Chuck Norris reviews Expelled in Town Hall column

_{April 22, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Win Ben Stein’s Monkey
By Chuck Norris
Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Evolution. Intelligent design. These are terms that can cause great consternation in the minds and hearts of many, particularly opponents of each view. Now, that anxiety and debate have resurfaced in theaters everywhere with Ben Stein’s new documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The press kit says, “(‘Expelled’) exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.” (To see a trailer of the movie or access its free resources, go to www.getexpelled.com.)

I like Ben Stein. I think he’s funny, creative and an insightful commentator on a host of issues. I’m not bent on defending him or “Expelled,” but I’m glad he made it. I saw it last weekend, and I liked it. I think it will wake up many people to the truth. What truth? That educational arenas have become limited learning environments because of biases against God, the Bible and creationism. Stein is correct in saying that passionate antagonism and hostility (that parallels any fundamentalist extremism) equally exists in naturalist and Neo-Darwinian camps. Proof of their avid bias easily can be seen in some evolutionists’ reviews of this film. Many are loaded with as much inflammatory language, intolerance and bigotry as any hate-filled group.

Comments

Keep the Reason- The argument being made here specifically has nothing to do about educational systems denying Christian doctrine. But rather that objectively thinking scientists who don't fit into the hive mind of Darwinistic society are making more and more discoveries that lead them to question fundamental holes in Darwinistic theory. You do not have to be a creationist or even a supporter of ID or any other alternative stance in order to hold a theory up to scientific scrutiny. You do not require religious motives to be able to critically question a theory that is gradually going down hill. The fact is that a major part of the true spirit of science is being quelled by the suppression of critical scientific freedom of inquiry. This is the focus of the movie, not the scientific details that serve to challenge Darwinism on a fundamental level (which, by the way there are many). I'll say it again in this fashion, you could be the most influential scientific proponent of evolution one minute, and then make new discoveries that challenge evolution on a fundamental level the next minute. If you brought up these new discoveries, questions, scrutiny, and/or critical analysis, you'd be thrown right back into the cage with the rest of the dissenters and even possibly labeled as religiously motivated. Regardless of how much scientific weight your argument carries, evolution has become such a dogma that it can't so much as be questioned in modern day society without serious repercussions. THIS is not science.Shady_Milkman_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Keep the Reason, if Creationism is defined appropriately for your case, then your case is valid. However, I contend that if Creationism is defined in such a way as to include ID, then your case is no longer valid. So please provide your definition of Creationism to complete your argument.bFast_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

"There is no evolution - only the animals Chuck Norris allows to live." +1 barbScottus_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Chuck tells it like it is! ID = Creationism. Way to go, Chuck!TheMissingLink_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

To Keep the Reason and Alext, I would agree that topics such as discussing God, the Bible, or the Bible's writings about creation are not within the reach of science. If Chuck Norris does not understand the difference between these and the ID hypothesis, that is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the ID hypothesis is necessarily within the scope of science. It is a question we should be using science to address. Keep the Reason: "Perhaps someone can explain it?" Consider: 1. Anyone who holds that life could have developed spontaneously here on Earth would likely concede that in principle it could also have developed at one or more other locations in the universe. True? (If false, the claim Earth is in principle unique in the universe would be quite interesting.) 2. If life advanced here, it could have advanced elsewhere. True? 3. We are approaching the ability to manipulate and perhaps even create biological organisms. If we could do so, then there is no reason in principle that another advanced life could not have done so. True? 4. We are already potentially introducing life into other worlds, e.g. Mars, though we have not done so intentionally. That being so, it is possible in principle that others from elsewhere could have done so here. True? 5. Ergo, it is possible in principle that the biological life we see here on Earth may have been designed rather than being the result of entirely undirected processes (just as Dawkins acknowledges in Expelled). 6. In short, it may be the case that our biological life is truly designed in regard to its origin, not merely apparently designed. 7. If so, it may be hopelessly futile to try to distort and disfigure our understanding of undirected processes in the vain attempt to force them to account for what are actually the products of intelligent agency. For the sake of a proper and correct understanding of undirected processes, such as chemical processes, it is essential that science must be able to distinguish between artifacts and the actual results of undirected processes. "Can undirected chemical processes plausibly create peer-replicating RNA from scratch?" is not a question that can be addressed by a religion class or any other non-science class. Neither is "Can undirected chemical processes invent symbolic codes and encode symbolic information?" Likewise for other relevant questions. These must be addressed and answered within science. If the answer is "No", the best causal inference science can make is that biological life is an artifact of intelligent agency, i.e. it is designed. This is highly pertinent to science and to sound scientific investigation. Imagine for a moment the distortion to our understanding of the Earth if we were forbidden to consider the moon when explaining tides? Excluding intelligent agency from consideration likewise distorts our research about undirected processes, including Darwinistic processes.ericB_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

Alext, you are, of course, totally spot on. The idea that educational institutions deny god, the bible, and even creationism is simply a falsehood. The fact is, god, the bible, and creationism is not science -- that's all there is to it! Thus they are rightfully not in the science classroom, precisely for the same reasons that chemistry and Euclidean geometry are not included in British Literature studies -- they don't belong there, there belong elsewhere. We can only wonder why pro-ID arguments which consistently repeat this are not understanding their statements are wrong, and very misleading. Perhaps someone can explain it?Keep the Reason_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

I remember seeing an interview with Chuck Norris when he was campaigning for Mike Huckabee. I was impressed by his humility, gentleness and sincere Christian faith.PannenbergOmega_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

I agree, Graceout. Nothing gets the point across like a swift roundhouse.Berceuse_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

There is no evolution - only the animals Chuck Norris allows to live.Barb_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Very Impressive, but where is the flying roundhouse kick?Graceout_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Norris simply argues that creationism (he doesn't seem to distinguish between this and ID) is different from science, and yet it is being surpressed by scientists, who claim it is not science. "Why can't variant theories of the origin of life be presented even outside science courses?" they are. religious education classes, churches, books, internet - the info is readily available outside of science classes. have i missed his point?alext_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Huh, Norris can actually write....wait -- wait for it! Chuck Norris, doesn't write, he commands the language.wnelson_{April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply