God's not dead movie

[ji]

EXPELLED Movie - Super Trailer - Today's Christian Videos

yes,a must watch...

 

[Percepi]

If that's true I hope you have evidence to back up each claim (e.g. quote mining, dishonest editing, misrepresentation) so that I can see it for myself.

I'm only going to list a handful of erroneous claims made by the movie Expelled.

Ben Stein claimed Richard Sternberg lost his job because he challenged evolution with a paper he published.

Sternbergs paper was criticized because he published the paper without following proper procedures. The paper failed review because it was poorly written and the science within it was shoddy.

The first question asked by BSW members was “how did this paper ever get published?” According to the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg failed to follow proper procedure in publishing the paper: “Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedingsbecause the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.” The BSW withdrew the paper in embarrassment, emphasizing that the paper was substandard science. It commented that the society endorsed “a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (News | AAAS - The World's Largest General Scientific Society), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”

-ExpelledExposed.com
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg

Ben Stein also proves he doesn't understand the theory of evolution, nor does he understand the science behind it.

Expelled confuses the debates among scientists about the details of evolution – how it works and what descended from what – with a nonexistent dispute about whether evolution occurred.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution

There are many erroneous claims made about evolution in the movie. Instead of listing them all here, please click the link I sourced above.

Ben Stein did an interview with Richard Dawkins in which he edited the movie in a dishonest manner. Stein asked Dawkins one question, Dawkins answered, then Stein edited the footage to make it appear as if Dawkins was answering an entirely different question.

Please watch this video in its entirety (you might want to skip the first 5-10 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8btZ0KWFFBg

Ben Stein also quote mined Darwin.

This is what Ben Stein quoted.

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick, thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.)

Ben Stein conveniently did not quote the very next passage, which read:

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”

If you read the entire quote, you'll notice that Darwin is NOT advocating eugenics. Darwin is explaining how we are sympathetic to the helpless. He expresses how we help others instead of killing them.

If you read even more, Darwin finishes with the following statement:

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.

-The Decent of Man, Darwin

It is clear that Darwin did no advocate Eugenics. In fact, he expressed that to kill off those who are weak as a means of passing along better genes would be evil.

If you want to read more about how dishonest Expelled is, go here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

 

[Percepi]

(EDITED) I accidentally posted the same thing twice.

 

[Livvy_Holt]

If it is as humorous as the trailer was then I might give it a go.

humorous???? Did anyone else laugh at it? haha just wondering...

 

[ji]

Percepi
you posted a lot of things,and there is a lot to argue..
But lets begin everything with the question.Are you a Christian and do you support evolution?
your posts talk about favoring it and disregard the fact that there are many getting removed from their jobs for being sincere??
Not one but many...
And this is all without even touching the flaws that evolution cannot explain the origin of anything...


Lets begin with Are you a Christian and do you support evolution?Then lets move to the the errors you point out and all...
What's your primary aim?

for some unknown reason am not able to post with your quotes,so i think you can still figure out this is posted to you...is there some kind of coding technique that someone did to block messages???

 

[TheAristocat]

[deleted due to problems with the website messing up this post]

 

[TheAristocat]

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks

Here we are: "Expelled Exposed" Exposed - N.C.S.E. Exposed: No Victim Blaming Allowed

I've always found that in dealing with these sorts of things there is at least an argument, a counterargument and a counter-counterargument.

 

[AslanII]

When a lot of the study of philosophy is actually that God/Deity/Divine exists.

Hi David

This may be so in your eyes as a Christian, but I have only seen people using philosophy to prove that God does not exist. I am on Mybroadband forum as well. Was quite surprised by what I saw there and it isn't pretty. I understand the rest of your points though. I think the opening of the movie may just make atheists that actually go to see the movie so angry that they are closed up to the point that the movie is trying to make. Think I will watch it before taking my husband...

 

[Percepi]

Here we are: "Expelled Exposed" Exposed - N.C.S.E. Exposed: No Victim Blaming Allowed

I've always found that in dealing with these sorts of things there is at least an argument, a counterargument and a counter-counterargument.

The website you linked is invalid. It's simple, there's no such thing as Darwinism.

Anyone who refers to evolution as Darwinism automatically loses any debate, because it is clear they don't understand the subject if they can't even understand what the theory is - and that is to say, it's not a religion.

Let's take a look at your site's response about Richard Sternberg.

Sternberg did experience harassment and persecution, including pressure to resign, investigations into his outside activities regarding evolution, and inappropriate restrictions on his research.

Even if this is true, the website you linked completely skims over the fact that Sternberg published papers without going through the appropriate procedures.

So far, the website you linked did ZILCH to rebut the fact that Sternberg was dishonest with his published papers.

I also read the websites response about Caroline Crocker. It claimed that Caroline Crocker responded to my source saying, "calling scientific arguments ‘creationist’ does not address the validity of the arguments. It is merely an ad hominem attack that does not require response."

Caroline claims the website I linked did not address her arguments. It did.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks

 

[Percepi]

Half of my post was deleted. I'm not going to bother retyping everything.

The source you provided to rebut mine fails on every level. It's sources are as dishonest as the movie Expelled, and I don't have the time to go through every single one. With Sternberg, it skimmed over the fact he was dishonest when publishing his paper.

Caroline claimed the website did not address her arguments, when it clearly did. Just go to my website and check it out. You may not agree with my source's rebuttals - but it's clear they did respond to Caroline's arguments. Caroline obviously lied.

Anyway, I'm done debating this topic here. We both have our sources linked, so if anyone is interested - they can check both the websites out.

 

[Pie]

Wow, seems like this question has stirred up some people. I saw the trailer for it and saw a lot of Christians saying they thought it was a great outreaching tool. It looks interesting but it doesn't look like it would be convincing to an atheist or any unbeliever. It seems to me that it's making an emotional appeal rather than intellectual ones. But then, a movie that made a bunch of intellectual appeals would probably be less entertaining and be a series of lectures. But as I said, I haven't seen it, so I could be wrong. That was just my first impression. I'll probably eventually get around to watching it.

 

[AslanII]

Wow, seems like this question has stirred up some people. I saw the trailer for it and saw a lot of Christians saying they thought it was a great outreaching tool. It looks interesting but it doesn't look like it would be convincing to an atheist or any unbeliever. It seems to me that it's making an emotional appeal rather than intellectual ones. But then, a movie that made a bunch of intellectual appeals would probably be less entertaining and be a series of lectures. But as I said, I haven't seen it, so I could be wrong. That was just my first impression. I'll probably eventually get around to watching it.

I think we should all watch it and then decide

 

[TheAristocat]

The website you linked is invalid. It's simple, there's no such thing as Darwinism.

Anyone who refers to evolution as Darwinism automatically loses any debate, because it is clear they don't understand the subject if they can't even understand what the theory is - and that is to say, it's not a religion.

Let's take a look at your site's response about Richard Sternberg.



Even if this is true, the website you linked completely skims over the fact that Sternberg published papers without going through the appropriate procedures.

So far, the website you linked did ZILCH to rebut the fact that Sternberg was dishonest with his published papers.

I also read the websites response about Caroline Crocker. It claimed that Caroline Crocker responded to my source saying, "calling scientific arguments ‘creationist’ does not address the validity of the arguments. It is merely an ad hominem attack that does not require response."

Caroline claims the website I linked did not address her arguments. It did.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks

Let's look at the case of the paper Sternberg reviewed:

The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later.

The article in question was written by Dr. Steven Meyer, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." The article summarizes multiple sources from scientists around the world and concludes that conventional theory does not adequately explain the change in cellular systems and body plans during the "Cambrian Explosion," and therefore science should consider the possibility of "intelligent design" (ID). Henceforth this will be referred to as the Meyer article.

(Underlining the above title was done by me.) While the paper deals heavily with the Cambrian Explosion and according to the above, it seems to use the Cambrian Explosion to make conclusions about the origin of life (i.e. the Origin of Biological Information). Arguments from Intelligent Design are about irreducible complexity and biological information. This of course has obvious implications for how life began. If you don't understand the arguments for ID and how its arguments have implications for how life began, then you can look it up. But it appears Expelled Exposed does not understand these implications for the origin of life from Meyer's topic.

Sternberg failed to follow proper procedure in publishing the paper: “Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.”

What exactly is meant by "proper procedure" in the above is not defined. But Sternberg was the managing editor, and at this time was well within his rights to handle the entire review process. That, however, does not mean that he alone reviewed the paper, though. So the above ultimately means nothing if the peer-reviewer in question is qualified to review the article. Let's look at a more comprehensive assessment of his actions:

Eugenie Scott herself admitted that "other editors have not always referred all articles to the Associate Editors, and because editors justifiably have discretion," that therefore the BSW should not "come down too hard on Dr. Sternberg for errors in the procedure followed in accepting this article."

The paper's main point seems to have dealt with Sternberg's area of specialty, but it also included a treatment of Paleontology that some thought should have been reviewed by an associate editor who was more qualified in that field of science. Whether or not it was for concerns dealing with Paleontology, Sternberg initially did consult an associate editor:

During my tenure as managing editor some problems arose in the process. In one case I strongly disagreed with an associate editor in his handling of a paper. To deal with the problem, I took control of the paper again, had it reviewed and edited, and published it.

What exactly Sternberg means by "took control of the paper" can be seen from the following:

After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. [...] The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

So what it looks like is 1. Sternberg did not agree with everything in the paper, thus eliminating the necessity for accusations of bias in the review process, 2. Sternberg initially did consult an associate editor, 3. Sternberg was the managing editor, 4. he was completely within his rights as managing editor to handle the entire review process, and 5. even under those conditions he chose to consult multiple other experts to help review the paper. These experts, however, were not associate editors.

Now let's look at the accusations of fabrication of discrimination:

That the embarrassing publication of a shoddy research paper was the issue – not Sternberg’s religious orientation

Major findings of this staff investigation include: Officials at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights. There is substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers. [...] Indeed, NMNH officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution. [...] Clearly, the NMNH management was trying to make Dr. Sternberg's life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave, since they knew they had no legal grounds to dismiss him.

This report goes on to show that there were hostile attempts to specifically restrict Sternberg's key access and limit his office space in an effort to encourage him to leave. The following is further evidence in the report of hostility toward Sternberg based on his religious and political affiliations:

The hostility toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH appears to have been reinforced by anti-religious and political motivations. [...] In a memo prepared on February 8, 2005, NMNH scientist Marilyn Schotte admitted that after publication of the Meyer paper, Dr. Coddington wanted to know "if Dr. Sternberg was religious." Dr. Schotte further admitted telling Coddington that Sternberg "was a Republican." Accorrding to Dr. Sternberg's OSC complaint, Dr. Schotte had also told him in August 2004 that Coddington wanted to know whether he was a "religioius fundamentalist" and a "right-winger." By February 2005, when the NMNH was working hard to repair the damage done to its reputation by the Wall Street Journal article on Sternberg, Dr. Schotte had a convenient lapse of memory regarding these additional damaging details. Still, Schotte did not deny Dr. Sternberg's account, conceding that Dr. Coddington "might" have asked her whether Dr. Sternberg "was a fundamentalist" and whether he "was a conservative." Dr. Schotte insisted "Dr. C. was not being judgmental, only curious." But given the demonstrably hostile atmosphere toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH during the period in question, there is nothing innocuous about an official with supervisory authority inquiring into Sternberg's religious and political beliefs.

 

[TheAristocat]

Sternberg failed to follow proper procedure in publishing the paper: “Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor;

My mistake. This actually does explain what is meant by "proper procedure" for publishing the paper. And the only thing that "proper procedure" refers to is the "typical editorial [practice]" to have the paper reviewed by an associate editor. But evidence is found that on other occasions editors did not always consult associate editors and that managing editors were under no obligation to consult associate editors. So what exactly "proper procedure" is has little bearing in the case of the Meyer paper since it does not deal with explicit rules but only typical practices. And it has already been shown that Sternberg had the paper reviewed not just by an associate editor but by several experts who all held Ph.D.s in relevant fields.

 

[MarkMulder]

But Hercules is in it so I wanna see it.

No, he isn't...

 

[MarkMulder]

So did anyone see it? if so what did you think?

I loved it it was an awesome movie for inspiring Christians to get out of their box and speak about Christ, and to not be afraid of speaking up! Because, after all...if He is for us, who can be against us?

God's not dead?
The Book was better...

and what else do we need?

 

[TheKringledOne]

I remember seeing Expelled in theaters a while back. It held my interest and had some interesting revelations at the end - if not about God then about the atheist frame of mind.

Hmmm, I really felt that Expelled did a terrible job portraying the position of most people who use the "atheist" label. It worries me because the movie does some very selective story selection and quote mining to set up it's strawmen. What revelation did you get from the movie about the atheist frame of mind?

 

[Rfwrk]

oh i really want to watch the movie but it's not here in indonesia! I also can't buy/rent the movie online!

 

[TheAristocat]

Hmmm, I really felt that Expelled did a terrible job portraying the position of most people who use the "atheist" label. It worries me because the movie does some very selective story selection and quote mining to set up it's strawmen. What revelation did you get from the movie about the atheist frame of mind?

Mostly that they were open to the idea of Intelligent Design but not if it were by the divine hand, being that ID doesn't necessitate divine intervention but simply intervention. Another was that they didn't know how life first arose but generally chose to believe it had a naturalistic explanation instead of an interventionist one. But I've kind of known the latter one all along, given that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and neither a theory nor a fact. At least that's the impression I've gotten from reading up on it in the past.

 

[Percepi]

Mostly that they were open to the idea of Intelligent Design but not if it were by the divine hand

Wrong.

I already proved this was the result of malicious editing. Congratulations, you now know even less about atheists having watched Expelled.

Another was that they didn't know how life first arose but generally chose to believe it had a naturalistic explanation instead of an interventionist one. But I've kind of known the latter one all along, given that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and neither a theory nor a fact. At least that's the impression I've gotten from reading up on it in the past.

The study of abiogenesis is a theory, but it's still in its infancy. The evidence isn't yet conclusive.

And it has already been shown that Sternberg had the paper reviewed not just by an associate editor but by several experts who all held Ph.D.s in relevant fields.

This is false.