measure up to the most rudimentary requirements for a scientific theory.
Yet, the Intelligent Designers are unrelenting. They further attempt to establish validity
by poking holes in evolution in order to recast Darwinian theory as mere conjecture; an educated guess. But pointing out empirical gaps and inconsistencies in evolution does nothing for Intelligent Design. Even if it were proven that the theory of evolution is wrong, it doesn’t follow that the theory of Intelligent Design is right. Whether or not evolutionary theory is valid, the consequence for Intelligent Design is unchanged.
Admittedly, the theory of evolution cannot answer all the questions it raises. If it could,
it wouldn’t be a theory, but like the earth turning round the sun, an acknowledged fact.
That evolutionary theory is incomplete, that it is flawed, doesn’t make it invalid, but
simply places it alongside every other theory to come down the scientific pike. Few, if any, scientific theories are born fully mature.
Copernicus’s theory placed the sun at the center of our solar system, but it wasn’t the last word on the position and movement of celestial bodies. It worked, it was true, but it left questions unanswered until Kepler came along and refined it. And where Kepler corrected Copernicus, Newton supplied the gravity to explain the corrections. And while he was at it, offered time and space as absolute and uniform. And that was settled reality until Einstein conjured up a weird science of time relative to the observer and a malleable space where the shortest distance between two points isn’t, under all possible conditions, a straight line. Einstein generated still more questions. Now X = (dark matter/energy). Yet, after traveling this centuries long road, Copernicus’s original observation stands.
All scientific theories are to some extent flawed; changing over time and consistently generating questions with no apparent immediate answers. In that respect, they mirror their creators; they evolve. Like Copernicus, Darwin may not have hit one out of the park. Maybe he just nicked the ball and made it to first base on an unintended bunt. But he’s still on base, even if he hasn’t yet scored.
Still, Intelligent Design is a theory with some logic behind it. Its problem is that it does not lend itself to proof nor, for that matter, falsification. It relies solely on rhetorical argument and dogma. As the theory of evolution itself continues to evolve, Intelligent Design theory will increasingly marginalize itself by its dual insistence on the biblical story of creation and on the claim that it has cornered the market on Truth with a capital “T.” Unlike scientific theories, it leaves itself little wiggle room for adaptation. Or for a peaceful co-existence with science. Will the Intelligent Designers entertain new ideas; new ideas that just may alter the story, yet still allow for a designer? Or are the Intelligent Designers committed to a theology so pure that any compromise with an alternate reality pollutes it?
Evolutionary theory is at odds with the traditional biblical story of creation. It may
be crucial to the story that design is born full blown, but the story itself is not a determinant for a theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, as a theory, might allow some room for a more fluid design; not necessarily fully realized at birth, but a design realized over time; not unlike evolution. Who’s to say that evolution itself isn’t guided by an invisible hand? Evolution could very well be the assembly line of God. Evolutionary theory, after all, does not deny the existence of God, only a god who would deny it.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
You attack evolution as a scientific theory and say ID is the answer but don’t give any scientific evidence. If you want ID to replace evolution then you will need to evidence that example more than what evolution has done. It should not be hard to do and all theories has to go through this process and calling the science community anti science because they will not let ID become a discussing in science class room is dishonest. The snowball earth took over 25 years to become a valid theory because the evidence was not there at the time it was brought up. I dont remember the scientist name but he did not complain and go to the media about how unfair science has become. He just went out and found the evidence to make this scientific theory valid. Show the evidence and you can get the theory in too. But I dont think you want to put the work in.
“Cintelligent designism”
March 7th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
WOOO HOOOO!!!!
I am laughing with glee!!!
I am shouting for joy over “Expelled”.
How awesome and FINALLY… a chance for kids to hear another theory.
Thank you Ben Stein, thank you GOD!!!!!
I know, I know…I’m stupid and all that (to some). I don’t care. Believe me, I’ve heard it all my life. All the anger and belittling. I never picked a debate and will never win one because I’m “uneducated” but all I care is that there is now a HUGE voice going nation and worldwide about the evolution/design debate. The more debate, the more that young and old minds can visit or revisit the whole question again And that is awesome!!!
WOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Haha, pseudocreationist melodrama at its best. The producers are like Gandhi, or Jesus, crusading for all that is good against the evil Nazi darwinists. I demand that the cover art for the DVD release be of Ben Stein stabbing an American flag, in self defense, through the heart of a Hitler-Darwin amalagamation.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:45 am
philip Says:
March 7th, 2008 at 2:44 am
“I guess we can add Stupidity to that ever growing list of Atheisism…
Thanks Bob, Your doing great! Keep up the good work. We IDers love your imput…
____________________
Bob the Atheist Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
‘Everyone knows the world was created by a magical soup that magically appeared and magical lightning striking a magical mud puddle that magically produced life forms that magically knew how to reproduce and so on and so on! Now that’s a believable scenario science says so! And for those saying that it’s impossible - Frankenstein would like a world with you. It not only can happen, it DID happen and Frankenstein is PROOF! So up your nose with a rubber hose you dumb God believers!
Flying spaghetti monster believing fools! ROTFLMAO!’ ”
It only takes a little prick to pop a gas bag.
Philip is so clueless that he doesn’t understand that “Bob the Atheist” is an ID believer trying to be clever by aping his juvenile ignorant view of an atheist.
“I guess we can add Stupidity to that ever growing list…” oh, the irony.
Pop!
March 8th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Ben, you are truly an idiot. Richard Dawkins would have won all of your money (reference to his Comedy Central show 10 years ago). All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ARGH!
March 8th, 2008 at 1:09 am
The author of the above “critique” of Expelled, Jack Cashill, is a rightwingnut creationist hack who wrote a put down book about California (1 in 7 Americans live in CA and if it was country, would be the world’s 8th largest economy) and an essay on why creative people are destructive to their communities and culture. He also directly implied that the recent fires in California were caused by radical eco arsonists when there were absolutely no clues or proof giving any indication that it was even a remote possibility. In fact one of the worst fires was started accidently by a young boy.
In other words, he is a gas bag with an agenda.
Pop!
March 8th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Thanks admin for repairing the blog.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Um, but where is it a free speech issue? I mean no action was taken against any of the people in this film — they took the position that continued ignorance should be the goal of scientists, and were thought to be counter to the goals of their various organizations who get money by pushing back the boundaries of ignorance. As a result, what happened? Some of them didn’t pursue funding, and didn’t get rewarded in the manner of people who did get funding. Some of them, working under contract, didn’t see enthusiam for getting a new contract. Some of them were told to stay out of areas of the building which they never originally had a right to be in. Free speech doesn’t mean having others opinions of you be completely isolated from your speech — it means they don’t shut you up.
By saying working scientists can’t criticize non-working scientists, by comparing not promoting someone who didn’t show merit in a meritocracy to Nazi murders, by invoking Orwellian double-speak where every term in science has to be twisted to try and squeeze in one religious view into the foreground — those are ugly attempts to bully away the free speech rights of others.
The war in Iraq has cost Americans $10,000 per capita which many Americans blame the coziness of the television-enriched preachers and the Republican right wing. ID is more of this unholy mix of religion and politics and like the quixotic search for Al Queda in the one secular country, the ID tries to glue together the trivial and meaningless in an attempt to never say that they were wrong. If ID were science, it would have progressed beyond Paley, just like Evolution has progressed far beyond Darwin, and gravitation far beyond Newton.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:22 am
hey sam,
the same can be rightly said of the philosophy of naturalism. naturalistic evolutionism is religious in nature, but can also be studied as a scientific model of origin. creationism is religious in nature and a legitimate scientific model, too.
ID on the other hand is a scientific theory. it is observable and can be falsified by experimentation.
i don’t understand why those who KNOW what they are doing is ultimately meaningless (a cruel cosmological reality in their minds); continue in doing so!
like: communicating logically; reasoning; doing science; or even thinking at all. not to mention struggling to survive.
you would make a great candidate for the ultimate nirvana(do you like vegetables?).
“toothless”
March 8th, 2008 at 8:58 am
hey katie,
i’m guessing you are confusing variations among species-horizontal, limited, bidirectional change-with evolution. darwin saw variations among species and admitted he was imagining evolution or common descent from that point on. evolutionism is a scientific model, not a scientific theory, much less a scientific fact.
ID is a scientific theory. irreducibly complex machines can only be designed and constructed by an intelligent, purposeful being such as man. natural processes can not achieve the irreducible complexity we observe in living systems. therefore, they were intelligently designed.
NOTE: it is observable; it is falsifiable (if it can be shown by experimentation that natural processes CAN design and build irreducibly complex machines, then ID would be effectively falsified).
the language of “life” is a beautiful thing: G-C-A-T
G od C reated A ll T hings
“toothless”
March 8th, 2008 at 10:54 am
The dead eyes and hopelessness in body language of the man in the photo above is adequate evidence for me, that I don’t want to be “one of them”. I’ve seen millions like him, Zombies stoned on the neurotoxin of Darwinism.
Even to believe only in the POSSIBILITY of DESIGN would be better than such a fate. Further, that no athiestic-Darwinist can PROVE his view, and that its claims are so incredibly statistically unlikely, leaves me with the view that DESIGN IS PLAUSIBLE.
It is astounding that, after decades of favorable treatment of Darwinism by Government, The Media and Academia, the most minor of steps to the contrary view are met with such vitriol. Comments like those of Glen Davidson show that The Zombies of Darwinism are incapable of nothing more than regurgitating and spewing the foul smelling vitriol they’ve ingested for so many years. Hey, that’s what Zombies do.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
They are bribing schools to send students to see the movie:
Generous donations can be awarded to schools according to the number of movie ticket stubs they turn in. By accepting this challenge, your school could be awarded a donation up to $10,000, just for bringing your kids to see this film!Your school will be awarded a donation based upon the number of ticket stubs you turn in. That structure is as follows:
0-99 ticket stubs submitted = $5 per ticket stub
100-299 ticket stubs submitted = $1,000 donated to your school
300-499 ticket stubs submitted = $2,500 donated to your school
500 ticket stubs submitted = $5,000 donated to your school
Each school across the nation will be competing for the top honor of submitting the most ticket stubs with that school having their $5,000 donation matched for a total donation of $10,000!
In other words, the producers of Expelled are propaganda gas bags.
Pop!
March 8th, 2008 at 11:13 am
grcac Says:
March 7th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Wow, the open-mindedness of the science geeks on this site is astonishing. For what it’s worth, I consider myself reasonably intelligent and with more schooling than the average bear. Undergrad in Math and Masters in Finance and Information Tech. Good grades through all and I consume books on all subjects, at least 2 a week.
Excellent, then you’re acquainted with reading and presumably research. And, I would hope, you are certainly aware of the dangers of quoting out of context - as that is usually pretty well covered in the lower level english composition classes and should have been reinforced by having to produce research “term” papers thereafter. Now, are you really comfortable with: 1) quote mining Darwin - taking select quotes out of context in order to make it seem as if he’s saying something completely different than what he is actually saying, and 2) the fact that Darwin made his statements in the mid to latter 19th century and we are now well under way in the 21st century. Things have changes and you may not be aware of the current understanding of the fossil record (not a subject usually covered extensively in the educational disciplines that you mentioned.)
I would hope that you are as honest as you are well educated and realize the shortcomings of your approach. I would highly recommend a most recent book on the subject of the fossil record:
Prothero, Donald R., 2007. Evolution, What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. Columbia University Press. pp. 381. (easily available at Amazon or Border’s Books)
Open mindedness and honesty are two way streets.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Sorry, the following lead paragraph should have been a block quote from grcac:
March 8th, 2008 at 11:21 am
# philip Says:
March 7th, 2008 at 2:39 am
It would probably be a great idea that when admonishing others not to
March 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am
It would probably be a great idea that when admonishing others not to Ad hominem, that you should not Ad hominem.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am
test reply
March 8th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Ben Stein is such an idiot.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Personally, I can’t possibly take anything Dawkins says seriously. His childish ignorance of the subject he intends to expose as erroneous is shocking. The only thing he exposes is his own lack of knowledge. He makes outrageous statements based on his own misconceptions and thinks they are valid when he started with a misconception to begin with. The only people who take Dawkins seriously are those as ignorant and ill informed as himself. Sadly, this includes a very large portion of the human race, who are not capable of thinking for themselves and are more interested in watching TV than investigating issues like this for themselves. Dawkins was raised in the polluted vapors of Anglicanism, which is a false theology of the State. It is little wonder that he could see the errors of this purely human invention, but instead of looking for Truth, he simply rolled all religion and God into one indistinguishable blob and threw the whole thing out as garbage. He truely has ‘thrown the baby out with the bath water’. I pity this empty-headed and poison-hearted little worm. He is proof that some portion of the human being did evolve from monkeys. Indeed, he has evolved very little and he thinks just like a monkey. Anyone who has a competent understanding of Catholic theology will read Dawkins’ works as ‘Tragic comedy’. It’s incredibly entertaining to witness him constantly dropping the universe on his toe, but it’s also sad to realize that so many souls will be lost because of his influence in the world. Our primary responsibility is to educate ourselves so the deadly smoke billowing out of the smokestacks of modern ‘academia’ don’t overwhelm our ability to think for ourselves.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Why can’t religion remain religion and science remain science. They’re two separate things. If you want your children to learn Religion, send them to religious ed. Children learn science at school. Science never claims to be religion in school- science has never attempted to disprove the existence of God. It only talks about what there is physical evidence for. and yes, there is physical evidence for all 3 kinds of evolution.
I’m sorry, but the two classical proofs for the existence of God: convergence of probabilities and the illative sense do not rely on physical reproducable evidence; therefore it’s not science, it’s faith.
I’m just sad to think this film will convince many people of this country that “intelligent design” is science, when it’s actually neither “smart,” nor “new.”
it’s all sounds very misguided thus far.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Hey Glen Davidson, I read your book. IT SUCKS!
March 8th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
The film makers have gone out of their way to limit preview showings to groups and individuals who, for religious, ideological, and political reasons, will be reassured by its message. This is for a “documentary” arguing against the “close-mindedness” of mainstream science! Irony, anyone?
March 8th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
This is irony at its best.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
—–Geoffrey writes, “After all, there’s one thing that we know is beyond the scope of the material world: the phenomenon of self-awareness. Like all of mankind’s other pursuits, I think it’s best to start here when considering the question of intelligent design………”
—-“Science is the study of how material processes operate. Let’s keep it that way, lest it cease to be science. I am completely against someone claiming that they are using “science” to prove or disprove God. They are engaging in philosophy, not science.
—–“Saying that science supports the existence or non-existence of God makes just about as much sense as saying that the Mona Lisa implies that eating a balanced breakfast every morning reduces the amount of dentist appointments you need. There’s no logical connection.”
I agree with you that anyone who tries to prove the existence of God is engaging in philosophy not science. Since ID does not presume to do that, your objection hardly seems relevant. With all due respect, that is a “strawman” argument. I submit that the best place to start is with the methodology itself. Intelligent design simply analyzes patterns in data and detects the EFFECTS of intelligent agency. The identity of the agent is inscrutable. So your point about “self awareness,” is, once again, irrelevant.
The methods used in the design inference are the same as those used in many other sciences, such as archeology, assignments of patents, and forensic science. Whether a field of study is a science or not is determined by its methodology, not by its implications or the perceived motives of the researcher. “Specified Complexity” and “Irreducible Complexity” are both scientific terms. Otherwise, ID critics would not be able to use those same terms to argue against it.
Some, for example, have argued against “irreducible complexity” by suggesting that the complexity found in a bacterial flagellum is reducible. Others have argued against “specified complexity” by attacking its mathematical models. In both cases, it is application rather than the fact of the science that is being challenged.
Notice, also that these same critics first accused ID of bootlegging religion into the science, even though the methodology itself does not allow for that possibility. Indeed, that is still going on at this site. That means that [A] they have not bothered to investigate the methodology or [B] they cannot differentiate between a religious presupposition and a design inference, or [C] they have an agenda.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Look I graduated in the top 5 percent of my class. I’ve been inducted to the National Honor Society. Fine, you can bring “Intelligent Design” into schools. Just keep it out of my SCIENCE classes. You can’t force religion on anyone. After going to CLASS go to church. Forget this movie; instead, watch what Penn and Teller had to say about it.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
There is a reason why IDers are not accepted in the scientific community, and it is because there is no empirical evidence directly showing the evidence of a higher power. Because of this, Occam’s Razor allows us to not bother with such notions until evidence is presented.
In regards to such claims of the consciousness and self-aware nature of mankind being not material go highly unwarranted. The “free will”, consciousness and the mind are entirely neurological constructs. There have been countless studies and evidence showing not just the correlation but the causation of these ‘phenomenon’ by the brain (most notably the frontal cortex). A simple study can be done with seeing the effects of Alcohol on the self-aware status of man. (Drink enough of it and you wont be aware very long.)
Surely, everyone is entitled to their opinion and may present it to the public. But the burden of proof lies on those who make the claims and so far those who lobby in support of Intelligent Design have no grounds for the assumptions they make. Many are found spouting off the bible as if it were fact and hold this as their core evidential backbone without looking at the sources. The bible is a book which was written thousands of years ago by common people: farmers, shepherds and poets. This should not be taken in higher regard then documents and evidence established by highly researched and educated scientists.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I really had a higher opinion of Ben Stein before he got involved in this movie. It is amazing that there are actually supposedly smart people out there that honestly do not know the difference between the scientific method and their faith in a supernatural being. Science is a testable ongoing ever correcting endeavor, while faith is steeped in pat answers and dogma which cannot be proved or disproved through observation….hence you must “accept it on faith”. Fortunately for the Western World, the theory (please look up the definition of theory) of evolution has proven itself over and over and is accepted worldwide alongside other theories still under study, like gravity. Please, believe what you want in your church, but don’t try passing your faith off as science. Thank you.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Here’s a challenge. Please take it.
Name one advancement - in technology, medicine, etc. - that has benefitted mankind that depends on whether Darwin’s theories are correct or not. Just one.
I thought science was based on the scientific method - which I do believe indludes observation. Nobody, no matter how smart they think they are, will observe the origin of life on earth. It isn’t going to happen again. No — even making it happen in a lab doesn’t count. THAT WOULD BE INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
No, origins is about presenting models to explain what we all see - even the “ignorant” sees the same T-Rex bone as the “scientist.” Pick your model, the one that seems to explain things best by your reckoning. But don’t claim that models outside of Darwin are somehow less scientific. Science is about observation and experimentation, not just anything sort of connected to people in white coats doing cool stuff.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Geoffrey, although you expressed yourself well, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that science should steer clear of immaterial answers for the formation of life.
If we took that approach, should we also have stopped searching when it became evident that nuclear forces had no physical (material) explanation? Should we stop thinking and learning only because we are afraid of the answers? Must we force arbitrary limits on truth?
I believe that the creation of life can and should be approached from both sides. If they happen to meet in the middle, great. If not, that’s great too, as long as we didn’t misrepresent observations to force false conclusions. There is no reason not to investigate the immaterial aspects of life from both the scientific side AND from the philosophical or theistic side.
To do otherwise is to imply a falsehood as the only remaining “truth”. One of the reasons that Darwinism got so far off the tracks was that they started with the intent to PROVE a purely Materialistic and Atheistic version of what they thought could have happened. It turned out to be flawed and mathematically impossible, but the reason for the mistakes was the slant.
The only thing I oppose is to avoid truth in order to promote a certain pre-conceived bias. Whether that bias is theistic or atheistic, I oppose it. There should be no manipulating the definition of science to stifle scientific investigation. Science is the pursuit of the truth using experimentation, observations and deductions. Any limitations placed only derail the truth.
I say keep searching for the truth.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Katie in #21, I admire your intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness. I totally agree with you when you say: “At this point in time, evolution is no more a theory than the earth revolving around the sun. The real question to be probed is did evolution on earth come about as purely chance, or has it been guided and begun from a divine spark.”
THAT is the essential question. I think some of the Darwinists onboard came here expecting a bunch of yahoos thumping Bibles and saying “I didn’t come from no dang monkey!” and the sort of thing Clarence Darrow faced.
Most of us have simply looked at Darwinism again and again and just can not find a way around the scientific and mathematical impossibilities of the theory. It is also primarily a flaw of logic.
Moreover, it does appear that life formations occur purposefully. This is testable and is being proven in ongoing evidence of evolution. It is no secret that freewill intelligent thought can cause movement of muscle matter and formations of brain matter. Plants grow wherever they need to in order to reach nutrients or water. Living things do not seem to form randomly.
Moreover, consciousness had to have existed at the very onset of life. Scientists have created amino acids but they have found time and time again that they can not create life from non-life. This should be no surprise.
This consciousness that existed at the onset of life had to have been more intelligent than any human has ever been. It also needed to have the ability to manipulate matter, an ability that consciousness still has. This consciousness also seems to have an intention of maintaining life.
Genetic codes are mathematically inconceivable and absolute concrete evidence of intelligent cause. It is unclear HOW they control matter, but they are certainly tied into the equation. We also don’t know how things replicate or how cells joined together to cooperate in multi-cellular beings.
The sooner we break down the walls that attempt to stop the thought process that honestly addresses these questions, the further advanced we will be scientifically.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:52 am
It’s been well documented regarding the devious tactics used to obtain interviews as well as the screening efforts to avoid any negative reaction to the film. We haven’t seen the film and it has two strikes against it. If you wish to report that the editing procedures of this film are moral, then we shall see. Justifiably, I am skeptical.
I realize that this film’s goal is to raise the level of awareness for the idea of intelligent design. I hope you fail miserably, but I won’t try to stop it.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Being familiar with Dr. Dawkins work, my guess it that he meant that an extra-terrestrial influence was more likely than a divine one. However, he would then claim that those beings evolved as well and were not created by a designer.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Where was this secret screeing?
I have seen NO evidence that IT EVER TOOK PLACE!
March 9th, 2008 at 7:47 am
I would add, that IF there was a screeing in Kansas City, then it was in someone’s BASEMENT!
PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE THAT IT TOOK PLACE!
March 9th, 2008 at 10:11 am
For Goodness’ sake natural selection is nothing more or less than a MECHANISM of life…anyone who thinks it threatens or usurps God’s place in the world probably has a childish and immature understanding of God in the first place.
Peace be with You. Ruth.
March 9th, 2008 at 11:46 am
This movie, this website and the blog on this website is going to prove Ben’s point. Persecution, heckling and repercussions will abound here. I personally believe in a loving and intelligent Creator who made us in his image. Therefore those who act in a loving way towards those that disagree are reflecting the One who has the greatest Heckler of all time pointing a finger at him daily. Why not believe in evolution? Then you don’t owe God anything. Not your life, not respect and definately not worship. Who wins from supporting that? The Great Heckler.
March 9th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Moderator: I need to correct that post. Please do not post it. I will resend the correct one.
March 9th, 2008 at 11:49 am
This movie, this website and the blog on this website is going to prove Ben’s point. Persecution, heckling and repercussions will abound here. I personally believe in a loving and intelligent Creator who made us in his image. Therefore those who act in a loving way towards those that disagree are reflecting Him. God has had to deal with the greatest Heckler of all time pointing a finger at him daily who has reason for people to belive in evolution. If they do then they do not owe God anything. Not their lives, not their respect and definately not their worship. Who wins from supporting that? The Great Heckler.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
A poll question for the group. I am interested in responses from fellow IDists, but also from the Creationists and Darwinists.
In regards to the relationship between consciousness and living things, which do you believe to be true:
A. Consciousness controls the matter and/or energy within living things.
B. Matter “evolved” or otherwise created consciousness within animated things.
C. Consciousness just happens to be in things that move and think, but neither causes the other.
D. Both A & B. It works both ways sometimes.
E. None of the above. There is no consciousness. It is an illusion.
F. None of the above. Consciousness is in everything, including non-living things.
G. Other answer for the relationship between consciousness and living things.
If the religious among you choose to replace the word “consciousness” with “soul”, “spirit” or “God”, feel free, but please keep your answer scientific, meaning backed by evidence or logical reasoning, not just faith-based “God did it.” or the “Bible says so.” which doesn’t explain anything scientifically.
For the Materialists among you that choose B or E, please explain a mechanism for doing this, as simply saying “I don’t believe in Spaghetti Monsters” also doesn’t explain anything.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Totally awesome Ben!
Historically when the mob doesn’t like what is being said they try to run you out of town. They did it to the apostles.
There was a wise judge in the Bible, (Gamaliel) who wasn’t a Christian and didn’t necessarily believe in Christianity, who warned the Sanehedrian (Jewish court) to leave the Christians alone. He said and I’ll paraphrase it so no one freaks out if I refer to the Scripture, basically he said, ‘Look, leave them alone. If what they are saying is from men (not inspired) then it will fail on its own. But IF it is from God you will not be able to overthrow them, otherwise you might be found fighters against God. Sounds intelligent to me.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I would love to hear anyone that believes that humans DO NOT share a common ancestry explain these two videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Of course the creationists (a.k.a. ID-advocates) will just make fun of me, or say that it proves nothing, or say God (or ID) wanted for it to look like we are related to apes.
Enjoy
March 9th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Why is it easier for any person, moreover a learned man of science, to believe in an alien creator on another planet, but not in a compassionate, merciful, just God? Have you seen God? No. Have you seen the alien? Of course not. So, why can you believe in one far out story but not in another seemingly “far out” story? How arrogant to believe yourself more knowledgeable, more enlightened, than millions and millions of people who have believed in God over thousands of years. Do you say your experience with emptiness and disbelief trumps real-life experiences with the divine? Do you say your intelligence is greater than that of say, Sir Isaac Newton’s, Galileo’s or Copernicus’? “He who thinks he stands, beware lest he fall.”
March 9th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Inference of design can be seen in symmettry as well. When symmettry occurs, there has to be some reason for it. Luck will NOT do it and neither will survival.
You have two complete sets of hammer, anvil and stirrup that line up not-so-coincidentally with your auditory canal, eardrum and auditory nerves. Although the existence of even one ear strongly evidences design, random chance could account for one set if you throw the prohibitive mathematical odds out the window. Still, a matching set requires design.
Teeth take a bite out of Darwinism. Fossil evidence shows that teeth don’t come and go one at a time. They come in pairs, or more often, in fours. This requires planning to match top and bottom, left and right. The engineering must include spatial instructions and general patterns of shapes in teeth needed for biting or those more likely used for chewing.
You could certainly live with just one tooth at a time, moreso than those with one less tooth than you, so survival is no issue. Similarly, a creature with just one eye or one ear would have done just fine survival-wise among others with no eyes or ears. Yet the Cyclops remains as mythological as the Missing Link.
Equally convincing is the fact that teeth do not come and go partially formed. We get them complete with nerves, bloodstream and slicked out enamel finishing. This is evidence of multiple point evolution, and Intelligent Design at work. Full, complete parts ready to use right off the shelf. You can’t get that at WalMart, but your body creates it every time.
Darwinists tend to think of the formation of body parts as an “Operation” board game, where you just plug full bones or organs in. Yes, this is what evidence shows, but it can not be explained by random formation.
No need to evoke irreducible complexity. Virtually any body part - you name it - had to have been designed to exist. Otherwise there are countless trillions of other formations that are equally likely, yet purposeless.
So-called scientists talk about growing taller or bigger as if it is a given, then attribute it to random luck. It is not so simple as that.
Theoretically, a giraffe should no more be able to grow a taller neck than you ought to be able to gradually add a few square feet a year to your home. You would need to destroy the existing walls and add in new wiring, plumbing and insulation each time. It is far easier to do it all at once.
Anytime anything living grows, however, the circulatory, skeletal, muscular, dermatological and nervous systems grow in right along with it. This happens even if you just happened to overeat to obesity. Things are just not forming randomly….ever.
The question is how do body parts form just where they need to, given the overwhelming odds against it? How do they match up right side and left, or with an adjacent bone or tooth? That can only happen if something causes it to happen.
And please, don’t waste our time with that tired and flawed Darwinist “selection” crap. Unless you can show why symmettry is needed for survival you have no answer in “selection”. Please someone with REAL answers.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
In response to the Ingram’s Kansas City review:
http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3540
“As Colorado Confidential reported, in what appears to be the first published review of the film, for all its evolution bashing the film never makes the case for intelligent design nor is there any explanation of the ID orthodoxy.
Our follow up story on the film producers’ press conference also yields the same maddening tendencies — blow a lot of smoke about Darwinism and oppression of scientific thought but then don’t take any legitimate questions from reporters to further the debate.”
March 9th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Dear Glen D, Corey, BtA, Al and all other who choose to adhere to the theory of evolution. May you closed minds be open before you become familiar with and remain as an eternal ‘worm hugger’. Even Dick D. says someone made this mess, although he seems to be thinking out loud like someone who would fail a mandatory drug test. Look at it this way, He believes in you…
March 9th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Apparently Geoffrey has difficulty understanding, as apparently do many atheists, that the growing serious consideration being given the theory by ahteist scientists like Dawkins of ID by extra-terrestrials only begs the question: Who, then, created the extra-terrestrials?
_______________________________________
Geoffrey Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I’ve heard the theory that life was designed by highly evolved aliens from other planets. Surprisingly, it’s taken more seriously than you might think.
March 9th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
My apologies to Geoffrey for my earlier post. While my point is entirely valid that for atheists to give serious consideration, as apparently does Dawkins, to ID so long as the designers are alien (extra-terrestrial), then they must logically consider who designed the aliens, themselves, yet it would appear that I mistook Geoffrey’s views as atheistic, as well.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:19 am
I find it amazing how people will so happily use the products of science, but still fight science as a threat to their lifestyles and morals. It’s due to science that we have the internet, computers, cars, airplanes, use of electricity, refrigeration, electric light, telephones, satellites, televisions, etc. These things are all man made in order to make life more comfortable. Can you imagine life today without electric light?
I guess one could be selective and only have something against biology, which tends to cause the greatest threat to creationism, but here again people benefit from biological science by extending and saving life. The average human lifespan is continuously increasing as science discovers new cures for various diseases. Polio, smallpox and tuberculosis are just about wiped out. You can thank science for that, not God. In fact, if creationism is true, God must have created the nasty virus and bacteria that caused so much death and suffering to begin with. Why would He do that? He would have to be one incredibly cruel supernatural being.
But even here I guess ID advocates want to narrow it down specifically to evolution. Again, there are benefits which come out of this. We know today what the building block of life is; DNA, and how DNA is produced. A major breakthrough in science, which helps us further in the study of the human body and in fighting inherited, genetic diseases.
We know what causes these genetic disorders; genetic mutation. By knowing the cause a cure can be sought. The other thing DNA does is it can be used to prove who your father and mother is. It can identify who you are related to directly as well as going back in your ancestry. And it also proves that chimpanzees are our closest living non-human cousins. There may be some gaps in fossil records (which are constantly being filled), but DNA, the building blocks of life, proves that humans and chimps share a common ancestor millions of years ago. It’s a proven fact. If you choose to ignore facts and choose to believe in ID, please feel free to do so, but keep it to yourself, in your own home. Forcing ID into the public school without an ounce of evidence is wrong. If it is to be taken seriously, there must be factual evidence. As simple as that.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:42 am
I am a believer of Jesus notion of truth and life on this Earth. I believe there is great discourse here on this website. But I also believe that the way we treat each other, with humble respect and kindness, or not, is ultimately what makes us intelligent, or not.
I’ve read much of the information on this site, and I am intrigued by the research that is put into this film. Also, I want to see what Richard Dawkins said in context, to be fair. However, if he did in fact say that intelligent design must have come from beings from another planet, then that is highly illogical, and the power of logic will overwhelm most of his intellectual thought and cast a very large shadow over anything he says, in my opinion.
I believe this movie will bring out many people who have an ego at stake in this discussion. I admit I am one of them. I want to be the one smart enough to prove the other people wrong. Maybe even the world wrong. However, I believe I don’t know anything. There are many rules based of probability and chance that I count as knowledge, such as the Sun rising every morning, but ultimately, I believe, that most, if not all of what I “know” is simply belief. There is a chance the Sun could go out, albeit slim, but enough to leave a shred of doubt.
It is also my belief that ultimately most if not all of what other people “know” is simply belief. Why? Because the more someone examines what makes something provable, the more they might realize that the very foundations of what is considered to be grounds for provability seem to be unprovable at the moment. For example, what is light?
I believe the dogmatic adherence of “Church scientists” who persecuted Galileo, to a closed minded outlook on life, was wrong, and unwise. Also, I believe the modern Darwinistic establishment has got a lot in common with the Church of that time period when it comes to repressive ideas. I believe there has been an interesting and ironic reversal.
So now, I believe we should learn from history, and try to see what atheists and theists can teach each other. I think there are fundamental benefits for each side. For atheists, they get to remain open minded to probabilities, an inalienable characteristic to human scientific thought, in my opinion, and might indeed do humanity a favor if they can prove God does not exist (if that is indeed true, I would like to “know” of course), and theists would get a chance to be taken seriously by establishments they take so very seriously for whatever reason, and while being taken seriously, possibly save people’s souls, so to speak, because if the theists are right, then there is a lot of research left to be done.
Ultimately, I believe it’s up to theists to treat atheists kindly and compassionately, and lovingly, because if you do indeed believe in God, than I assume you must believe God loves humans. Therefore, love the atheists, and let’s call them what they really are theists… just like you. Curious, eager, intelligent, in search of truth, desperate to not face the empty void and in doing so feel completely lost. I think the point is, “we look through a glass darkly”. The key is, “we”.
I look forward to watching this movie and analyzing what’s being said. I do have to say that I have felt stupid sometimes asking teachers questions in class. One time my teacher was teaching us about particle physics and he said “and this is why it works.” I raised my hand, he allowed me to speak, and I asked, “don’t you mean this is how it works?” He responded, “no this is why it works.” I was baffled as to how, by explaining the steps and mechanisms behind the intricate motions, what he said would at all explain “why” the theory worked that way and not some other way. I was told to stay after class, and he said that in his class there was no time, and it was absolutely not the place, to have such a discussion. I relented out of respect, but I still wonder to this day why he didn’t relent in class and simply say “yes, sorry, this is how this works”.
Looking forward to the film. I won’t like it too much if it simply makes atheists look like idiots, or at all tries to paint them as anything other than they are.
Thanks for the discussion,
Josh Harris
March 10th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Glen Davidson’s over the top rave about this film has given me an inkling of what is actually the basis of this film. It certainly would be stretching credibility that Darwinism directly lead to the Holocaust. This week’s “der Spiegel” (the German equivalent of “Newsweek”) had a long article discussing the Holocaust, noting Daniel Goldhagen’s book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” (der Spiegel estimated that there were approximately 200000 Germans directly or indirectly involved in the Holocaust), and didn’t give Darwin any of the blame at all. If Darwinism preaches “survival of the fittest”, which is a misnomer, because everything living will, with 100% certainty, eventually die, then the Jews must be the fittest, because they managed to survive in Europe despite centuries of repression and pogroms. If anything, if you are going to start with the Holocaust, then logically, the continuation should have been about the evils of the Christian Church (it was only in 1962 that the Catholic Church officially declared that the Jews didn’t have any responsibility for the death of Christ). The film just seems to be a reheating of Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box”. Irreducible complexity does exist, but it is one way only. For example, the coagulation cascade is complicated, and if there is a genetic error in even one of the parts, then that does result in very serious consequences in the unfortunate sufferers (such as haemophilia or Christmas disease, which has no festive connotations). The evolutionary development of a complex system doesn’t require that each component has to come into existence complete and all at once; all that is necessary is that one component develops once in one organism, and provided it does what is required, even if poorly, it will be better than not having anything at all, and the lucky individual will have an advantage over all of its fellows and have more offspring, so the new trait will spread throughout the species. Subsequent steps just require adding components and modifying each component more effective one small step at a time. The problem is that most people don’t have any idea about the rules of probability. Several years ago, I read an article in a British newspaper about a man who won a first division in Lotto, and then continued to play the same combination, and incredibly won again 5 months later. The journalist claimed that the odds of winning once was 5 million to one against, and the odds of winning twice was 25 (British) billion to one against, which is of course nonsense. 5000000:1 against is the odds of playing once and winning, 25 billion:1 against is the odds of playing just twice and winning both times. The odds of winning once if you play weekly is much better (although still dismal, you’d need to play for 15000 years before you have even a 50:50 chance of winning). The evolutionary development of complex processes and structures in numerous small steps is like having millions if not billions of Lotto players; one will eventually “win” and develop something useful. In future generations, when the new trait has spread through the population, an improvement has to occur just once again, and the process will continue. The odds against a useful mutation in one given individual is negligible but the chance of it occurring once in a large population is a certainty, provided each step is small and beneficial.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:48 am
So, what happened?
March 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
What does a high school (US grades 9-12) lesson plan for Intelligent Design look like? I’d love to see one. I would assume the tests are pretty easy, assuming of course that the answer always is “God did it!” or “Because that’s the way God made it!”. It would definitely be a way of improving our low test scores! In my humble opinion, Big Science shouldn’t waste it’s time trying come up with answers by making hypotheses, doing research, conducting experiments, etc. It would be much easier to just start with the answer and work backwards.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Quote:
“I especially liked Dawkins comment that man may have been designed by superior creatures from another world. If this doesn’t show his biases, you really are looking the other way.”
It also shows a remarkable internal inconsistency in his basic argument:
He admits that perhaps Life could not have randomly evolved on Earth without the help of Alien Scientists – but then WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
Perhaps our alien scientists who molded Life on earth where themselves created by OTHER alien scientists – but where did they come from?
So Dawkins’ argument seems to condense down to this:
“Somewhere in the Universe life started randomly – once. But everywhere else it needed a scientist to help it along.”
But even this misses the larger point:
Even if life did evolved “randomly” – what do you call the creative force that made it possible?
March 10th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
i read this book with a fair amount of interest, and was disappointed. Collins makes a lot of clumsy points that don’t follow from one another, and totally fails to “present evidence for belief”, as the tagline says. his main points are rephrasings of points Lewis made before, and don’t actually support his case. it’s a lovely biography though, and i’d recommend it as such, just not a very good argument for getting religion.
with regards to this blog, when Mr Cashill mocks Professor Dawkins for making the case that an Intelligent Designer would most likely be a naturally occurring species from elsewhere in the Universe, he makes quite a bad mistake. life apparently can be designed (Venter et al seem to be coming up with interesting research about this) - but it is much, much more plausible that the Designer is itself a natural species from within our own Universe than a supernatural entity from a hypothesised, non-material, non-observable state outside nature itself.
it’s likely that life exists on other planets, it’s possible that intelligent life exists. we know it is possible to genetically engineer life.
we don’t know if “spirit” exists. we don’t know if a “spirit world” exists. we don’t know if there exists means by which spirit from the spirit world could create matter in