joshua

Duff, an excellent question and John's answer is very helpful.

I agree with your sentiments too. As a zoologist I find most people's understanding of science is weak, including those in the creationist camp.

Richard Dawkins talks about science as if it were something it is not and that is not helpful and that he is the Professor of Public Understanding of Science is deeply ironic.

Let us know what you think of the film when you see it.

Rick, you are such a nice guy!

You might say you don't believe in anything but of course you do - your music, your friends, family, you believe in them, you trust them. I suspect you 'know' your guitar better than you know any 'science'.

And no man is an island. You are clearly comfortable with your beliefs and your circumstances, which is great, but we are all responsible for the world we live in, the neighbour who lives on our street and the people starving around the globe.

Happily the US is the greatest benefactor in the world, you help more people than everyone else put together. You are a highly responsible nation.

Slightly off topic. Oops.

Marvelous.

I joined the thread because of the initial review, javascript's vigorous and enlightening comments and the tone of the staff which I found balanced and, well, kind.

Wow, David, as parochial as you can get.

The theme of this thread is the film Expelled and this is the world wide web - if this is only for local people then we aliens should not be allowed to register - hey, maybe they will throw me of!

CS Lewis was a brilliant man, a wonderful writer and great thinker.

I like reading Javascript's comments - he pulls no punches and is most informative.

Susan, I think I am missing the religious ambience of the US - some things you say seem very foreign to me.

For instance no one would dream of teaching ID in a biology class here, yet we have a lot of religious inclusiveness, eg celebrating Divali, particularly in primary schools.

It seems obvious to me that our children are descended from monkeys, little perishers.

But I didnt think that was the main thrust of the film - wish I could see it.

Susan, I agree, a fun site - very tongue in cheek but some nice thoughts and funny cartoons.

Very funny, David, thank you.

For those of us still tempted by more, how about 'The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief' by Francis Collins, head of the human genome project?

I repent again.

Here is Plantinga's source

Darwin expressed this doubt in a letter to William Graham, July 3rd, 1881, when he wrote: "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

And C.S. Lewis: "If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat."

And my apologies for a total of three quotes on the thread - not good form I know.

Rick, I thought you might say that. I am guessing you are a not a church goer but are a thoroughly decent chap who is living a very fulfilling and meaningful life.

But you did say that science was the only 'real realm of knowledge', which suggests to me that either you are living in a very contradictory worldview or you are using the word 'know' in a very narrow sense.

And you dont actually 'know' much of what science tells you, you just believe and trust those who tell you it is so.

One of the problems - I am guessing - that the film highlights is that atheism, which is a belief system, dominates science so that what truth is allowed is filtered by those beliefs.

This is not the world we want to live in. We want to hear both sides of the argument.

Darwin himself was not an atheist but a lapsed believer. I am fairly sure he would have little time for Dawkins et al if he were alive today.

Here is the famous quote from Darwin's autobiography - the source I think of Alvin Plantinga's 'Darwin's Doubt'.

"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man, with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into the future, as the result of blind chance. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a first cause, having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man, I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as a I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species’, and it is since that time that it has, gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the thought-- Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been fully developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusion."

Javascript, I forgot to mention, I am in the UK and probably wont get to see the film for a while.

But I have read quite a few reviews of the film from the US and quite a lot of them are favourable.

Maybe it is my english google filtering out anything too racy.

112 and counting.

I am sure Javascript will answer as adroitly as ever but as far as I can see the film is about freedom of speech, thinking and scientific investigation.

You have to remember that atheists like Dawkins think religious education is worse than child abuse and that any scientist who believes in God is not really a scientist.

Mein Kampf anyone?

Javascript, thanks for the correction, you are right and I read the Times article wrong.

It just makes me more intrigued to see the film.

Apparently Prof Heller is donating his prize money to an academy for research into science and theology.

Good.

Hi, Pavel, I would say very few people in the UK believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis. We are 'Enlightened', you might say.

And Rick from Texas makes my point - some really do think the only knowledge worth having is scientific knowledge. Is he saying that he only knows something like great music, love, art only if it is in some way provable?

In the context of this discussion we do not know how life began, we do not know what came before the big bang, and science rarely tells us what is right and wrong, or what is great music etc etc.

Science is limited, it is not a 'way of life' or a moral choice, it is not a belief system. It wont help you get on with your neighbour or mend your marriage.

And, just in case I am in danger of going off topic, evolution is also limited. It is a great theory and, yes, it probably does mean the world was not created in six 24 hour 'days' but it does not mean that there might not be a creator and that it is worth investigating as to whether there are any signatures to be found.

Not unlike the work of Prof Heller, the latest Nobel prize winner who is, to quote Ruth Gledhill of the Times, 'a pioneering cosmologist and philosopher specialising in mathematics and metaphysics'. His work " as a creatively working scientist and reflective man of religion has brought to science a sense of transcendent mystery and to religion a view of the universe through the broadly open eyes of science." says fellow Prof Karol Musiol.

Having such a prizewinner looks like it contradicts the premise of the film. But as I have yet to see the film I cannot say.

I suspect, Javascript, that with the thread starting to focus on mushrooms it has descended into frivolity.