Rating:
4.5 out of 5
By Vic Holtreman
Short version: Your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design.
Yes, I know everyone is looking for reviews of Morgan Spurlock’s Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? Here’s a spoiler: He doesn’t find Osama. His movie is funny and entertaining, but I think this film will generate far more debate and discussion and is as relevant to what’s happening today as Spurlock’s movie.
Having said that, I believe that writing this review is almost a pointless exercise, but I’ll write it anyway. Why? Because your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design.
I’ve been scouring a few sites looking to see what people thought of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and it is expectedly getting skewered. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 9% at the time of this writing and over at IMDB.com it’s sitting at 3.3/10. The interesting thing about the rating over at IMDB is that 88% of the votes are either a “1″ or a “10,” with very few in between. I’m guessing that most of the votes on the “1″ side are from people who haven’t even seen the film.
|
|
Much like the reviews and viewer opinions of Michael Moore’s psuedo-documentaries or Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” are influenced by whether the person in question agrees with the views espoused in those films, that will be the situation here in even more stark relief. Considering the fact that most reviewers over at RT loved those films, it’s no surprise to me that Ben Stein’s film was skewered.
I don’t blame anyone – it’s just about impossible to judge a documentary on a hot-button subject without bringing personal bias into it.
A couple of the eventual items that will be highlighted in the movie are hinted at with the opening credits, which are made up of what looks like old archival footage from World War II. The movie credits are blended in to look like they are part of the original footage, which I thought was kind of cool. Ben Stein walks onto the stage of a crowded auditorium to talk about the fact that no matter the era, freedom is the one constant that has defined America throughout its history.
From there he goes on to expand on his main point: No, it’s not that Intelligent Design theory is superior to Darwinism… but that the mere mention of I.D. by someone in an academic position can lead to not only denial of tenure, but to outright censure and loss of their position. You read that right: not the teaching of the theory – just the mention of it as a possible valid theory.
He interviews a number of academicians and scientists who have met the fates described above and cites what led to their firings, etc.. Stein also interviews those in institutes of higher learning that came pretty close to visibly spitting whenever they were questioned about the topic.
One of the things that has people up in arms about this film is that Ben Stein draws a connection between Darwinism and Nazi Germany. He says quite clearly that he is NOT implying that Darwinists are Nazis – only that Hitler was influenced by the theory and sought to “accelerate” human evolution by eliminating the weak, infirm and supposedly inferior races.
I understand Stein’s reason for including this in the film – more than one athiest in the film emphasized the belief in no ultimate moral standards. The logical conclusion from that is that due to the idea of moral relativism (”well, maybe that was considered bad 50 years ago but times have changed”) is that eventually we could go beyond abortion and voluntary euthanasia to selecting people to be euthanized “for the good of mankind/the human race/our country” with no guilt of sense of wrongdoing.
The problem here is that the idea of a “designed” universe is rejected out of hand, there IS no room for discussion (similar to the global warming debate). If someone disagrees they are shouted down with “idiot/ignorant/stupid” and of course, “creationist.” End of conversation.
As far as I’m concerned, the unadulterated hubris of those in academia in their 100% certainty that there is no God in a universe where so much is still unknown is for lack of another word, galling.
You’re either going to think that Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a huge disinformation campaign of a film and hate it, or you’re going to think that it’s a big eye opener when it comes to the current dangers to our freedom and the discussion of important issues.
On a final note, I’ll be monitoring the comments below carefully. I’ve said before that I have NO problem with people with opposing opinions as long as those opinions are stated in an intelligent and civil manner with no personal attacks. In any case, especially online, I’ve found these discussions pointless as no one is going to change anyone’s opinion on either side.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or if you want more frequent updates follow us on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!
Loading ...
202 Comments
Wow… this is the most intelligent review of the film, I think, that anyone could have written. You are very right. (About the discussions, too.)
This is an absolutely excellent take on the nature of this film, and its purpose. Thank you for a rational, and honest appraisal.
“As far as I’m concerned, the unadulterated hubris of those in academia in their 100% certainty that there is no God in a universe where so much is still unknown is for lack of another word, galling.”
Science is bottom up, not top down. As a scientist I can say, as long as we stick to this principle I’m fine with any hypothesis you toss my way. REPEAT: Science is bottom up, NOT top down. You get NO unfalsifiable presuppositions in science. You support your hypothesis from the bottom up with evidence. Anything else is not science and should be taken with a grain of salt!
Demand evidence! Be VERY skeptical of those who offer you grand ideas without any basis in the real world! Make them produce repeatable, observable, testable evidence! So far the proponents of ID have come away lacking! Cheers!
Darron,
Thanks very much for chiming in with your thoughts in a conversational manner.
Whether ID is right or not, even in science, one does not discount what MIGHT be out of hand, IMHO. It’s the old circular argument:
“Prove to me God exists.”
“No, you prove to me God doesn’t exist.”
As far as I know this will be a deadlocked argument until the end of time. Much like that classic Star Trek episode with the two guys trying to kill each other, one from our universe and the other from an anti-matter universe.
Vic
i enjoyed the Film .
I couldnt help but notice a lot of the alternative theories to ID not onlly had little
evidence to back them up .
they sounded more like science fiction then pure science .
From there he goes on to expand on his main point: No, it’s not that Intelligent Design theory is superior to Darwinism… but that the mere mention of I.D. by someone in an academic position can lead to not only denial of tenure, but to outright censure and loss of their position.
Vic, while Stein states this to be the case, it’s simply not what happened, in any example he puts forth.
I couldnt help but notice a lot of the alternative theories to ID not onlly had little
evidence to back them up .
The thing of it is, Gary, that ID has no evidence, and for that matter no theory, to support it.
It does what it sets out to do despite that I am completely against ID, it was still good.
Also, like Scientology, too many people believe it that don’t entirely understand what its about, and thats why I like this and agree with being able to teach it.
For instance I won’t shove Christianity down my children’s throats, but I also won’t keep them from learning about it and making their own choice about what they believe.
SPOLERS
the loudest opponent of ID was Richard
an evolutinary biologist Dawkins dawkins said that if ID existed it was a highly advanced alien race that seeded the earth with life .
Thats right a bioloogist a scientist who wont believe in an unproven god believes its more likely that it was unproven aliens instead.
We all come from a creator.
That I know. We all have Angels watching out for us.
I’m fairly confident that their is a god (creator).
We don’t need to worship so much as treat each other as equals and not inflict pain.
Just my opinion. And I’ve had a few beers.
There really isn’t any reason one should feel compelled to choose evolution or intelligent design at the expense of the other. One is a scientific theory that explains the ‘how’ and the other is a philosophical theory that takes a stab at explaining the ‘who’. The methods at arriving at these basic questions must be approached from different starting points and through different methods. As someone else mentioned, matters of faith require that you accept certain things as true that cannot be proven, while science demands that a theory be backed up with supporting evidence.
But these are not mutually exclusive domains. A Christian scientist may both believe in God and support the theory of evolution. One supports the “who” and “why”, the other the “how”. As it is, I would be fine with ID being taught in a class on philosophy, but I can understand why classes based on the use of the scientific method can make a good case as to why ID does not belong in those specific classes.
Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Yes, but there are also holes in Newton’s understanding in formulating his laws on gravity – only discovered through more recent discoveries on how gravity works. However, Newton’s theories are still taught. Why? Because they are accurate enough to be used in virtually all practical situations and they still corroborate to observable demonstrations. The presence of holes does not automatically sink a theory. Human scientific understanding consists mainly of the summary of the best of a set of the least flawed theories currently available. That’s how science needs to work as a discipline.
“The thing of it is, Gary, that ID has no evidence, and for that matter no theory, to support it.” – Jody
That’s why it’s called faith.
On the other hand, does macroevolution, or the “big bang” have any more evidence than ID? No, it doesn’t but they’re allowed to be called “theories”. So either let ID be a theory, or throw them all out and keep science out of it until there is evidence.
“just the mention of it as a possible valid theory.”
The problem I have is this: Intelligent Design has no evidence to support it, therefore it doesn’t meet the scientific definition of a theory. As such, it doesn’t belong in a science class. A philosophy class, sure. A social studies class, maybe. Not a science class.
Now, if its supporters can come up with testable evidence to support their position, I’m willing to consider a change in my position. Until then, though, it’s not science and has no place, in my opinion, in a class dedicated to science.
Beyond that, I don’t care one way or the other what people believe regarding human origins.
Vic:
“Prove to me God exists.”
“No, you prove to me God doesn’t exist.”
Science does have a way out of the circular argument. The next step is for the two to say,
“Let’s make an experiment to determine it, one way or the other.”
Where it all flies off the rails and does a great old-time serial down the canyon is trying to come up with an experiment to test God. Science doesn’t make claims on an area that cannot be tested; it’s like politicians claiming their expertise gives them credibility growing orchids. Thus, if it can’t be experimented on, it’s not considered to be in the bounds of science.
Jersey:
Well, as for the Big Bang, Hubble observed that distant galaxies are moving away from us. Not in any direction, but ALL galaxies moved away from us. And from each other, as well. This created a firestorm and directly challenged the held model of the universe as steady and unchanging. But eventually a theory on the big bang was proposed and experiments, such as finding the microwave background radiation, conducted to test it. A scientific theory with corroborating data, no matter who it upsets, is going to stand on it’s own merits.
Creationists are wrong about the earth being created in 6000 years. The Bible does not teach that. Misinformation is wrong whether it is accidental or on purpose. I think Richard Dawkins knows the facts. What benefit is there in self-deception? Greed and power.
First, gang, thanks for keeping this civil. See? It IS possible.
Kia, Darron, Azure I understand what you’re saying. But what I don’t understand is how (some) scientists will completely take the possibility of God off the table, but then go on to say “well, maybe it was aliens, or molecules riding on the back of a crystal”?
So going back to the experiment example, why are they willing to entertain that way may have been “seeded” by aliens from another planet but it’s completely anathema to them to consider it might have been a creator?
I mean seriously, how is one of those not more science fiction than the other? And that idea of course does nothing more than push the question backwards by one degree… ie. Where did the aliens come from?
I guess my point is similar in theme to what Surma said above: Why is a theory of alien seeding ok to be entertained but not a creator?
Vic
“why are they willing to entertain that life may have been “seeded” by aliens from another planet but it’s completely anathema to them to consider it might have been a creator?”
Because the first could be “science” and the second can never be “science”. I. e., one is “science fiction” and the other is “not science”.
But the hypothesis of “abiogenesis” is much more likely. Of course the movie selectively quotes Dawkins to try to make him look silly.
Well, we’ve hit the semantic problem again. Theory doesn’t mean ‘theory’ in this case. Most people use theory to mean ‘idea’ or speculation. in Science, a theory is a model of something supported by data. Hence, theory of general relativity — we’re pretty sure Einstein was close to how gravity works, but no amount of verification can push a theory into a ‘law’. Same for germ theory of disease, inflationary theory, quantum mechanical theory.
An example of a law would be — ah, the one I know best is involved, sorry — the square-cube law. Well, there’s no theory of it, it’s just a physical relationship about what happens when your mad scientist in a 50’s B-Movie tries to make a dachshund the size of a bus. It don’t work ’cause the poor dog can’t walk.
Your examples of a aliens seeding the earth, microbes delivering life or God forming the biosphere aren’t theories; there’s no evidence one way or the other. Pretty much it’s a guy thinking out loud. And that’s fine. You can come up with some nice hypotheses that way, letting your creativity boil and roil and float. But it’s the difference between saying you want to be president and actually winning an election; you haven’t done the work yet to validate your dream.
This is a big problem with sub-atomic String Theory now. Many physicists argue it’s not a real theory if you can’t experimental validate anything, and string theory’s proposed experiments are so far beyond what we can test now it’s ridiculous. No, sorry string guys, you can’t put your verification of your pet idea off 30 years. Give us something to test now or it’s shelved as ‘possible, unverified’. So the proponents argue with the detractors and probably will until we build something like the Mother of All Hadron Colliders.
I guess my point is similar in theme to what Surma said above: Why is a theory of alien seeding ok to be entertained but not a creator?
Hey Vic,
As stated by onein6billion, it’s because we could possibly test an alien seeding. If they landed here did they leave more than just the building blocks of life? Maybe some ancient life-production factory we could discover? And does our type of life match up with life we eventually find on other planets? Might our galaxy be teaming with life because of these seedings that we could eventually test and compare to our own to validate the hypothesis of alien seeding billions of years ago?
This is all just a playful mind exercise with no basis in fact. There’s absolutely no evidence to support the “alien seeding hypothesis”. And there in lies the problem with ID. Not only is there no evidence to support the “ID Hypothesis”, there aren’t even any falsifiable tests defined to check ID! At least with our little “alien seeding hypothesis” we could come up with some comparitive tests to determine if alien seeding happened or not. With ID you just get this HUGE presupposition: “An Intelligent Designer (GOD) did it”, and then you try to work to make the evidence fit the presupposition. That’s not how science works. Basically, the ID proponents want a free ride AROUND the scientific method. Check out this video by Evolutionary Biologist (and Christian) Ken Miller talking about ID. He says it better than anyone!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc
Cheers! Happy Sunday!
It’s funny how I read some of this. There seems to be an assumption on either side of the debate that ID=God. I’m not going to make that assumption and I would think that any of the scientifically minded would avoid that assumption (or any other assumption) as well.
If (big IF) some could entertain the idea of advanced aliens “seeding” our planet, they just conceded the concept of ID as a possibility of how we got here.
Face it, if were were advanced enough to “seed” all life onto a planet and created “read cloned” ourselves onto said planet, if we told those people that we (the creators) were their creators and they should call us god and angles, what do you think they would call us?
Dawkins admitted in the movie he can accept the concept intelligent design. What he can’t accept is that the intelligent designer is god.
In the bible book of genesis it says of the first six days that the there was morning then evening, the end of a creative day. There was no evening mentioned for the seventh day so we can use further bible evidence to prove we are still in the seventh creative day. Genesis 1:1 has no time limit on the beginning. This event could have taken place over millions of years just as scientists say.
Scientists just need to accept correct information
I think I will get this film when it shows up on Netflix. But I do have an opinion I will express now.
I don’t think Intelligent Design should be taught as science. But I think that when they start the block on Evolution in schools, the teacher ought to read the following statement, “Evolution is a theory and we are teaching it here because there is an abundance of evidence that it is at least mostly correct. But the fact that we are teaching in the classroom should not be construed as a comment on the validity or invalidity of anyone’s religious beliefs.”
That way, we keep religion from intruding on science but we also keep science from intruding on God. I can’t help but think that some people want things both ways: which is to say, “It’s wrong for religion to intrude on science, but I will gleefully attack religious beliefs on the grounds that they aren’t scientific.”
It’s funny how I read some of this. There seems to be an assumption on either side of the debate that ID=God. I’m not going to make that assumption and I would think that any of the scientifically minded would avoid that assumption (or any other assumption) as well.
Hey Dennis, as it pertains to this movie, Ben Stein was on Hannity and Colmes the other night talking about the film, and at the end he was asked to give a summary and stated, “People took our GOD away from us and gave us darwinism. Darwinism doesn’t work; we’d like our GOD back.” Here’s the clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F7Wj6_DLV0M
If you don’t assume that ID=God, then ID could be anything inside or outside this universe, including space aliens, right? Just some as of yet undefined “intelligence”. Unfortunately, I’ve never heard of a supporter of ID who takes this stance. Religion is always right behind the ID proponents. The biggest ID thinktank is the Discovery Institute. If you want to read something scary check out their “wedge strategy” to get religion into government/school/etc. ID is simply a political strategy to insert religion into our lives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Cheers!
“It’s wrong for religion to intrude on science, but I will gleefully attack religious beliefs on the grounds that they aren’t scientific.”
Unfortunately “scientific progress” is very often an attack on religious beliefs. In 1633 Galileo showed evidence that the Sun was the center of the universe and not the Earth. But Biblical teaching states the Earth is the center of everything. The Inquisition, which was run by the Catholic Church, brought him up on heresy charges and he spent the last 10 years of his life under house arrest.
Science is now delving into the chemical makeup of life to see if and how life could spring from non-life. In the next decade or two biochemists will more than likely have an answer to abiogenesis (life from non-life). And, if not, there will be other scientific hypothesis that will be explored! The point is that sooner or later we will have a scientific explanation for life. We humans are very creative and our knowledge of the universe is growing exponentially! It’s crazy to think that there might be someone out there right now putting the pieces together to that age-old question of “where do we come from?”. And I doubt it will be some guy in a temple or church who brings the good news, but rather some nerdy scientist in a white lab coat working late at night in his laboratory. He’ll suddenly lookup, cock his head to the left, and say, “Hrmmm, that’s weird…”
Cheers!
I am planning on seeing this shortly. I think it looks great and I won’t hold my breath on anyone the nets opinion. It will be blown out of proportion and make the movie look horrid.
I think anyone in their right mind should see it for themselves before bring up any questions.
This is in response to Surma’s post. The claim that Mr. Dawkins believes that the earth was seeded by aliens is false. In fact, this claim, like many made in “Expelled” is drawn from the manipulation of footage from the interviews. This happens no less than four other times in the film and is just one other example of the film’s intellectual dishonesty.
Mr. Dawkin’s take on the interview can be found his website, but I have posted an excerpt here:
“Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (”oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn’t rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists’ whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.
This ‘Ultimate 747′ argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment — however implausible — was designed to illustrate intelligent design’s closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don’t think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won’t get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. “What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.” “Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE.” I can’t remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure – that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience).”
I’m a geologist with a Master’s degree circa 1985, so I have always accepted that the fossil record shows an increasing diversity of life forms on earth over time. This is one of, if not the most, important evidences of the biologic evolution of species. But with the much more detailed information we have today about what cells really are, and what an astonishing degree of complexity they possess, there is another objective area of learning, utilized constantly by science, that comes into play here. That is statistical probability. I don’t think there is anyone who can claim to accomodate today’s detailed knowledge of cells into the Darwinian insight of the selection of advantageous mutations advancing the fitness of life for survival. The probability of something as intricate as a cell forming through a random process is, practically speaking, non-existent. Evolution therefore breaks down as an explanation of life’s origin, and this should be acknowledged in the teaching of science in schools, whether in grade school or in universities. This acknowledgement has little to with fortifying any relgion, but with merely analyzing statistical probability. An an illustration of the kind of non-existent probability we’re talking about, how many billions or even trillions of years would it take for mice running over a keyboard to produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare?
So at minimum the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” hits home with this point.
I enjoyed the documentary and it is clear that there really are two distinct world views and that Stein is correct – the “scientific” point of view has totally bought into the atheist, evolutionist position. The result is a culture of death that has lost the integrity of scientific inquiry and embraced the kool-aid of abortion and eugenics. Cheers to Stein for having the courage to call them on it!
Vic said “what I don’t understand is how (some) scientists will completely take the possibility of God off the table”. Actually, even Dawkins doesn’t do so completely; he recently said on “Real Time” he’s only a 6.9 on his one-to-seven scale. This just means he sees no reasonable evidence of the existence for any divinity so far described being other than human psychosis.
As for “Why is a theory of alien seeding ok to be entertained but not a creator”, the answer is: we have solid evidence of life, a planet with life, and more than one planet. It’s not that big a jump to ask if other planets might have life, and then which planet had life first, and whether there’s connection between them. Without comparably solid evidence for God, “God did it” is a much bigger jump.
As far as I can tell, Science relies explicitly on the assumptions of formal Logic (such as via the Robins Axioms) and Mathematics (based these days from the foundations of the Zermelo-Fraenkel set axioms), and an implict assumption of the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis or similar equivalent. Candidate hypotheses are compared to all available evidence via certain formal criteria (see Wallace/Dowe “Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity” and Vitányi/Li “Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity”), and the title belt handed to the reigning champion until the next challenger shows up.
Part of science, thus, is gathering evidence. Repeatable Experimentation is merely a perfectly acceptable way of making sure you can get lots of evidence to support a particular theory; if you feel pain each and every time you hit your thumb with a hammer, that makes it easy for theories which predict that to win over theories that don’t. Most evidence and science is more ambiguous than that, but the basic idea holds.
Another part of science is forming a candidate hypothesis. While the “how” of this is of great interest to Historians of Science, it doesn’t matter much to Science whether you get your candidate hypothesis by staring at a chalkboard whilst overcaffinated, getting hit by a falling apple, or get it presented to you on Golden Tablets by a Choir of Seraphim (although the last may affect publication co-authorship expectations). Once you have a hypothesis, it can be tested against other candidates. If it loses, go back to work and don’t whine about it.
The heart is the process of competitive comparison of one theory against another. As a result of the character of the criteria used for judging, a mathematical version of Occam’s Razor results, detailed in the W-D/V-L papers I mentioned. The idea of “God” does not make a fully descriptive explanation of the evidence shorter than descriptive explanations not using “God”, and is therefore “God” hypotheses are less probably correct.
Amusingly, since hypotheses undergo variation and competitive selection, Science is another evolutionary process… if one where speciation isn’t as firm a wall as in biology.
As for T Edward’s remark that “The probability of something as intricate as a cell forming through a random process is, practically speaking, non-existent. Evolution therefore breaks down as an explanation of life’s origin [....]“, this is misleading. The theory of Evolution properly only explains life’s diversity and diversification; the ultimate origin of life versus non-life is properly referred to by the name “Abiogenesis”. Although of great interest to biologists, Abiogenesis is fundamentally a question of Autocatalytic Organic Chemistry. For a relatively recent overview of the state-of-the-art, see “Minimal self-replicating systems,” Robertson et alia in Chemical Society Reviews.
Great post abb3w! I’ll check out the absracts and citations. The actual paper is over my head though…
Also, to T Edwards post, I’m reminded of that old quote which I is attributed to Arthur C. Clarke, “First, they’ll say it’s impossible; then they’ll say it’s highly improbable; then they’ll say it was obvious the entire time.”
I’m betting our ignorance with regards to organic chemistry is the biggest hindrance to coming up with a probability for abiogenesis that lines up with… reality. =)
Cheers!
I think that the reason that this film touches a nerve with the the liberal left is that it exposes the PC thought process. Brent Bozell, in an earlier article today wrote “Liberalism is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension”. It will be interesting how the left wing media treat this movie compared to any of the Michael Moore films.