I wrote a little review of the "Expelled" trailer to follow up on a post (elsewhere) advocating a more conciliatory attitude towards religious folks. Basically I was saying that we all experience the world similarly, but use different worldviews and languages to express our understanding of "reality." I was advocating that we learn to loosely "translate;" but avoid the details of exact definitions, realizing that the devil is in the details. grin

Originally Posted By: me
Ben Stein's, Expelled, is a perfect example of this. He's whipping up a frenzy by playing up these semantic failings.
...Speaking of scientists, Ben says,
"Rather than God's Handiwork, they see the universe as the product of random particle collisions and chemical reactions...."
God's handiwork, or Laws of physics; what's the difference?
God's plan, or Laws of evolution; what's the difference?
Ben refers to,
"The product of a Higher Intelligence,"
but couldn't that be defined as the product of the Physical Constants; what's the difference?

I can't believe that Ben uses the tactic of addressing "Darwinism."
To call anything in science an -ism, just furthers the polarization of definitions.
The idea that things descend with modification is not a good basis for any *ism-type "belief system."
It's just a good framework for understanding how variation arises.

Originally Posted By: cont'd.
Ben asks "what's the difference" with science, that 'freedom of speech" is not tolerated well.
Hey Ben, can I come to your church and speak freely, and be tolerated well?
Context and purpose, Ben, is the difference!
Furthering the "perfect example," this has all arisen because of scientist's "self-righteous" over-reaction to some article that talked about Intell. Design.
Science deals with 'what' and 'how' of what is here; not with the 'why' or from 'where' it came, ultimately.
Science doesn't address with this topic of origins and motives; isn't that for philosophy, to ask 'who', not how?
Why should scientists care if someone wants to attribute a purpose to the universe?
I understand why science, as Ben says, "fears," these philosophical ideas.
Surely, it is a slippery slope to wind up dealing with a certain "Intelligence" with a particular "Design."
That certainly is something to be feared, but scientists should have faith in the strength of their discipline (and disciples); that the slope can be navigated, with care, empathy, and tactics (diplomacy).

Has anyone seen the "trailer?"

I feel that I should go to the movie and stand up at the end and shout: Science and evolution have nothing to do with creation and divine intervention.
Well, maybe not; too easy to misinterpret.

Shouldn't something be shouted?

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.