Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Page #8

on the table.

I think it was just

a catastrophic mistake

To have someone like

dawkins address himself

To profound issues

of theology,

The existence of god,

the nature of life.

He hasn't committed

himself to

Disciplined study

in any relevant area

of inquiry.

He's a crummy philosopher.

He doesn't have

the rudimentary skills

To meticulously assess

his own arguments.

Genius guy, though.

Very smart guy.

Little bit of a reptile,

but very smart guy.

The opposing point of view

in this conflict

Rests on a fundamentally

different vision of man.

If you have two

distinguished scientists--

And, in fact, you can range

many more on each side,

as you know--

Saying exactly

opposite things,

That's telling me

that the conflict

Is not between science

and belief in god.

Otherwise you'd expect

all scientists

to be atheists.

But it's

a worldview conflict.

It's between scientists

who have different worldviews.

You've got two

competing explanations

of the evidence.

One says design,

one says undirected processes.

Both of them have

larger philosophical

or religious

Or anti-religious

implications.

So you can't say that

one of those two theories

is scientific

And the other

is unscientific

Simply because

they have implications.

Both have implications.

People who tell you,

For example,

that science tells you

All you need to know

about the world

Or that science tells you

that religion is all wrong

Or science tells you

there is no god,

Those people aren't telling

you scientific things.

They are saying

metaphysical things,

And they have to defend

their positions

For metaphysical reasons.

What is being presented

to the public is

First comes the science,

And then comes

the worldview.

I would want to argue that

that may not be the case,

That it may actually be

the other way 'round,

That the worldview

comes first

And is influencing

the interpretation

of science.

My deep regret

is some people

Are so deeply entrenched

in their own worldviews

That they will simply not

countenance alternatives.

I'm actually

a person of the left,

And not even a particularly

religious person.

I think of myself

as kind of humanist.

And I think it's sending

a very bad message

To religious people

who are interested

in science

That in some sense,

In order to do

science credibly,

They have to leave

their religious beliefs

at the door.

The founders

of early modern science--

Sir isaac newton,

robert boyle,

Johannes kepler,

galileo--

Most of these

early scientists

All not only

believed in god,

But they thought

their belief in god

Actually made it

easier to do science.

You can be

religiously motivated

And you can

do good science,

And they have more

often gone together

Than not gone together.

Admitting our biases

Is the best way towards

rational discussion,

Which I would welcome.

Rational debate

is a nice thought,

But it's nearly impossible

in the current climate.

I'd seen the chilling effect

That this unquestioning

devotion to darwinism

Has had on science...

But were there

other consequences?

No gods,

no life after death,

No ultimate foundation

for ethics,

No ultimate meaning

in life,

And no human free will

Are all deeply connected

to an evolutionary perspective.

You're here today

and then gone tomorrow,

And that's

all there is to it.

Stein:
dr. Will provine,

Professor

of the history of biology

At cornell university,

Gave us another

disturbing glimpse

Into where darwinism

can lead.

Oh, I was a christian,

But I never heard

anything about evolution

Because it was illegal

to teach it in tennessee.

Dr. Provine's first biology

professor changed all that.

He started talking

about evolution

As if it had no design

in it whatsoever.

And I came up to him,

and I said,

"you left out

the most important part."

And he said,

"if you feel the same way

at the end of one quarter,

"I want you to stand up

in front of the students

in this class

And tell them

this deep lack

in evolution."

And I read that book

so carefully,

And I could find

no sign of there being

Any design whatsoever

in evolution.

And I immediately

began to doubt

The existence

of the deity.

But it starts by giving up

an active deity.

Then he gives up the hope

That there's

any life after death.

When you give

those two up,

The rest of it follows

fairly easily.

You give up the hope

That there's

an eminent morality.

And finally, there's

no human free will.

If you believe

in evolution,

You can't hope for there

being any free will.

There's no hope whatsoever

Of there being any

deep meaning in human life.

We live, we die,

and we're gone.

We're absolutely gone

when we die.

Dr. Provine is no stranger

to the prospect of death.

Nearly a decade ago,

He was diagnosed

with a large brain tumor.

Let's suppose

my tumor comes back,

As it almost certainly will.

Well, i'm not

going to sit around

Like my older brother

did last year.

And he was dying of als,

lou gehrig's disease.

He wanted desperately to die,

but we couldn't help him die.

I don't want to die

like that.

I'm going to shoot myself

in the head long before then.

I'm going to do

something different.

I hope these

are empty words

From my friend

dr. Provine,

Because shortly after

this interview was recorded

He learned his brain tumor

had returned.

Provine:
I don't feel

one bit bad

About holding

the views that I do.

There's not anything

in the views I hold

That makes me, "oh,

I wish I had free will,"

Or "oh, I wish

there were a god."

I don't ever,

ever wish for that.

Dr. Provine's

de-conversion story

Was typical amongst

the darwinists

we interviewed.

Biologist p.Z. Myers,

Who runs the pro-darwin,

anti-religion blog pharyngula,

Says science eroded

his faith as well.

I never hated religion.

I found religion

quite comfortable,

And I liked

the people in it.

What led to the atheism was

learning more about science,

Learning more

about the natural world,

And seeing these horrible

conflicts with religion.

And it was then,

when I discovered evolution,

When I discovered darwinism,

That I realized there's

this magnificently elegant,

Stunningly elegant

explanation--

Which I didn't quite

understand to begin with--

But when I did

understand it,

Then that finally killed off

my remaining religious faith.

After hearing these stories,

I was not surprised

to discover

That most evolutionary

biologists

Share

professor dawkins' views.

It appears darwinism

does lead to atheism

Despite what eugenie scott

would have us believe.

And if you separate out

the ethical message

from religion,

What have you got left?

You've got a bunch

of fairy tales, right?

I think that god

is about as unlikely

As fairies, angels,

hobgoblins, etc.

Religion--I mean,

it's just fantasy, basically.

It's completely empty

of any explanatory content...

And is evil as well.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes