more by MaryAnn

kicking up a fuss since 1997 | by maryann johanson

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Amazon author
tumblr
Pinterest
RSS

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (review)

Lies, Damned Lies, and “Intelligent Design”

Nazis! It’s all about Nazis. In a parallel universe even crazier than our own, Ben Stein is making a documentary about how the Nazis utilized the controversial theory of gravity to make bombs that fall from the sky to the earth, and so the theory of gravity must be wrong. But we are here, and here, Ben Stein is telling us with a straight face that because the Nazis thought it would be a good idea to breed people like people breed animals, the theory of evolution must be wrong.
It’s apeshit crazy nuttiness right from the opening moments of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, as imagery of Nazi atrocities and the terrors of life behind the Berlin War are smugly deployed in a demented attempt to editorialize away basic scientific fact. And in a saner universe than the one in which we live, you could scoff at Stein and dismiss him and not give this propagandistic nonsense another thought. But we don’t live in that universe: we live here, where the religious insecurity of a scientifically illiterate populace is being twisted by people who certainly know better. We cannot dismiss this movie, because anyone who cares about public discourse in America and anyone who cares about the ongoing war on scientific literacy in this country needs to see it in order to arm herself against the idiocy. You need to see this movie because these people are not going away, not without a fight from people who understand where they’re coming from.

It would be hilarious how unintentionally apt the subtitle of this “documentary” is were the film not such a horrifying exposé of how insidious the “intelligent design” proponents are. Ben Stein — former Nixon speechwriter turned, improbably, ironic symbol of anti-hip — is not a stupid man, but he pretends to be in this would-be “takedown” of the scientific theory of evolution that is dishonest and contradictory even when approached on its own terms. Stein’s thesis — he wrote the movie with Kevin Miller and Walt Ruloff, and it is directed with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer by Nathan Frankowski — is that Big Science, academia, the media, and the courts have been bullying the poor, brave mavericks who dare to question the theory of evolution by suggesting that only an “intelligent designer” could have guided said evolution. Bad enough that Stein deliberately pretends to misunderstand what science is (which he must do because he knows his target audience of religious fundamentalists does) — “here, a miracle happened” is emphatically not science, not that Stein bothers to present that not-at-all radical concept. But he also constantly refers to evolutionary science as “Darwinism” and evolutionary scientists and those who accept evolution as “Darwinists”… which is akin to referring to quantum physicists as “Newtonians” or “Copernicans.” And he does this even though one of his own ID proponents notes here that biological science has moved on from Darwin much as physical science has moved on from Newton. Since Stein is unable to adequately critique evolutionary science, he resorts to a kind of namecalling that is purposely designed to mislead his audience… and yet he must hold that audience in contempt if he believes they won’t notice his own deceit.

All pretense that the “competing” “theory” of “intelligent design” Stein champions here is not about Judeo-Christian Creationism is put well to rest, too. The (supposed) scientists interviewed here who support notions of intelligent design make no mention of who an “intelligent designer” might be — and indeed, any honest explanation of ID that pretends to bear any relationship at all to science, which is what Stein wants us to accept ID as, must allow that ID does not attempt to define the designer. And yet Stein wastes no time in bringing into focus a particular and narrow idea of who that designer must be. For instance, he dismisses the concept of “panspermia,” which posits that perhaps life in its most basic, fundamental form first arrived on planet Earth from space, perhaps on an asteroid or comet, as meaning “aliens did it,” which he snarls in a tone of voice that suggests nothing could be more ridiculous. (That isn’t what panspermia suggests, of course. Not that the orgin of life itself is dealt with by the theory of evolution, anyway. Oh, the layers of obfuscation and deception are many!) Still, wouldn’t “aliens did it” be “intelligent design”?

Nope: wrong designer for Stein and his audience. If ID isn’t about “God” as many people today use the term, then why does Stein have such a hard-on for scientist Richard Dawkins, the honor and professionalism of whom Stein feels to believe he has impeached when he gets Dawkins to admit that he’s a steadfast atheist (as if it were a great secret). At long last, Expelled isn’t about “intelligent design,” about an alternative scientific theory of anything, or even about academic freedom: it’s about Stein believing he has proven that because acceptance of evolution leads to atheism (which isn’t always true, though other scientists, such as PZ Myers, do say here that that was their experience), and also, we’re told with an apparent straight face, to such horrors as birth control, evolution cannot be allowed to be true. Even if it is.

It’s all so shockingly, baldly disingenuous and phony an “argument” that it may well make you want to throw things at the screen, as I nearly did. But it’s why you must see Expelled. Not for the unintentionally ironic spectacle of the film’s faux-retro-hip-snark of using clips from Planet of the Apes — “a planet where apes evolved from men?”! — to comment on what it perceives as the stifling of intellectual freedom. Or even to see a dumbfounded Dawkins speaking to Stein as if Stein were a child, which is hilarious. But because until those who would stand up for honesty and integrity — of any kind, never mind the “merely” scientific — as willing to accept that their opponents pretend to no such scruples, they will always be hitting us in our blind spots. Our eyes must be opened to their trickery.


MPAA: rated PG for thematic material, some disturbing images and brief smoking

viewed at a private screening with an audience of critics

official site | IMDb
  • http://count-shrimpula.livejournal.com Count Shrimpula

    Eh. I’ve seen these types of arguments before, and the sheer stupidity and redefining/misunderstanding of terms makes me far too pissed off and depressed. I don’t think I could sit through a whole movie of it without either having an aneurysm or hanging myself.

    I agree that people should see this idiocy so they know it’s out there and can recognize it. But I’d encourage people to just download the damn thing off BitTorrent. Don’t give these jackasses any money or encouragement, please.

  • Marshall

    I gotta ask, but is this ‘documentary’ serious or meant to be some sort of elaborite sarcastic joke? Ben Stein never struck me as someone who would fall for ID at all…

  • Thomas Byrne

    Flying straight over to America to see it.

    Yeah right. Glad I live outside of the fruit bowl. Good luck with that anyway. I’ll be keeping a close watch from the safety of Ireland.

    P.S. If the ID crowd did push this crap into government, you do realise you’d be the only developed country in the world teaching it. Please, I implore you, don’t let the ignorant bully their way in. Don’t become a laughing stock.

  • Jessie

    “Ben Stein is making a documentary about how the Nazis utilized the controversial theory of gravity to make bombs that fall from the sky to the earth, and so the theory of gravity must be wrong.”

    That’s hilarious !!!!

    Great review!

  • http://bzero.livejournal.com Bzero

    We’re trying our best, Thomas Byrne, but the idiots in this country are many and powerful.

    *headdesk*

  • MaryAnn

    Please, I implore you, don’t let the ignorant bully their way in.

    They’re already here. I mean, have you seen our president?

  • http://www.dubhsidhestudios.com bronxbee

    while i agree that creationists and IDers are wrong headed, crazy and should not be allowed to influence or have control over education in any way, i take issue with thomas byrne’s comment:

    “Yeah right. Glad I live outside of the fruit bowl. Good luck with that anyway. I’ll be keeping a close watch from the safety of Ireland.”

    i seem to recall, thomas byrne, that the educational curriculum of primary schools in Ireland is heavily influenced and controlled by the Catholic Church — another brand of fruit and nuts that bears watching.

  • Pierre JC

    What a lovely film review! As I always ask on comment pages like this one: If the believers have God on their side, then why must they lie?

  • jenn

    I had to double check, I thought maybe there was another Ben Stein. I thought the Ben Stein of “Win Ben Stein’s Money” and “The World’s Most Smartest Supermodel” was supposed to be… smart. I couldn’t watch this movie I would probably give myself a stroke yelling at the screen.

  • Thomas Byrne

    You recall do you. Recall from 1989 perhaps. A once a week 40 minute religion class hardly constitutes as heavy influence especially with no one else to enforce it. Young people these days don’t give a shit about the church.

  • http://www.dubhsidhestudios.com bronxbee

    “You recall do you. Recall from 1989 perhaps. A once a week 40 minute religion class hardly constitutes as heavy influence especially with no one else to enforce it. Young people these days don’t give a shit about the church.”

    i said “recall”… so has Roman Catholicism been abolished as the *official* state religion of the Irish Republic? our creationists and ultra religious may be attempting to make some sort of official religion but at least we’ve had 200 years of precedent which emphasizes the separation of church and state. i do not deny we have our religious nuts, but i’d be pretty careful about throwing stones from across the water.

  • MaryAnn

    so has Roman Catholicism been abolished as the *official* state religion of the Irish Republic?

    It’s funny how many countries in Europe are “official” Catholic and yet are far, far more secular than the United States, which supposedly has no “official” religion, is.

  • Thomas Byrne

    It’s only official religion in name. There’s a major push to get them out of school altogether because Ireland is multi national. Ireland is an increasingly secular country. I know only 3 creationists. A film like expelled wouldn’t even be shown here. The only thing keeping the church afoat is the high prices for services weddings, communions etc… and the Polish. See Ireland only has a small population so when the nuts get together their fruity little club never numbers much and they disband quite quickly, especially when they see their friends out having a drink and a laugh. I’m not mocking America, I’m well aware most people are cool, it’s just that because of the larger population the fruity little clubs can grow quite large and then start gaining money and power.

  • amanohyo

    Oh Ben Stein, how could you? I knew that obsessing over the stock market for too long did strange things to people, but really this is too much. I’m going to keep believing this movie is just a cynical cash-in from an opportunistic, greedy elitest. What else can explain how a former Yale Law School valedictorian could present his side of an argument in such a ridiculous way?

  • MBI

    *Not for the unintentionally ironic spectacle of the film’s faux-retro-hip-snark of using clips from Planet of the Apes — “a planet where apes evolved from men?”! — to comment on what it perceives as the stifling of intellectual freedom.*

    You’re kidding.

    Holy shit, you’re not kidding.

    That’s a bigger case of missing the point than the Nazi thing. My God. I think you’re right, I DO have to see this.

    “scientist Richard Dawkins, the honor and professionalism of whom Stein feels to believe he has impeached when he gets Dawkins to admit that he’s a steadfast atheist ”

    Aha! I *knew* it.

  • Tyler

    Uhhh The argument here is not intelligent design….its scientists masquerading philosophy as science. Thats a problem. Evolution does not disprove the existence of an intelligent creator but Richard Dawkins, CHAIR of Evolutionary Biology at the world’s olds university seems to think so. That is an intellectual crime and this is what the film is exposing. Also, Mary Ann, FILM CRITIC, if you want to weigh in on the finer points of science and politics, please see Dr. David Berlinski, and explain to me how he appears to be some low intelligence fundamentalist fanatic that you so surgically try to label wide swaths of people with your clumsy housepainters brush. Why are soo many critics paid to contribute to the VAST cliche of the politics of film reviewers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-UjnHy7QAA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrs3FDiyot4&feature=related
    time: 30 – 6:00.

  • Matt

    “Evolution does not disprove the existence of an intelligent creator but Richard Dawkins, CHAIR of Evolutionary Biology at the world’s olds university seems to think so.”

    Not true. Dawkins does not contend that evolutionary biology disproves the existence of God or any other intelligent designer – that is something that can be neither proven nor disproven (in the same way that the existence of Russell’s teapot or the Invisible Purple Unicorn or the fairies at the bottom of my garden that I believe intelligently designed and created all life on this planet cannot be proven or disproven). But just because something is undisprovable does not mean that it is likely to exist: anybody can create a deity which cannot be disproven by saying that it is not part of the physical world which is open to scientific inquiry; but the likelihood of that deity actually existing is probably minute.

    What Dawkins says is that such speculation about intelligent designers is unnecessary, and fundamentally unscientific. Evolution is something for which there is an abundance of evidence, and is a theory which has stood the test of 150 years of intellectual scrutiny; ID, on the other hand, is nothing more than a recourse to the ‘god of the gaps’: basically saying “we can’t understand how life came to be as it is now, so rather than investigating the matter further, we’ll just suppose that God did it and not ask any more questions.” Intelligent design adherents are essentially making up their own stories to explain what they do not understand, and peddling these stories as “science”. Please tell me how it is “an intellectual crime” to discourage such a shoddy academic approach?

  • MBI

    “The argument here is not intelligent design….its scientists masquerading philosophy as science.”

    Are you sure you’re not actually talking about intelligent design advocates? Because that’s what intelligent design is — a philosophical response to scientific evidence. Not the same as science. Science answers how, philosophy answers why. Easy to remember, memorize it and use this tenet for the rest of your life. Science doesn’t, and isn’t ever going to, find the meaning of life. That’s a personal perception.

    The best argument against intelligent design I ever heard is that the natural world is so complicated yet ordered that it couldn’t be an accident. But our concept of order is based on natural law — if the world worked completely differently, we’d call the new rules ordered. Circular logic.

  • Nameless

    Where’d the natural laws come from, MBI?

  • MaryAnn

    Obviously, the natural laws come from, you know, nature.

    Why are soo many critics paid to contribute to the VAST cliche of the politics of film reviewers.

    I dunno what that means, but it sounds good. Where do I go to get paid?

  • Nameless

    Wait…so … nature CREATED natural laws?

  • Nameless

    And, by the way, MaryAnn, I’d like to humbly point out that the implications of there being a force that holds us to the earth is nothing compared to the implications of us being nothing more than animals, having no souls, or absolute worth. No metaphysical implications with gravity. But with evolution mixed with atheism? Sorry, but the belief has effectively taken away objective worth in human beings. Thus the danger that is seen in it. Funny analogy though, however faulty.

  • MBI

    “Where’d the natural laws come from, MBI?”

    Good question. Maybe from God. Maybe from nothing at all. Doesn’t necessarily follow that they come from somewhere. Maybe they just are.

    Does the absence of God erase the objective value of humanity? Also a good question. If I could venture a guess at how an atheist deals with that question (I wouldn’t know firsthand, being a Scientologist and everything), I’d say that either they 1) enjoy the subjective value of humanity, or 2) believe that the objective value of humanity doesn’t need a God to affirm it. I’d say that believing in the objective value of humanity is nearly as big a leap of faith as believing in God, but you know, whatever. These are all big cosmic questions that, when it comes down to it, don’t really affect how good my steak is. I’m gonna go play some Metroid Prime 2.

  • MBI

    Also, I’d note that I’d agree that the idea of humanity having no objective value is incredibly destructive for society. But that doesn’t necessarily make it true.

  • Derek

    “Good question. Maybe from God. Maybe from nothing at all. Doesn’t necessarily follow that they come from somewhere. Maybe they just are.”

    Sounds scientific to me.

  • Andrew the Giant

    “i said “recall”… so has Roman Catholicism been abolished as the *official* state religion of the Irish Republic?”

    It never was the official state religion. We’ve never had an official state religion at all.

    As for the educational curriculum of primary schools in Ireland; the science curriculum is not affected by the concerns of any church.

  • MaryAnn

    Okay, good stuff and all, but let’s try to keep the conversation related to the movie.

  • MBI

    “Sounds scientific to me.”

    Again, we’re getting into matters that are beyond the realm of science. Which is why they shouldn’t be taught in science classes.

  • bwfull

    I can’t help but think that the assumption behind ID is the Christian God. What a dis-service to the argument.

    I’m intrigued by this idea that we can investigate life further through a scientific approach. What exactly is being studied? What approach is being taken to study? It links to the comments regarding natural and law and how that counter argument makes ID circular. The very idea of knowing implies the concept of order. It demands a connection of isolated conceptsevents to define some-thing. In turn, simply because we might exist in a world that is completely different does negate ID. It negates the process of understanding, i.e. natural law, but what is constant is the idea that there is order.

    What is happening per the above is that the Primary Idea is being lost in by how we come to understand it. The Primary Idea is that there is order. ID attempts to define that by Some-Thing independent of the “known world”. The abuse is the canonization of that idea. Dawkins may be correct in that such questions should not be asked because they cannot be answered by scientific means. And yet Dawkins assume the process, the scientific method(olog), is sound in understanding. Evolution is sound because of science. That assumes a great deal of certitude not only in the process but the subject using it.

    I am not defending any dogmatic mysticism and if this movie is using a Christian Biblical definition of creation then that is disappointing. It is one thing to believe a question shouldn’t be or can’t be asked. But if experience tells me things are ordered, and can be known, but then experience tells me all things come to an end (I’ve yet to experience infinity) then we truly have a contradiction and as such how can I trust the subject that can’t reconcile such a contradiction? Either there is a constant to all things which exists beyond the thing or when the thing dies nothing remains. I’m not defining anything and I’m not making an argument for a soul. What I’m asking is, what is constant that can be known and if it exists what is its origin.

  • bwfull

    When I see the movie I can comment on the movie. At this point I can neither agree nor disagree with the review. If you haven’t seen the movie all you can do is question the methodology behind how the movie was reviewed.

    Which is more fun to do with a glass of wine or gin. :)

  • Ed Richardson

    Regardless of one’s stance on ID it’s common knowledge that cliques form in universities (and frankly, in all walks of life) that shut down anyone with a belief system outside the power base’s own.

    This reviewer is as parochial as any small town evangelist with her “these people” and “their trickery” nonsense.

  • Der Bruno Stroszek

    The crucial point is, though, that as much as we all love to root for the underdog, that doesn’t make the people in power wrong, and it doesn’t make the people who have been rejected right.

  • http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ island

    bwfull noted:
    Either there is a constant to all things which exists beyond the thing or when the thing dies nothing remains. I’m not defining anything and I’m not making an argument for a soul. What I’m asking is, what is constant that can be known and if it exists what is its origin.

    I have good reason to believe that what you’re looking for is right in front of everyone’s noses, and the constant is evolution. You don’t need an origin if there is a perpetually inherent thermodynamic function that enables the universe to periodically “leap”/bang to higher orders of the same basic configuration, because this preserves causality, the arrow of time and the second law of thermodynamics, indefinitely… … …

    Course, nobody on either side of the debate will ever be able see that reality through the distortions of their respective ideologically warped worldviews, so the truth may as well not even exist.

    The universe is Darwinian… but neodarwinians/physicists/anticentrists will never be able to accept purpose in nature, and creationists… well, that’s already a given.

    You don’t really want to know…

  • http://www.verticalag.com Jordan Lewis

    Wait…why is it not acceptable for Ben Stein, Valedictorian of his class at Yale, to posit that a legitimate scientific theory – proffered by scholars around the world (see contributers to the ISCID Academic Journal and current staff at the Discovery Institute – is being suppressed?

    Rather, why IS it acceptable for some e-journalist to condemn Stein’s arguments based on no scientific evidence, but rather pure scoffery? How was the movie, silly? And which enlightened soul here can remember that it was developmental evolution – expressed in my biology classes as Darwinism – that came under fire with similar vague scoffery?

  • MaryAnn

    why is it not acceptable for Ben Stein, Valedictorian of his class at Yale, to posit that a legitimate scientific theory

    ID is not a “legitimate scientific theory.”

    why IS it acceptable for some e-journalist to condemn Stein’s arguments based on no scientific evidence,

    I assume that the “e-journalist” you’re referring to is me. I am not condeming Stein’s “aruguments”: the scientific community condemns Stein’s “arguments,” based on scientific evidence. Stein — and the ID proponents on the whole — is manufacturing the illusion of controversy where none exists… at least not to any greater degree than there is controversy over whether the Earth is round or not. This film is outrageously deceptive, and is clearly designed to pander to people who don’t understand the issues, and to manipulate them. That’s repulsive, and must be condemned.

    This reviewer is as parochial as any small town evangelist with her “these people” and “their trickery” nonsense.

    No, I’m not. Some things are simply wrong, and not matters of opinion. ID as as scientific theory is one of them.

  • MaryAnn

    neodarwinians/physicists/anticentrists will never be able to accept purpose in nature

    Why should they? That’s the kind of presumption that science, by its very nature, tries to avoid.

  • Josh B

    Regardless of one’s stance on ID it’s common knowledge that cliques form in universities (and frankly, in all walks of life) that shut down anyone with a belief system outside the power base’s own.

    I can hardly think of two words more useless and dishonest than the phrase “common knowledge.” What knowledge is that, exactly? The sort that you just made up on the spot I’d wager.

    A dose of reality: There is no ‘power base’ in science. Ben Stein’s “Big Science” doesn’t exist. The scientific method is not a popularity contest, and any ‘cliques’ at an individual university are meaningless in the context of the untold thousands (millions?) of scientists and researchers worldwide. There is no conspiracy to suppress ID as a scientific theory. If the proponents of ID could come up with any empirical, falsifiable data then the scientific community would judge it on its merits. Until then they are just a source of laughter and/or frustration.

    This reviewer is as parochial as any small town evangelist with her “these people” and “their trickery” nonsense.

    If you read her review of this film then I’m sure you noticed that bit equating the theory of evolution with Nazism. How you can witness such elemental logical fallacy and cynical emotional pandering and not call it trickery is beyond me.

  • John

    Jordan Lewis wrote:
    “Wait…why is it not acceptable for Ben Stein, Valedictorian of his class at Yale, to posit that a legitimate scientific theory ”

    Jordan, that’s one of the biggest lies of all. “Theory” means “hypothesis that has a long track record of successful predictions.” There’s no such thing as an “ID theory.”

    “- proffered by scholars around the world (see contributers to the ISCID Academic Journal…”

    Yes! Go to the link to the journal at iscid.org, then answer two simple questions:
    1) Why is there no new evidence published in any of the issues of that journal?
    2) Even funnier, why hasn’t their very own journal published an issue IN OVER TWO YEARS, Jordan? Are they supressing themselves?

    “… and current staff at the Discovery Institute – is being suppressed?”

    Because they aren’t. No one was fired. They are perfectly free to bring up ID, but then we real scientists ask them, “Where are your data from testing an ID hypothesis?” and they run to ignorant nincompoops like you with nothing but rhetoric. Then we laugh at them, because ID is a joke.

  • http://count-shrimpula.livejournal.com Count Shrimpula

    Oh, whatever. These arguments are all just pointless nonsense, because we know that life was really created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?

  • Dan

    Anyone arguing that ID should be accepted or that you need to disprove it misses the point. There is a reason “scientific” people such as myself brush it off as just another one of those things religious people do. ID is NOT a scientific idea, it is purely a religious idea, which is why it has no place in the scientific community. People say ID has nothing to do with God, but like God, it is based in nothing. There is only one question you have to ask yourself. Is there any logical reason for you to think this? I’m so tired of hearing, “take a look around, the earth is beautiful. If one of the physical forces were slightly different, we wouldn’t exist.”

    Yes, the universe is beautiful, and again yes, if one of the forces, say gravity were different by a seemingly minute fraction, we wouldn’t exist. The entire universe would be completely different, and there would be other absolutely amazing things that don’t exist in our universe. Some of these things may even be sentient beings, and they may have the chance to tell themselves how amazing they are so they must have been created by an all powerful being.

    I know this is becoming a huge general rant on a belief system as opposed to just ID, but I’ve been exposed to so much of it lately and its making me go nuts. If people wish to believe in those things, thats fine, but don’t go around pretending it is scientific by any means. If your only real defense of a theory is “we can’t prove it, but you can’t disprove it” then you have to accept that it is absolutely useless as a scientific concept. Even outlandish theories in astrophysics have some plausible basis in what we currently know, and are at some point, given that we can possibly measure the phenomena they predict, will either be proven or refuted.

    Simply because science doesn’t know the absolute answer to a question doesn’t mean that you can make ridiculously claims and expect them to be accepted just because they can’t be factually refuted.

  • scanartist

    As much as i would like to chime in on the whole debate between ID and Evolution… i won’t, because there are massive amounts of forums, blogs and websties for that kind of thing.

    I do think it is funny that as much as she utterly despises the movie, she encourages us to go see it, nay demands that we go see it.

    What is your agenda?

    If i’m a Darwinist, i should know the kind of clap-trap they are pushing against me? Wouldn’t i already experienced it and have had to deal with it? But I need yet another thing to make me hate some people that much more because of something they believe? Trust me, the LAST thing anyone needs is another reason to fight about something. I would even say the movies exsistance goes too far in that regard anyway.

    If i’m an ID’er or “on the fence” you really want me to sell-out heart and soul to something like this after seeing it? If the ID’ers are as some sort of naive, dumb and incapable of an independent thought, wouldn’t they just eat this up and promptly man their picket signs and immediately start protesting universities for their lack of “scientific openness”? Because we all know that a small, but very annoyingly vocal minority of that side of the debate LOVE to picket and cry about these type of things.

    Or maybe you want to push as many as you can to waste their time in the theater at this movie as you apparently did (misery loves company)? I think next time stick to telling us that it sucked or it was awesome and why, then let us decide how we will waste our own time and money, because as a critic, i doubt you had to pay to see this film.

  • John B Hodges

    (JBH) Hey, everybody, spread the word:

    HITLER WAS A CREATIONIST

    Reading the quotations from Mein Kampf, (see below), it is clear that Hitler saw race in religious, Creationist terms, not from any Darwinian perspective. (Nor from any admiration of pagan prehistory.) The Nordic peoples were the original pure descendants of Adam, formed in the true image of God, and their health and racial purity meant the continuing reproduction of true images of God.

    (Begin quotations. Parenthetical comments are from the original webpage at http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm )

    [quotes from Hitler deleted by MAJ -- this isn't the place to post other people's writings]

  • http://scienceblogs.com/tfk Josh Rosenau

    “Our eyes must be opened to their trickery.”

    Indeed. Though one doesn’t have to fund their mendacity to do so. The NCSE has a great resource responding to the nonsensical claims of Expelled. Save yourself $10 and 2 hours.

  • Kelly

    HITLER WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN. HE PROCLAIMED THAT HE WAS IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE ON HIS SIDE, WHEN IN REALITY HE DESTROYED ANY CHURCH/CHRSTIAN PERSON THAT SPOKE OUT AGAINST WHAT HE WAS DOING. PUBLICALLY, HE WAS CATHOLIC, BUT PRIVATELY? PLEASE CONTINUE READING.

    The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian – a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.

    The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

    All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

    [quotes from Hitler deleted by MAJ -- what part of "stay on topic" was misunderstood?]

  • Kelly

    These posts have everything to do with the claims of the movie, by the way. What were Hitler’s true positions on Christianity/God, and what pushed him into believing what he actually did? It definitely wasn’t the Christian conception of God. The entire POINT of Christianity is to love God with all of your heart and your neighbor as yourself.

    To think that Hitler actually believed that Christianity was true is ridiculous. If he did he had a funny way of showing it(destroying every Church but the one he supported).

    Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:

    “The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race… Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.”

    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id2.html

  • RobertC

    Excellent review, one comment however:

    You use the term: “Judeo-Christian.” I suppose this term has meaning (tortured thought it may be), but if you are referring to ‘people of the book’, shouldn’t it be Islamo-Judeo-Christian? Same writings, same connection.

  • Grant

    Oh for the love of…
    Argumentum ad Hitlerum : “Hitler supported X, therefore X must be bad.”
    This is realy, truely a pointless tactic in any debate that is not specifically about Hitler. Which is why it is so abhorent that Stein would resort to it. Whatever Hitler did or did not belive, his opinions are irrelevant to the value of those things. Hitler can’t poison the entire well of anything. I mean, being an Austrian/German, its likely Hitler at some point in his life Hitler enjoyed beer and sausages. I enjoy beer and sausages. OMG I’M LIKE HITLER!!!! No, no I’m not. So, Hitler may have been a supporter and student of Darwin’s evelutionary theories. So what? He was also a supporter of the burgening theories of rocketry, Should we scrap the entire space program, as many post-WWII wanted?
    MAJ, maybe you want to just exercise executive editorial privelidge (i.e. hit the “delete post” button) on thoise last posts by Hodges and Kelly, saving them from the sad trap that Stein fell into.

  • MaryAnn

    Whether Hitler was a Christian or not has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. Any indulgence of this kind of argument only gives credence to that idea. So quit it. Or I’ll delete all such comments entirely.

    If i’m a Darwinist, i should know the kind of clap-trap they are pushing against me? Wouldn’t i already experienced it and have had to deal with it?

    Nice one, scanartist. There are no Darwinists today. Darwinism is 19th century. Come join us in the 21st — the water’s fine.

    But I need yet another thing to make me hate some people that much more because of something they believe?

    You think this is about *hating* people? People are free to believe whatever they want. They just can’t pass it off as something it’s not as a way to fool people into joining them in that belief. THAT’S what this is about.

    If the ID’ers are as some sort of naive, dumb and incapable of an independent thought

    Did I say that? Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. Though anyone smart but willfully ignorant deserves our disdain, I think.

    IDers don’t need me to tell them to see this movie. They are not whom I’m writing for, anyway, and this movie is already being effectively marketed at them. I’m trying to convince those who are already on my side of the fence that they need to see this. Disagree with that if you want… but you do yourself no credit by deliberately misinterpreting what I’m saying.

    Or maybe you want to push as many as you can to waste their time in the theater at this movie as you apparently did (misery loves company)?

    No, unlike Ben Stein, I do not hold my audience in contempt.

    i doubt you had to pay to see this film.

    Your powers of perception are indeed awesome, since I state at the end of my review — as I state at the end of all my reviews — how I saw a film. And in this case, yes, I did attend a press screening for which I did not have to pay admission. How does this change what I’m saying?

  • Grant

    Ah, I see you did. Good on you, MAJ!

  • MaryAnn

    You use the term: “Judeo-Christian.” I suppose this term has meaning (tortured thought it may be), but if you are referring to ‘people of the book’, shouldn’t it be Islamo-Judeo-Christian? Same writings, same connection.

    No, I used the term quite deliberately because already some people are trying to tell me that *Expelled* cannot possibly be creationist because Ben Stein is Jewish. And I don’t see any Muslim groups trying to push their creationist fable onto school boards as legitimate science.

    MAJ, maybe you want to just exercise executive editorial privelidge (i.e. hit the “delete post” button) on thoise last posts by Hodges and Kelly, saving them from the sad trap that Stein fell into

    The posts had already been edited by the time you posted this request, Grant. Which I’ll second: Just because someone can kill you by pushing you off a cliff does not constitute a refutation of the theory of gravity. Just because an atomic bomb can destroy a city doesn’t mean that atomic theory is wrong. Wishful thinking is not science, and just because you really, really would like something be so doesn’t make it so.

    PLEASE, everyone, stay on topic.

  • http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ island

    Why should they? That’s the kind of presumption that science, by its very nature, tries to avoid.

    Actually, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, but scientists are a different story. Albert Einstein was probably the most famous physicist to recognize pupose in nature, but John Wheeler was the most recent to die, which sadly, just happened. Now, Paul Davies carries John’s torch, but it is on record that scientists are typically ideologically predispositioned in a non-scientific manner that automatically projects a form of mediocrity that isn’t observed, as Brandon Carter Pointed out in Kracow Poland in 1973, what he called exagerated subserviance to the Copernican Principle, which leads to absurdities by ideologically predispositioned scientists.

    He was talking about counter-reactionism among scientists against old historical beliefs about creationism and geocentrism that causes them to automatically dismiss any relevance to features of the universe that also permit our existence, and this leads to equally absurd Copernican-(like) cosmological extensions, which do not agree with observation.

    Carter’s example was as follows:

    Unfortunately, there has been a strong and not always subconscious tendency to extend this to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot be privileged in any sense. This dogma (which in its most extreme form led to the “perfect cosmological principle” on which the steady state theory was based) is clearly untenable, as was pointed out by Dicke (Nature 192, 440, 1961).
    -Brandon Carter

    How Carter’s point applies, including the strength of the statement, depends on the cosmological model that is being assumed. If anything, Carter’s point is even more true and applicable today, than it was then, thanks mainly to the never ending detriment to science that is cause by both distorted sides of the CrEvo debate.

  • John

    “[quotes from Hitler deleted by MAJ -- what part of "stay on topic" was misunderstood?]”

    But the quotes from Mein Kampf are very much on topic. They show that the movie’s attempt to link Darwin to Hitler is a lie.

    Hitler explicitly rejected common descent in Mein Kampf. That puts him in agreement with the filmmakers and in disagreement with Darwin and us real biologists!

    Kelly wrote, “These posts have everything to do with the claims of the movie, by the way. What were Hitler’s true positions on Christianity/God, and what pushed him into believing what he actually did?”

    It doesn’t matter. We know that Hitler denied common descent just like today’s creationists do. Don’t forget that creationists and ID proponents don’t dispute that change can occur within a species (they call it “microevolution”), which was Hitler’s goal.

  • Hypocee

    I’m a little surprised that you got into a critical prescreening, MaryAnn, since the producers have been restricting their marketing to fellow fundies. Do you think this was just a New York thing, or did you have to pretend to be a preacher to get in? A quick ordination in the Reformed Universal First National Church of David Tennant?

  • MaryAnn

    But the quotes from Mein Kampf are very much on topic. They show that the movie’s attempt to link Darwin to Hitler is a lie.

    You wanna link to stuff? Fine. But don’t hog my web space.

    I’m a little surprised that you got into a critical prescreening, MaryAnn, since the producers have been restricting their marketing to fellow fundies.

    Maybe at first they were, but not anymore. I attended a regular press screening arranged by a PR agency that handles all sorts of movies. I didn’t have to pretend to be anything other than the loudmouth atheist I am to get in… and the press agent, with whom I’ve been acquainted for years, was delighted to see me.

  • Grant

    John, quotes from Hitler are off-topic because it doesn’t matter what Hitler thought of evolution, creation, rocket science, berr and sausages, or anything else. And Ben Stein should know that. To invoke Hilter at all is shooting himself in the foot, particualrly if his thesis is one about academic freedom. The possiblility that he might be wrong just leads toa fruitless and pointless debate.

  • Gary Hurd

    As I have gathered, non-fundamentalists have been asked to review the film “Expelled” in the day or two before openning to avoid the arguemnt that “only fundamentalists were allowed to see previews.”

    This is after months of selective previews given to fundamentalists.

  • Attila the Choir Director

    Thank God…oops, sorry. Thank goodness you exposed Stein as a one-sided, disingenuous phony. Heaven knows…oops, sorry again. We all know that a propagandistic “documentary” by a known moralistic crackpot should not be seen by anyone. I’m so grateful there are well-balanced, truth-telling, documentary film makers out there like Michael Moore to show us how to make an even-handed film that thoughtfully shows both sides of an issue and doesn’t preach to the already converted. Thank you, Michael. If only Stein had learned from you how to show both sides of an issue we wouldn’t have to be put through this unseemly controversy.

  • mike

    I thought this was a movie review site not Hilary clinton convention. no one has said if the movie entertains.That is why people see movies whether they agree with what they are saying or not.

  • James

    ah wait did someone say that michael moore is a well balanced film maker? no doubt his films entertian but even the most liberal among us will concede that his films are filled with propoganda. That is why the dem party stays away from him (thank god) anyway this film is the same as mm films just from the other point of view and whether you agree or not whats wrong with talking about it. I thought it was an entertaing movie thats my 2 cents go barack!

  • Der Bruno Stroszek

    I thought this was a movie review site not Hilary clinton convention.

    Oh, zing! bcos only dem commie libruls dont like intellyjunt dizzyne

    Actually, I know plenty of conservatives who think the premise of this movie is arse twiffle. It’s not about right or left, it’s about right and wrong.

    no one has said if the movie entertains.That is why people see movies whether they agree with what they are saying or not.

    Do you think that’s why people see documentaries? I thought that people mainly saw documentaries to be informed, and that it was actually quite a serious issue if a documentary was found to be full of lies.

    But maybe I’m wrong, maybe people only see documentaries for the entertainment value. If I told you, mike, that Fahrenheit 9/11 was brilliantly paced, often very moving, funny and fast-moving, would you go and see it? Or would there be other considerations?

  • Scott Wildey

    Although this review is well written about the movie (in terms of being intriguing), some of the statements regarding science and ID are not exactly full in terms of the current dialogue.

    Case in Point: Antony Flew’s book entitled, “There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind.”

    Flew is arguably the most influential atheist of the second half of the twentieth century. In his book, he has stated that his method has all along been the Socratic mantra of “following the evidence where it leads…”—to which he now reasons the evidence leads to intelligent design.

    Keep in mind, he is not a Christian (or as the author of this review cheaply called anyone who holds such a view…”fundamentalist”). He is now a theist, and holds that modern science, yes, modern science, not a religion, is God’s biggest proponent.

    The book traces the philosophical arguments back 60 years and references all the big names and their arguments.

    So, though it may be easy to cheap shot Christians (after all everyone needs an enemy as it seems), you may want to turn your energy towards trying to explain some of the philosophical questions about the universe and life, etc., that atheistic philosophy has been unable to for over a century (in spite of its promises). At least then you will engage people different than you with more civility in your disagreements.

  • MaryAnn

    non-fundamentalists have been asked to review the film “Expelled” in the day or two before openning

    I saw the movie about 10 day before it opened.

    I’m so grateful there are well-balanced, truth-telling, documentary film makers out there like Michael Moore

    I can’t believe it took this long for someone to liken Ben Stein to Michael Moore. Moore editorializes, it’s true, about matters of opinion — that’s what editorializing is all about. But Stein attempts to editorialize away fact, and that’s not possible. Whether the U.S. would be better off with single-payer health care is a matter of opinion. Whether evolution has occurred and is a natural phenomenon is not.

    this film is the same as mm films just from the other point of view

    No, it’s not the same at all. “Intelligent design is science” is not a point of view: it’s simply wrong.

    I thought this was a movie review site not Hilary clinton convention.

    Oh, please DO explain what the hell that’s supposed to mean.

    Flew is arguably the most influential atheist of the second half of the twentieth century.

    No, he isn’t. Only ID proponents believe that.

    you may want to turn your energy towards trying to explain some of the philosophical questions about the universe and life, etc.,

    That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evolution or whether intelligent design is science or not.

  • http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ island

    He is now a theist, and holds that modern science, yes, modern science, not a religion, is God’s biggest proponent.

    Just like so many others wrongly do, Anthony Flew thinks that evidence that can be interpreted to mean that we are not here by accident, constitutes evidence for god. But this leap of faith is unfounded, since it is much more probable that there is some simple physical need for us to be here, if we are not here by accident.

    In other words, Flew has taken it upon himself to disregard the most plausible avenue of scientific investigation into evidence that can define non-accidental occurrence, in order to find god in the evidence, so he’s wrong to claim that science has found god.

    This is the same thing that IDists do without any less justification than Anthony Flew has.

  • violamom

    Hmmm…just out of curiousity, I looked up your reviews for Michael Moore and Al Gore. Positively orgasmic. So one little teensy weensy question to all of you: how come the left gets to throw its propagandistic, left skewing “documentaries” into the movie theaters, but the right shouldn’t just because you violently disagree with the content? Seems to me you just prove Stein’s point by all your frothing at the mouth. So much for “tolerance” and “diversity” and being “inclusive”. God bless you anyway (and I really mean that). :-)

  • Der Bruno Stroszek

    violamom, can you point out where MaryAnn says that Expelled shouldn’t be shown? She doesn’t even say “don’t see it”. This (all-too-common) assumption that criticising something is the same as suppressing it really annoys me. Criticism is not stifling free speech. Criticism is using free speech.

  • davidov

    I can only quote Arthur Schopenhauer as a rebuttal to all the naysayers concerning Expelled.

    “All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

    It will take time, but I.D. will gradually move from the second stage it presently occupies, to the third. This will occur when intelligent people question the “politically correct” verbal detractions, and spend time actually studying I.D., as I have for over three years. Then, this new paradigm for science will occur.

  • lpadron

    Stick to the flicks and leave the philosophy to those better qualified.

  • MaryAnn

    *Expelled* sure looks like a flick to me.

    how come the left gets to throw its propagandistic, left skewing “documentaries” into the movie theaters, but the right shouldn’t just because you violently disagree with the content?

    Because matters of fact are not matters of “left” and “right.” Or perhaps it really is true that truth has a liberal bias.

    “All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

    Sure, they laughed at Galileo. But they laughed at Bozo the clown, too.

  • http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ island

    It will take time, but I.D. will gradually move from the second stage it presently occupies, to the third.

    Yeah, when you can produce a very old alien space-ship that crashed on Venus with the blueprints for humans hanging from the drawing board.

  • http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ island

    Because matters of fact are not matters of “left” and “right.

    Matters of fact have little to do with the ideologically motivated interpretations that go with them, and to assume that scientists don’t *reactionarily* lean to the opposite extreme is about as arrogant/bogus/self-dishonest, as one can get.

  • MA

    Good review but disappointing to see the deeply flawed ‘must see’ rating. Any member of the ‘reality-based community’ will gain nothing from viewing the film, any more than going along for an evening with your local white supremacist chapter.

    If anyone is tempted to follow MaryAnn’s advice and waste 90 minutes of your life that you’ll never get back, at least buy a ticket for another show and then go in to the Expelled screen. Don’t give these vile people any of your money.

    “…to see a dumbfounded Dawkins speaking to Stein as if Stein were a child…”

    Dawkins was not interviewed by Stein. They edited Stein in later. More lies. More deception. I know, it’s difficult to keep up because there are so many….

  • SP

    I’m sorry, but is Evolution not still considered a theory? And I theory is simple an idea that cannot be disproved, though it is not sound enough to be considered proven, or “fact”. So then… how is ID not also a theory. Where you may think it silly for one who leans toward ID to call it a “scientific theory”, it is still, in fact, a theory. And where they say “it may not be proven, but it can also not be disproved”, then how is it any more or less idiotic to believe in Evolution vs. Intelligent Design?

    In a way, can’t Evolution itself be a sort of “religion” (defined as – a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe). There are people that devote their entire lives to seeking it out and defining it further, just the same as those who believe in ID. Other than being on different side of an argument, how are either different? Since evolution is STILL nothing more than a “theory” BY DEFINITION, then we are all just throwing about our opinions. Are we not?

    This is simply a debate over which religion is right, and which religion is wrong. I believe in one religion, you may believe in another. WE simply disagree. And to sit here and call each other names because of this disagreement really takes me back to the schoolyard days of recess where “my dad’s bigger than your dad” is commonly shouted throughout.

    Can anyone explain to me why you are better because you have a different belief than me? Or am I free to continue believing in my God as my creator without being called an idiot, nincompoop, or whatever other names you decide to come up with?

    I have yet to see the movie, but plan to see it this Sunday evening. I want to see how Ben Stein approaches the subject, but will probably be just as skeptical of his documentary as the many evolutionists on this page are. Don’t judge me because I have a different opinion, and I’ll do the same for you – let’s just leave the ridiculous name-calling and tantrum-throwing out of it, shall we?

  • Kate Ryan

    Brilliant article girlfriend. Thank you, my darling, for it.

  • John

    SP wrote:
    “I’m sorry, but is Evolution not still considered a theory?”

    No, evolution is a phenomenon that can be observed in real time in nature. Evolutionary theory is about the mechanisms underlying the phenomenon of evolution.

    “And I theory is simple an idea that cannot be disproved, though it is not sound enough to be considered proven, or “fact”.”

    No, that’s a hypothesis. A theory started as a hypothesis, but has a long track record of successfully predicting observations before they are made. ID has no track record of successful predictions, and a short track record of unsuccessful predictions.

    Nothing in science is ever considered to be proven. All conclusions are provisional subject to new evidence. The ID movement produces no evidence, SP.

    “So then… how is ID not also a theory.”

    No successful track record.

    “Where you may think it silly for one who leans toward ID to call it a “scientific theory”, it is still, in fact, a theory.”

    In fact, it is nothing of the sort.

    “In a way, can’t Evolution itself be a sort of “religion” (defined as – a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe).”

    No, evolution is only about how living things on earth change over time, not the purpose of the universe.

    “There are people that devote their entire lives to seeking it out and defining it further, just the same as those who believe in ID.”

    Why don’t those who believe in ID produce new evidence instead of books and movies aimed at fooling people like you, then?

    “Other than being on different side of an argument, how are either different?”

    One has mountains and gigabytes of evidence backing it, the other has nothing but rhetoric.

    “Can anyone explain to me why you are better because you have a different belief than me?”

    I am a better scientist than any ID proponent because I test my hypotheses rigorously.

    “Or am I free to continue believing in my God as my creator without being called an idiot, nincompoop, or whatever other names you decide to come up with?”

    So we agree that IDers are lying when they claim that this isn’t about religion? What does the Bible say about lying?

  • John

    davidov wrote:
    “It will take time, but I.D. will gradually move from the second stage it presently occupies, to the third. This will occur when intelligent people question the “politically correct” verbal detractions, and spend time actually studying I.D., as I have for over three years. Then, this new paradigm for science will occur.”

    It’s not happening. ID is stuck in the first stage and will remain there. In science, that progression requires new evidence, not rhetoric and frantic spinning of cherry-picked evidence from others. There are plenty of paradigm changes in science, and the changers are handsomely rewarded.

    If you’ve been studying ID for over three years, what predictions of what hypotheses did you test and where are your data? That’s the only thing that “actually studying” means in an actual scientific context.

  • SP

    John –

    the simple definition of a thoery: contemplation or speculation; guess or conjecture.

    And I cannot speak for all of those who believe in ID. I personally believe that the Intelligent Designer is God, but not all do. In fact, there are many who don’t. And I also can’t answer for everyone who does not support their belief or opinion. I can only speak for myself… so please do not put me in the same boat as those others. I do my research for myself and I still believe what I believe, contrary to common beliefs that i’ve been brain-washed by another’s opinion.

  • Grant

    *sigh*

    SP-

    theory: an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
    Source: American Heritage Dictionary of Science, 1986 ed.

    Do you want ID put on an equal footing of a scientific discipline, not on a separate foundation of philosophy and belief? If so, we’ll use the language of science, thank you very much.

    Or, do you want to toss all “theories” into a common bin of mere conjecture and guesswork? If so, you show very little respect for your Designer.

  • SP

    I believe that my Designer is amazing, and I would never discredit or diminish his creation or power. But how can you see he everyday “mircales” and not take them as proof of Intelligent Design? or at LEAST acknowledge that there has GOT to be something more out there.

    Also – from where are the original beings and what caused the beginning of their evolution to eventually becomming who and what we are today?

    I really would be interested in having someone explain that to me through laymens terms – in all seriousness. Since not all of us were validictorians at Yale and some do need to be spoken to in such a way.

  • matthew

    Wow, just wow.

    I for one am very interested in hearing alternative theories, especially ones which have been so thoroughly vilified by the establishment.

    Please allow me to guess, self-proclaimed goddess (ah the irony), you were very much anti-establishment in your younger years. But you’re now very much comfortable with your establishment and the safety and security it promises you as it coddles you high above the stress and strife which so plagues us mere plebes below.

    So now something comes to shake your house of cards and you’re quite perturbed about the potential falling which may very well be occurring and soon.

    Or you just can’t stand the thought of some alternative thought far outside the lines of those espoused by preceding docu-dramas such as the laughable blatherings of Messrs Moore and Gore opening in such grandiose way, so far beyond the paltry showings of their respective crown jewels?

    It is true, Gore’s Borebasm opened on like 50 screens and maxed out at around 500, while Moore’s blowhard-fests only made it to around 300, total, ever.

    There won’t likely be any conversion of mind or thought, but evolution will benefit from critical thought, from alternatives and perspectives heretofore kept in dark boxes and cells.

  • charlie

    Gosh, all this debate over one little ol’ movie. Sounds to me that this alone should be enough for me to want to watch what is said in the movie. Then I’ll make up my own mind on this issue. Then Maryann can get back to reviewing the latest Benji movie. :)

    Sorry folks, just trying to lighten up the mood.

    I hope that everyone who is so passionate about their side of this issue can be open-minded enough to accept another perspective otherwise we have a much bigger problem.

    Have a nice day!

  • scott Wildey

    I’m trying to make sense of the response statement: “That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evolution or whether intelligent design is science or not.” (in regards to the needs to put energy into the philosophical discussion of origins).

    First, anytime the rhetoric is used “Absolutely” (like never and always in a relationship)—that is a clear sign that what follows is suspect.

    Science and philosophy are joined at the hip. The current plausibility structure of what is science or not is built heavily on Enlightenment philosophy (Kant, Hume, etc.). Though evolution has undisputed facts, it also has many disputed claims that that are largely tackled by philosophers will all kinds of views. Take for example the theory that life generated from unliving matter at some point. Though many take this as fact (and has even reached dogmatic levels)—it most certainly is not fact—but one of competing theories. It has been argued that the theory is incoherent. The rhetoric then says, “No it’s not, only by ID people.” That’s not a scientific response, but rather a dogmatic one. Similar to the response about Flew. When he was an atheist (for most of his life), he was claimed fully, and it IS argued that his paper, “Theology and Falsification” published in 1950 set the tone for atheists to come. Meaning, though he is now rhetorically written off since he left the club, his arguments are still used in full force—and still reckoned with.

    The practical implications of both science and philosophy are dealt with hand-in-hand. For example, the scientific fields of physics and genetics are used to argue theories like evolution and design.

    The sheer tone of responses may wind up proving how dogmatic a once free thinking field has become.

    Keep in mind, Darwinism has been around for well over a century, and yet the scientific critique and dissent from much of its claims only gets stronger. To Correlate, traditional religion has dropped in America. If all the rhetorical claims are true then Darwinism would be less critiqued (meaning, the most critique would have happened when the most traditional religions were at its peek in America).

    For example, over 600 doctoral scientists have signed a statement entitled: “A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

    The deflective argument would simply attempt to write these off as “Quacks”, but these are PH.Ds at major universities around the world.

    Like any documentary, Stein’s overstates the case (I haven’t seen a documentary that doesn’t do this). The real test will be to see how secure the various views are. It is more scientific to “follow the evidence where it leads…”

  • http://crowdedheadcozybed.wordpress.com Lou FCD

    I hope by this point you’ve found Expelled Exposed, the National Center for Science Education’s website that discusses this film.

    Anyone who’s followed the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax for more than five minutes is probably aware of the majority of the film’s prevarications, distortions, and inanities, but there’s probably at least a few things there of which you weren’t aware.

    Oh, and that “Dissent from Darwism” list is a hoot.

    Google “Project Steve” or check out The Panda’s Thumb for some good info on that little piece of bath tissue.

    See you After the Bar Closes.

    ;)

  • The Dude

    There is even a scientologist commenting on this? Scientology is even more hilarious than ID. Why do
    humans having no soul mean we have no worth? Yes
    people should stop worrying about something people
    made up when the earth was flat and just live their
    lives. Or for those of us who believe a failed
    science FICTION writer got it right maybe you should
    read some Dr. Suess. Maybe the Who’s in Whoville are
    actually the Intelligent Designers. Religion has
    ruined humanity. Until ORGANIZED religion is banned
    humanity will be worthless. Believe what you want but
    don’t avoid wearing a condom because the man in the
    funny hat says it is wrong. Catching AIDS and dying
    would be the wrong thing.

  • http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ island

    scott Wildey said:
    Science and philosophy are joined at the hip. The current plausibility structure of what is science or not is built heavily on Enlightenment philosophy (Kant, Hume, etc.). Though evolution has undisputed facts, it also has many disputed claims that that are largely tackled by philosophers will all kinds of views. Take for example the theory that life generated from unliving matter at some point. Though many take this as fact (and has even reached dogmatic levels)—it most certainly is not fact—but one of competing theories.

    Eh… no, you dropped your ball of “what is science or not” when you (intentionally?) avoided the fact that “one of the competing theories” is necessarily preferred by the scientific method, and guess what?… it’s the natural explanation, for the simple good reason that we know that the cause for every effect that we know the cause for, is natural, so this continuity is most logically expected.

    You did okay up to this dramatic distortion of the facts, so I have to wonder, (“intentional?”).

  • MA

    “…Darwinism has been around for well over a century…”

    There is no such thing as ‘Darwinism’ other than in the heads of dishonest Creationists. The scientific theory of evolution put forward by Charles Darwin has been with us 149 years.

    “… and yet the scientific critique and dissent from much of its claims only gets stronger.”

    Bullshit. 149 years of accumulated, peer-reviewed research in multiple fields of study have all combined to confirm and strengthen the theory beyond what Darwin envisioned.

    “…over 600 doctoral scientists have signed a statement entitled: “A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM: …”

    Bullshit again. You just make it up as you go along, don’t you? There is a jumbled and desperate list of less than 100 names of mathemiticians, engineers, dentists(!), statisticians, project managers, psycholigists, assistant professor of urban forestry(!!), etc. published by the ‘lying for Jesus’ team at the DI. It’s a pathetic attempt at argumentum ad populum. However, if you want to play the numbers game, there are 877 documented scientists called ‘Steve’ alone who state “there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred” (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp).

  • roctor

    I think it’s funny that a loser who calls herself a “geek goddess” has so much disdain for ID.

    However, reading such a stupid article, I was ironically convinced she may be right: intelligent design seems impossible given such random stupidity present in the review that uses terms like “hard on” and the subsequent “go grrlfriend” responses.

    May God or Darwin have mercy on you all.

  • http://www.equalityloudoun.com Jonathan

    Thanks for the write up MaryAnn. I agree with you that people need to know how whacked the “christianists” are, but I don’t think they should go out and see this movie. It’s important for it to tank financially.

    To understand just how deceitful these folks are, here is what Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries has to say:

    http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2008/04/get-expelled.html#comments

    “Reviewer MaryAnn Johanson of FlickFilosopher wails in her Expelled review (profanity alert), “You need to see this movie because these people are not going away.” Excellent advice (and even better prognosticating). Go catch Expelled at a theater near you this weekend, and whether you’re one of “these people” or a skeptic, share your thoughts with us in the comment section. We’d like to hear what you think.

    If all goes according to plan today, we’ll have more on the film and its star later this evening.”

    The author of this post, Gina Dalfonzo edits the blog and she also writes for Focus on the Family magazines. She doesn’t care if friend or foe goes to see the movie. If it makes any money, she’s going to claim it was popular and declare victory.

  • splatticusfinch

    …she’s a bit too old and unattractive to be calling herself a “Geek Goddess” under any circumstances. Close but no Tina Fey dear. And when I say “close” I mean the way that apes are close to being human.

    Mary, you’ll probably want to delete this one, so let me make it easier for you by just saying: HITLER HITLER HITLER!

  • Ryan

    I think you’re making the case against ‘intelligent’ design for her, splatticusfinch.

  • TheGaucho

    All you people go and read Bill Bryson´s excellent science book “A short history of nearly everything”. A fun read, but a thoroughly researched book. That should end this discussion once and for all.

    Sheesh!

  • http://www.xanga.com/cagey_b Ace of Sevens

    I’d say the merits or lack thereof of ID aren’t the point here except for insofar as how accurate the movie was. The bigger point as to what’s wrong with theis movies is its social criticisms of eveloution (blame for Holocaust, for example) are flat out lies as are all the stories about people being expelled and the whole “big science” premise. Overturning established thought is how scientists make a name for themselves. You’ll find few groups less dedicated to the status quo.

  • http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ island

    … all the stories about people being expelled and the whole “big science” premise…. are flat out lies.

    No, that’s false.

    Overturning established thought is how scientists make a name for themselves.

    Yeah, and Richard Dawkins is wide open to the idea that the “appearance of design” might be anything other than an accident. Just like every other rabid neodarwinian in existence.

    MaryAnn, look-up Lynn Margulis in Wikipedia and amazon. She is a highly respected and honored evobiolgist, and she calles them “neodarwinian bullies”, because of their reactionary zealotry against any and all implications for higher function in nature.

    You’ll find few groups less dedicated to the status quo.

    I know what you mean man!!! I’m just freaking sure that PZ Meyers would like nothing better than to find some kind of proof that jebus luvs us, so republican is the only way to go… airhead.

  • roctor

    Ace of Sevens, anyone familiar with the 20th century eugenics movement knows that its parantage (and therefore its offspring atrocities like the Holocaust) runs directly to Darwin, with the idea that certain races and people are more “fit” to survive and that the human animal can be perfected by natural processes over time, so long as the gene pool isn’t polluted by “lesser blood” like Jews, blacks, and whathaveyou. Heck, the very definition of eugenics means just that: Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust.

    The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[2] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[3][4] G. K. Chesterton (a Christian apologist*) was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities…. Eugenics’ scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany.”

    Darwin never meant for his ideas to fill the mass graves of the Nazis, but that’s exactly what they did, and it’s only your bias for science and your antipathy for religion that allows you to deny the recorded (and really uncontested) history.

  • Dave

    Wow. You people are elitist just like the movies states. This whole “I’m better than you” attitude is really funny because you are so blinded by your personal world view(just as the movie states.)

    ITs pretty easy to dismiss things like the Bible when you have never read it. Even more so, when you dont study it. You can read a math book, but until you study and practice the problems you wont get it. And apparantly most of you here dont get what is inside the Bible.

    Futhermore, where is the proof of this so called evolution? Finches? That is a variation, not evolution.

    First, for evolution to exist a mutation must occur. Sure, we can OBSERVE mutations occuring in nature today, but has a rose ever produced a nonrose? No. Every mutation we have ever observed has been harmful and not beneficial. But for your sake, lets assume a beneficial mutation has occured. First off that organism with the mutation would have to breed and pass its traits to its offspring and so on and so forth for generations until those without the mutation are completely breed out of the population. This has never been observed and is such a ludicrious concept, logic can tell you that such a scenario is one in a trillion trillion trillion. But as evolutionists would like to put it, this scenario has happened millions of times.

    Midgets beget midgets and normal sized people. Assuming a famine occurs, wiping out 90% of normal sized people. Little people still carry the genes for normal sized people! Once the famine is over, normal people will retake little people in the population just like it was originally. Dont believe me? Go study Darwin’s precious finches, the beaks got bigger during a seed famine and when the famine was over the average beak size returned to normal!(That still only explains VARIATIONS and not how one species turns into another)

    I could keep this going all day and poke hundreds of holes into the theory. Just like geology where they use fossils to date rocks and rocks to date fossils. Way to go, you just used circular reasoning and proved NOTHING.

    The matter of the fact is that evolution is NOT science! It is a faith just like Christianity or Judaism. Evolution is a matter of metaphysics which is NOT empirical science. We cannot measure, observe, or test any evolutionary theory. And the whole theory still fails to explain how living material came from non living material. Saying we came “from the backs of crystals” doesnt explain how something becomes self aware and is definately more outrageous than believing in an intellegent designer.

  • Don

    The movie is not necessarily pushing ID or creationism. It is merely pointing out that evolutionists are so dogmatic and afraid of any idea that does not fit their pre-conceived notion, they pounce on the offending “heretic” with such vicious revenge that they ruin the careers of highly capable scientists. Some of the reviewers here are the same. They resort to name-calling without even arguing a point. Why not let the scientific facts lead where they may? The movie clearly shows the vitriolic fear and hatred that some pro-evoluionist scientist have toward any view except those views that say everything happened by chance. What is so terrifying about admitting that some power higher than ourselves had something to do with the origin of life. Good grief, get a life? I will be surprised if any of those reading this post who disagree with me will not resort to name-calling within about two sentences, without ever arguing their point. Can anyone prove me wrong?

  • Dumfounded

    I believe if one would read all of the comments posted by this critic along with most of the peanut gallery here, Ben Stein’s film comes actively alive. The flavor of reading here, suggests that liberal ideas are 100% correct – and anyone who believes in the grace of a loving God who is the author of life – is frankly dangerous. This does not surprise a fellow like myself, who gladly reads the Bible and understands that in the last days, good will be evil, and evil will become good. I am not saddened by the fact that you do not believe as i do, i am saddened that my understanding of liberalism has always been on the idea of free thinking – ability to get outside of the box and look at things from a different angle. Ben Stein’s movie is proven by this blog – Liberalism and in partiticular evolutionists are not open to discuss contrary thinking – even to the level of wanting to throw things at the screen and such violence. Weird that the only smart ones who love peace are so hostile towards those who believe a creator authored life. It takes far more “faith” to believe in evolution than it does in creation, and evolution is a much deeper rooted “religion” than Judeo-Christian faith is. God Bless, i hope everyone reading finds peace.

  • amanohyo

    @island

    “Darwin never meant for his ideas to fill the mass graves of the Nazis, but that’s exactly what they did…”

    Darwin’s ideas form the framework of a very useful scientific model. Personally, I think there’s a great difference between the invention of a piece of technology that did not previously exist in nature, such as Nobel’s invention of dynamite, and the development of a scientific theory (that has no immediately obvious potential for destruction) to describe a process that happens naturally, without any human intervention.

    But, even if we assume that these two types of ideas are the same, it seems like a stretch to state that it was the “ideas” that filled those graves.

    By that logic, Darwin’s ideas also performed thousands of biological experiments that have ultimately extended the lives of millions of people.

    Let’s put it another way. Are you sure that if Darwin’s ideas were not available, that the Third Reich would not have risen to power and slaughtered millions of Jews? Surely the citizens of Germany were already aware of the fact that children tend to resemble their parents. In the cultural and political atmosphere of that time, it seems likely that any number of scientific ideas could have been twisted in an attempt to justify genocide.

    If an angry person sees a pair of scissors on a desk and they decide to construct a knife that is shaped like a pair of scissors and then use that knife to stab another person to death, it doesn’t seem to make any sense to say that the scissors and/or their inventor “filled the grave.” Especially when there was a letter opener, a hammer, and a gun also lying on the desk, and the man is already batshit insane. (It’s a poor analogy, but you get the point)

  • John Wykes

    This reviewer obviously did not understand the film she viewed. Even in her first paragraph, she misses the point — it is not that the Nazi atrocities necessarily prove evolution wrong, it is that dismissing the theory of an intelligent designer altogether allows for various excesses. This film is not about evolution per se, as is clearly explained in the film, nor is it about creationism (which is different from intelligent design, as is clearly explained in the film). It is about supporting the freedom of scientists (yes, real scientists, who are interviewed in this film) to posit a theory which challenges the prevailing theory of evolution. Both atheists and theists are allowed to express themselves. Most of the humor comes from the atheists, who provide some of the silliest comments of all (“religion is like knitting. People like to knit.”). If one looks carefully beyond the humorous presentation, one sees much substance and food for thought. This is a well-thought out, intelligent discourse, something that the above reviewer obviously missed altogether. It is clear that this movie has rattled some people. That is good — maybe it will challenge people to think outside of the box.

  • http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ island

    amanohyo quoted… somebody:
    “Darwin never meant for his ideas to fill the mass graves of the Nazis, but that’s exactly what they did…”

    And then ananohyo said to me:
    Darwin’s ideas form the framework of a very useful scientific model.

    Hey, no kidding, but why are you telling me this?

  • amanohyo

    Whoops, sorry about that island. I scrolled over the actual author of the quote by mistake. My response was meant for roctor.

  • Ted Neboski

    Oh, how I love it. When Michael Moore pumps his ficticious sludge into Mary Johanson’s little mind, she says it was “…loud, opinionated, and even crude. And thank God for it!” (Well, at least she acknowledges there’s a God, I guess…) The film was bursting at the seams with distortions, contrivances and outright lies, but since it agrees with certain reviewers’ leftist agendas, that’s all OK–the end justifies the means, after all, at least if your a liberal.

    Yet when Ben Stein uses precisely the same tactics as Michael Moore (and 60 Minutes, for that matter)–but this time toward a conservative agenda–Mary fumes that it’s “propagandistic nonsense” and “shockingly, baldly disingenuous.”

    Ooh, your poor leftist sensibilities have been bruised! What happened to oft-spouted fiction about the left being open minded and tolerant? Mary, you and some of your commenters are just about as tolerant as Joseph Stalin. Leftist lies are somehow more palatable than conservative truth, and if a conservative adopts Michael Moore’s playbook, there’s going to be a meltdown on the left.

    Thanks for opening my eyes to YOUR trickery, Mary.

  • dg

    I have to say Mary Ann, this movie scares me. It’s a work of propaganda that would make the Nazi’s proud.

    What scares me the most is that it’s part of a culture in our society that is rooted in ignorance and they love to wallow in it.

    They condemn anything that doesn’t bow to their view of reality. (Liberals, Democrats, Muslims, atheists, the theory of evolution, global warming, fair trade economic policies, and so forth.)

    I’m not sure how many in New York have been drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid, but in the Midwest, they’re a growing majority.

    It’s like being in a body snatchers movie. “Oh look, my brother’s listening to Michael Savage, my stepbrother is watching Fox and listening to Rush, and OH GodS!!! My niece and nephew are reading Ann Coulter!!! Nooo!!!”

    Seriously, my niece and nephew swore that dinosaurs weren’t real even though they were looking at a T-Rex skeleton in the museum.

    Their not bad people, just ignorant, but the ignorance spreads like zombie bites in a bad horror flick.

    I think there is great security in having all the answers. This narrow view of the world creates comfort and certainty.

    Science, liberalism, or anything that makes people ask questions creates uncertainty. Uncertainty is scary. I see it differently. Uncertainty creates mystery and life as a result becomes an adventure to solve those mysteries.

    If guys like Ben Stein can be hoodwinked by such zombie drool as this film, it really scares me about our future as a free society.

    Case in point…

    One of the earlier posters on this page wrote this:
    “I am not saddened by the fact that you do not believe as i do, i am saddened that my understanding of liberalism has always been on the idea of free thinking – ability to get outside of the box and look at things from a different angle. Ben Stein’s movie is proven by this blog – Liberalism and in partiticular evolutionists are not open to discuss contrary thinking.”

    What he fails to understand is that we have listened to the alternate perspective and consider it wrong on several counts. Liberalism is not a knee jerk way of living, it’s about looking at what is, comparing notes and then making a decision from there. The topic of creationism and intelligent design have been deconstructed and shown to be false. The problem with the poster and people who think along the same lines is that they want us to agree with their ideas or say their ideas are equally valid to our own.

    This is illogical thinking. It would be true to suggest that people are entitled to subjective differences (say in preference to ice cream flavors) but it’s not the same to say that differing opinions on objective reality (that which can be observed and measured in space and time) are equally valid. There is one objective reality. There are many ways to interpret it. Science helps us cut through the subjectivity and gets us to a greater objective perspective.

    In other words, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. People like the poster who criticized liberals fails to see that distinction. As a whole, this kind of thinking and these people will tear apart this country if we don’t put a stop to their rabid ignorance.

    We really need to improve public education and teach free thinking and philosophy in classes.

  • http://www.flipsidemovies.com Rob Vaux

    Wow, I can’t WAIT for the Flying Spaghetti Monster documentary… :D

  • dg

    From Dave:
    “ITs pretty easy to dismiss things like the Bible when you have never read it. Even more so, when you dont study it. You can read a math book, but until you study and practice the problems you wont get it. And apparantly most of you here dont get what is inside the Bible.”

    First, Mary Ann’s review has nothing to do with the Bible, and secondly you’re proving her point about how Ben Stein’s movie is dangerous.

    You make the assumption that the posters on this website have not read the Bible, and the posters don’t get what’s in the Bible.

    Let me toss a challenge at you, Dave.

    Read the Book of Leviticus and explain how that is the work of someone who’s inspired by a divine being. Don’t dismiss it as Old Testament stuff either. The story of creation is Old Testament as is Leviticus.

    For more fun, read Deuteronomy and the Book of Revelations.

    There’s no logical way anyone can argue that the one true god is a loving god after reading those books in the Bible.

    Back to Mary Ann’s review…

    Ben Stein’s movie shows how such work as his film is propaganda and it’s made to stir up a political hornet’s nest. It’s made with a clear objective to villify the theory of evolution and liberal thinking. This is dangerous that such a film would even be considered reliable.

    It’s crap. Dangerous crap. The kind of crap that will kill our democracy.

  • Don

    dg,

    What scares me about liberals is not their views, but that they try to squelch views that don’t agree with theirs through the courts and through other means, such as the tactics clearly outlined in “Expelled”. You are tolerant of people as long as they agree with you. Seriously, I find liberals to be the most intolerant and anti-choice people on the face of the planet.

  • The Dude

    Studied the bible? HEH… Come on everyone we should
    interpret a bunch of fictional stories and go and live our lives by these stories that were written well before common sense became common. I was born Roman Catholic and I have been baptised, comfirmed and was an altar boy for several years (No the priests were not interested in me!). So do not spout this crap about not understanding the bible. Saying that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution directly caused the Nazi crap is like saying the person who realized there were small, indivisible particles ( That was a hypothesis and through time they found out there were smaller particles. This is how a hypothesis gets mutated into a theory and then into fact: through tests and results not read this book of stories and believe the church who interprets it for you.) called atoms is responsible for the atom bomb.

  • http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ island

    dg says:
    There is one objective reality.

    That is correct.

    There are many ways to interpret it.

    This is true too, and there are even *some* highly reputable atheist scientists who interpret a design inferrence that requires some far reaching rationale to dispute.

    Leonard Susskind, (“the father of string theory”), very clearly expressed rationale that supports cosmological IDists in his interview with New Scientist concerning his recent book; “The Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design”.

    The “landscape” is the highly contested, theoretically speculative, unobservable, multi-universe that *some* string theorists assume.

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825305.800.html
    Amanda Gefter:
    If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

    Leonard Susskind:
    I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.

    Apparently Lenny doesn’t know the difference between guided evolution and intelligent design either, but at least he is gutsie’ enough to admit that there really is a valid scientific interpretation of the evidence that indicates that we are not here by accident. Few will even honestly ask the obvious question about what good reason might exist for why the implied specialness might be true if you can’t lose the rationale for “fine-tuning” in an infinite sea of possible universes?

    Lenny said elsewhere that: ‘The “appearance” of design is undeniable…’

    But If I were an IDist, I’d laugh in Lenny’s face for thinking that his infinte sea of rationale is more plausible than exactly what it looks like!

    Luckily, I’m an atheist.

    But your post doesn’t make much sense anymore, now does it.

    Science helps us cut through the subjectivity and gets us to a greater objective perspective.

    In other words, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. People like the poster who criticized liberals fails to see that distinction. As a whole, this kind of thinking and these people will tear apart this country if we don’t put a stop to their rabid ignorance.

    We really need to improve public education and teach free thinking and philosophy in classes…

    And you should sign right up as soon as it happens.

  • Dave

    Dg,

    You just made my point, if you do not understand what is loving about God, no wonder you reject the idea of ID. You apparantly missed the part about the cities and people God destroyed were pretty evil and bad. Since you have trouble understanding the Bible maybe I can put it in more simple terms for you.

    If you own an animal, cat, dog, whatever, you are the master of that being. You do everything for the animal, you feed it, you train it, you pick up the poop even! Now everyone who owns a dog expects their pet to act in a certain manner and if they dont the owner gets angry and disciplines the pet. Example, your dog poops on the living room carpet while you are watching American Idol. Wow, you probably get mad and slap the dog, toss him outside, yell at him etc. How did the dog know not to poop on the carpet? Because you told him not to? The animal has free will and is reacting to instincts it has.

    Now lets take this one step further. The dog is eating a bowl of food and your 3 year old child is messing with the dog while he is eating. The dog snaps at the child and severly bites the child in the face. What do you do to the dog? You either drag it out back and shoot it or you take it to the vet and they put it sleep. Did the dog really do anything wrong? He was acting out of instinct to protect his food. Does the dog know any better? Well if you trained him right he probably knew a little bit, but dogs are still animals and revert back to instincts. Are you a genocidal, maniacal, control freak because that dog had to be put down? The answer, obviously no. As a righteous owner you had the judge the dog accordingly. Do you hate the dog? No, you probably even cried when you had to put it down.

    How is this scenario any different than the god of the old testament? God set forth the law and all transgressors felt the wrath of god. Genocidal, maniacal control freak? No. We are his creations and he does as he pleases. We broke his law, we get punished.

    You must have stopped reading because after god destroys the world with a flood, he makes a promise to never do anything like that again.

    You may scoff at what the bible says to do and not to do because you are arrogant and prideful but if for one second you can look at it without your bias you will see they are there for a reason.

    No sex before marriage. Well as we see in our current day in this world AIDS is an epidemic, and there was just a report out that said something like 50% of sexually active teens already have an STD. Also, wouldnt it be great to actually know your mate inside and out personally before sex gets in the way?

    This is just one example. Funny how something that was written “before common sense” existed was so accurate and if only people understood what god was trying to tell us, most of our current day problems wouldnt even be occuring. Instead the world has turned to humanist views and socialism to try and solve problems we had the answers to 4 thousand years ago.

  • Don

    Dave,

    You find the movie “Expelled” to be crap, dangerous crap. Fine, that’s your opinion and you have a right to it. What are you suggesting if it’s “dangerous”? If it’s so dangerous, do you suggest the courts dissallow movies like this? Are you going to have all people who like the movie silenced? How? Should we lose our jobs? Should we be thrown in jail? Are we allowed to have these views and still live? Just where are you going with this?

  • The Dude

    The reason AIDS is such an epidemic is because people are blindly listening to the man in the funny hat tell them to not use protection against AIDS. To say we are a monogomous species who pick mates for life goes against everything nature has proven. All you have to do is take a look at divorce rates. Whenever someone tries to bring up abstinence as a STD cure is just ignorant. Yes abstinence works ,though most of the brainwashed teens still give and receive oral sex because it isn’t penetration and that still passes STDs, but people should be allowed to choose to put a rubber sheath over their knobs without envoking the wrath from these religious freaks who think their religion is the one that got it right. Every sperm is not sacred even though Monty Python said so. If God didn’t want man to waste his seed then why do we get nocturnal emmissions? Answer that bible thumpers.

  • Dave

    “I assume that the “e-journalist” you’re referring to is me. I am not condeming Stein’s “aruguments”: the scientific community condemns Stein’s “arguments,” based on scientific evidence.” From MaryAnn

    No, the scientific community condems Steins arguements because of their WORLDVIEW and bias.

    Evolution is a theory that has ZERO scientific evidence.

    Let me break evolution down for you MaryAnn.
    Evolution exists in 5 forms according to their THEORY.

    1. Cosmic evolution. Big bang, pure theory, no evidence to support the idea.
    2. Chemical evolution. That first hydrogen molecule that exploded in the “big bang” had to evolve into the whole periodic table. We’ve never observed or replicated a chemical evolving, or even adapting into a new element.
    3. Stellar evolution. This is the evolution of stars. We have never observed a star forming. Only dying. With all those people out there with their telescopes searching for aliens, dont you think they would have seen a star form by now?
    4. Macro evolution. This is where one species turns into another species over time. Example, banana turns into a finch. We have never seen a dog make a non dog or rose produce a non rose. Im sure there are a lot of florists out there trying really hard, but unfortunately its still a rose.
    5. Micro evolution? Well, not really evolution. All this states, is that VARIATIONS, or adaptations, within the same KIND or species occurs. We’ve seen a dog make a ton of different types of dogs, but they all are still dogs and came from a dog.

    What about the age of the earth?! Well everything is based off carbon dating and the geologic column. The problem with both is they have carbon dated living things(frog) and the results said 8000 years old. Wow thats an old frog. Geologic column? Well nowhere in the world does this column actually exist. Sure we have layers in the ground, but they date that based on the fossils they find in that layer. How do they know how old the fossils are? Well they date the fossils based on the layer its found in. Circular reasoning. Doesnt prove anything.

    What about the skeletons we have found? Well the only one “lucy” was admitted to have been a hoax. The researcher was on his last week of his trip and had not found a thing but he sure wanted that grant money and filed down a human jaw bone to fit the skull of a monkey.

    Every single damn thing people have tried to use to prove evolution has been a hoax and these hoaxes were disproven decades ago.

    Beneficial mutations? We’ve never observed one.

    If you thought you were duped by the Bible…man how about that biology textbook that contained false information.

    Evolutions is a FAITH, not science. Anyone who says evolution is science so full of it.

    Science is defined by dictionary.com as “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”

    Tell me what observations and experiments have proven evolution? I challenge anyone.

    They simply dont exist, thus its a faith and not a science. If we are debating theories than ID MUST be included in the debate because they are both theories.

  • Black5

    If you have done little or no reading on this issue then your viewpoint is one from ignorance. Google “Intelligent Design” and spend an hour finding answers on your own. If you wish to discuss this issue further come over to the ‘Evolution and Origins’ forum at http://www.talkrational.org/

  • dave

    “The reason AIDS is such an epidemic is because people are blindly listening to the man in the funny hat tell them to not use protection against AIDS. To say we are a monogomous species who pick mates for life goes against everything nature has proven. All you have to do is take a look at divorce rates. Whenever someone tries to bring up abstinence as a STD cure is just ignorant. Yes abstinence works ,though most of the brainwashed teens still give and receive oral sex because it isn’t penetration and that still passes STDs, but people should be allowed to choose to put a rubber sheath over their knobs without envoking the wrath from these religious freaks who think their religion is the one that got it right. Every sperm is not sacred even though Monty Python said so. If God didn’t want man to waste his seed then why do we get nocturnal emmissions? Answer that bible thumpers. ”

    Nobody is saying that you are wasting yours or God’s seed. What is being said, is that in order for a functioning society, you need rules and laws. It also helps if you add a little bit or morality and ethics into the equation. God created the family and every society with exception of recent day america, has been built around the family.

    You bring up divorce rates. Look at the data, when did they start climbing and why are they so high now? The reason people are getting divorced more than 75% of the time is due to adultry. Either the man or the woman is sleeping with someone else.

    How many families are torn apart because this? How many children grow up dysfunctional and disillusioned because of this? Whether you want to believe it or not, its A LOT. The bible warned against this, thats why it says marriage is a sacred bond between and man and a woman. Because everything else tears people, families, and societies apart.

    And no AIDS is not an epidemic because the pope is against contraceptive. The official stance of the church is no sex until marriage. Now you tell me how many virgins have AIDS or any STD? Exactly, NONE. AIDS is an epidemic because ignorant people sleep around with everyone and spread STDs like wildfire. Men in africa sleep with virgins because they think it will cure them. Well how about this, have sex with one person and you cant spread anything! It sure as heck works for birds!

    If you dont change your oil, your car overheats and shuts down. If you dont eat, you die. Everything you do has a consequence. You say god was mean and angry, I say god was kind and loving. He told us exactly what to eat, wear, and how to act, not because he was trying to control us(if he wanted that we wouldnt have free will). He did it because it was an instruction guide to orderly society, health, and overall well being. If you do these things bad things happen.

    And if you actually read the bible you would see that god never had to tell us anything because man turned his back on god. God never turned his back to us.

  • The Dude

    Thanks for proving my arguement for evolution Dave. We are all just animals living off our instincts. Their is a reason why so many husbands and wives cheat and that is because of the animal instinct. We didn’t start out thinking about marriage when we were questing for fire. God did not teach us how to cook a cow did (s)he? Teenagers have raging hormones inside themselves that they cannot control and yet instead of telling them that abstinence is the way and showing them what to do to prevent unwanted pregnancies or disease we tell them no sex. Is anything that absolute in reality? No shades of grey? That is like telling a child that they could drown so stay away from water instead of teaching them to swim. This is all because of the man in the funny hat. Stop thumping your bible and open your eyes.

  • Ryan

    I have read the bible, I grew up in a Catholic household, and took CCD classes until I was fifteen years old. I went to a Catholic college, and took three semesters of Theology. It is absolutely possible to read, appreciate, and understand the bible…and not believe it to be factual.

    Whether there is a God or not, I will not profess to know. That the bible and organized religion is a hierarchal tool used by a small group of (mainly) men to try and influence and control larger populations throughout history is self-evident.

    I don’t go around trying to dissuade those people though, I have generally found that at some point you either become a believer or you don’t, and after that it takes a pretty huge event to change one’s mind. You can explain things rationally…but you can’t make somebody THINK rationally, if they just want to believe. As long as they don’t try and spread their belief, it doesn’t bother me.

  • Jane

    I saw this movie last night with my husband. It was totally enjoyable and worth the $. I thought the scientists that were opposed to the idea of Intelligent Design sounded like neurotic idiots who have some deep emotional issues and those that represented the Intelligent Design camp appeared to be well adjusted and intelligent. This film was about the extreme science evolutionary folks who won’t admit that their approach to explaining life doesn’t cover all the bases; the most obvious one being what actually created the cell that got it all going. In the end of the film one of the most adamant folks against ID admitted that there had to be an intelligent designer or designers (Aliens).

    I took numerous science classes during my training as a nurse and there’s no way you can learn all the inner workings of the human body and it’s cells and not see that someone or thing with an intellect made us and what we see in the world around us. It’s like the proverbial elephant in the room. You have to choose to ignore the evidence that is right in front you and this choice has more to do with your worldview and your own personal history than it does hard scientific facts. The fact is that we exist and this world is far too complex to have been the result of chance. Anyone that comes to that conclusion is avoiding or denying something that is at their very core.

    At the end of the movie the question was asked why God takes such pain to hide. Ha! – this is the elephant, the real question is why are people choosing not to see it?

  • amanohyo

    Jane, as a high school science teacher I bring up the idea of intelligent design in class. It takes less than twenty minutes for me to explain the concept of ID and also go over some of the compelling “evidence” that is all around us.

    I’m not required to do this, thankfully, but I think it’s an idea that deserves to be discussed briefly in class. Unfortunately, it is ultimately not a scientific idea (there’s is no way it can be proven false) and it cannot be used as the basis for any useful experiments as far as I can tell.

    Evolution is a very robust theory that takes several weeks to teach even at the high school level, and it has served as the framework for thousands of useful biological experiments and ideas. I never understand how anyone could possibly expect teachers to give equal classtime to ID. There’s only so many times you can say, “See this? It’s really complicated too!”

    A scientific idea, one that can serve as the basis for a hypothesis in an experiment, is something that can be proven false. If it cannot be proven false, it is outside the realm of science. ID is an interesting idea that almost every human being has thought about at one time or another. But although I personally don’t mind briefly discussing it in class, it is not science, and no science teacher should ever be forced to present it as such.

    Even if everyone were to accept ID as fact, then what? Do we halt genetic experiments and devote our scientific resources to learning as much as we can about this mysterious designer? What conclusions can we draw? “Hmmm… It really had a thing for carbon and ribosomes. That double helix was a clever bit of engineering. It must be real smart.”

    It’s also annoying how quickly many ID proponents seem to jump the enormous chasm between the observation that “the cell and some of its organelles are really complicated,” to whatever flavor of Christian God they happen to endorse. I think this is the cause of a lot of the suspicion and frustration many scientists have with proponents of ID.

    In fact, the idea that something intelligent could have designed or introduced the first cell(s) on the planet doesn’t conflict with Darwin’s original theory of evolution at all. As MA notes in her review, his theory was not concerned with the origins of life.

    As you admit, this movie cherry picks a few scientists with “deep emotional issues,” and goes on to use their lack of social skills as the basis for pot shots on evolution. Does that type of argument make sense to you? Newton was supposedly an asocial jerk, but I would never judge his theories on the basis of his personality.

  • Dave

    Way to miss the point again The Dude.

    Thats the thing, we are not animals. We are human beings. We are the only creatures on earth that have language, government, laws, ethics, and morality, art, music and I can keep going forever. When the dog bites something he doesnt know he had done wrong. When we “bite” something, we know its wrong. That is the difference. The most simple and first concept about this is the concept of sin. How funny, the people you view as being dumb, primitive, and uneducated wrote about this 4000 years ago. Maybe it was so obvious to them because they had less distractions, no lobbyists, no special interest groups.

    See the difference is you think we were primative beings that were super dumb during our early existance. You think of the cave man theory.

    But to the creationist, Adam and Eve were the first two human beings. Programed straight from God himself. So pure genetically the bible says adam lived 900 years. Had darwin known about DNA and genes, he may have had a different theory. God did teach us how to cook the cow, he even gave us the fire. But when eve thought she could be god if she ate the fruit, god cast mankind into a violent world that required us to work. This is when the chaos theory started. Everything that is in existance is working towards chaos. Every generation of humans after adam and eve were exposed to all sorts of new things, and over time DNA loses information and gets worse.

    We can observe this today. Genetic information either stays the same or gets lost. No new information gets added to the equation.

    If your DNA spells Christmas you can spell the words mits, mist, him. But you cant spell queen, banana, or glove. Evolution states you can.

    Its so funny how completely opposite darwinism is to christianity. Not any religion, christianity. Almost as if the devil himself created the theory.

    Its also really sad the way these stories are being taught these days too. Most of you think they are fairy tales because you remember how they were taught to you when you were younger. Probably some cheesy cartoon with bad music that resembles the Barney theme song. They were taught just as if they were fairy tales, instead of being taught with authority and truth and teaching you like an adult. You can go to CCD and all of that growing up and grasp a small understanding of what the bible says. But if you think about it, your body and life change so much, most people dont even know who they actually are until the mid to late 20s.

    I love how you darwinists always shift the burden upon the christian to justify our side.

    Not once has anyone on here said anything that can prove evolution. If evolution existed, you would be able to see the step by step process in which it occured, just as you can see the process in which a car has changed from 1900 to 2008(which is still funny because its still a car and never changed into a space shuttle and thats what we called a VARIATION).

    From your very first science class you probably set up a beaker or bunson burner and measure something and test it and observe it. You conduct the scientific method. You start with a hypothesis and try to prove it in your experiment. At the end of the experiment if your lab does not match your hypothesis than your experiment failed. You can try over and over and over and over again but if its always false all you have left is a hypothesis. Its not fact and certainly not an absolute. Its not even science.

    Both ID and evolution are just a hypothesis. Each side requires faith because there is no scientific test that can “prove” either. The thing is ID has a lot less holes in the theory.

    I only wish that both sides could just agree that neither is sound SCIENCE. Both arguements belong in the PHILOSOPHY classroom. Don’t erase the line between fact and opinion because “scientists” have PhDs who use fancy words.

    Sure Christians have done some bad things throughout their history, so have all cultures. Even George Washington had slaves, but does that undermind the entire concept of democracy and freedom in America? Scientists are no exception. Most of what we know about the human body comes from experiments Nazi scientists did to Jews, like tossing them in 20 degree water and seeing how long it took for the body to get hypothermia. Everyone is a sinner, how about we just get over it and stop being so devisive, so angry, and so hateful.

    The ultimate point of Steins movie was to say just that. Science will move forward when ideas are not suppressed and people dont have agendas. And until you can prove something, its not fact.

  • Ryan

    I took the CCD when I was younger, but all three semesters of Theology I took in college (Old Testament, New Testament, Philosophy of the Bible) I took in college between ages 21-23. It has never struck me as a fairy tale, but rather a social tool that wielded particular heft during the Middle Ages, and still is quite influential today, though it is declining in Western Civilizations, and never gained much of a toe-hold in the Far Eastern ones.

    It’s main foci of strength are in the impoverished areas of the world, where the afterlife seems like a very happy alternative to life on this earth. (Christianity in Africa and South America, Islam in the Middle East.)

    Also, you keep trying to condescend to everybody else who disagrees with you, that will never win you any arguments.

  • Kelly

    MaryAnn – did you see the movie? Stein NEVER says that evolution is necessarily wrong because it’s linked to Nazi ideology. He said it’s DANGEROUS because it’s influenced such thought. Big difference.

  • The Dude

    Not condescending. Just stating facts. We are animals. We are carnivores. Not the top of the food chain but with the creation of weapons we have gained the edge. To say that we haven’t evolved would be a slap in the face to all the changes humanity made in just the 1900′s alone folks. You think the brains of the people who lived thousands of years ago could have discovered and invented the things we have now? Well yes they could. Over time and through the refinement of the genes. Or is that not evolving? How did we get all these different types of humans if we all started from Adam and Eve? Saying it was God’s plan is not an answer.

  • Ryan

    I was saying Dave was being condescending, not you, The Dude.

  • John Hansen

    MaryAnn,

    The point of the movie was explicitly not a “would-be “takedown” of the scientific theory of evolution”

    The point of the movie is that the scientific community is so impressed with the theory of evolution, that it closes its mind to any discussion of any alternatives. This point was so beautifully illustrated by your irrational screed of a review.

    You are making Stein’s point. Congratulations on your close-mindedness.

    John Hansen
    PhD. Physics UCLA 1990

  • Dave

    The Dude, humans becoming smarter over time is not evolution. That just means we have made advancements in education. Have you ever been to a country without education? I spent a year in the philippines, mostly in the provinces were are rated by the UN, as being just as bad as the worst areas in africa. These people still live in straw huts and compared to the western world, for lack of better terms, are dumb. Now take the child of one of these families and put them into any american school just like an american born child. They will be able to learn just as much as we can. That doesnt mean they “evolved”.

    How did we get all these types of humans? Well the bible says 4400 years ago there was a giant flood that covered the earth. After the flood God says, go forth and multiply. We did exactly just that. The next story after the flood is how humans built the tower of babel. They were so boastful and prideful they said look at what we can do! According to that story God destroyed the tower and spread the people around the earth.

    Ever look at a population chart dude? Al Gore actually has a pretty good one in his global warming movie, which can be agreed upon by almost all scientists, mostly because its based on a mathmatical equation that was developed from known populations throughout history. Coincidently, it coincides with the theory of a flood 4400 years ago.

    The rate the sahara expands every year is measurable and has been studied extensively. When scientists go backwards in time to when the desert much have started, it was 4400 years ago.

    The same goes for the moon. The moon is moving away from the earth every year. When calculated they can conclude where it must have been 4400 years ago. If the earth was millions of years old, the moon would be as far as mars.

    Almost every culture has a flood legend. The chinese first book that we know about is the Shu Jing. Which was written in 1000 B.C and retraces history back to 1700B.C china. This is 200 years before Moses and 500 years after we calculate the flood. Somewhere inbetween is when people migrated to China from the tower of babel. The first thing that students of Chinese history learn is that Chinese history began with a flood. And their first emperors worshiped a one god religion in a very similar manner than noah and adam did.

    Written history doesnt really date back further than the flood either. The oldest civilizations we know about are egypt and the mesopotamian civilizations. Which were about 2000BC. Right after we calculate when the flood occured.

    Do you really think that life emerging from a primordial soup randomly and us evolving from a rock, is more outlandeous than all of these things happenening at around the same time?

    The entire evolution theory is based on the geologic column, carbon and radiometric dating. All three of which dont work or dont exist. rocks known to have been formed in volcanic eruptions within the last 200 years have yielded radiometric dates of up to 3.5 billion years. Carbon dating on a living creature has yielded results of 8000 years old. The only other method darwinian scientists estimate the age of the earth is by the geologic column, which doesnt exist anywhere in the world. And they date the layers in the ground by the fossils they find and they date the fossils by which layer they are found. Its like saying “You cant give me a C! Im an A student. That is called circular reasoning.

    If you study history as a whole and not just in segments you can start to see the big picture of human existance. As you can see you can go to other cultures, ie China, and find a book other than the bible which accounts a story of a great flood too at the same time period. does this prove god? no, but if the story of noah is true, then it might get you to start asking what else in the bible is true?

  • MBI

    I believe that intelligent design is a theory worth discussing. But it isn’t, and never will be, a scientific theory — it’s an attempt by the devout to co-opt the language and objectivity of science to make a case for God.

    Forcing science teachers to teach “intelligent design” in science class as a possible theory is like asking them to teach “Frogs are ugly” or “The Beatles are overrated.” That’s why scientists hate the idea of ID — not because it flies in the face of current prevailing wisdom. It doesn’t even really do that. It’s because it is not their job to worry about such things. It has no scientific basis in anything.

    I don’t understand why the religious types are so hostile to the idea of evolution either. Evolution doesn’t preclude the existence of God; I’ve heard of people who believe in creationist-evolution. Evolution is a more optimistic concept in any case — I certainly hope the human race keeps evolving, I’d like to see them move past their current status.

  • Dave

    MBI the reason I keep saying people dont understand the Bible is because the Bible explicitly tells us the origins of life.

    Evolution is based on million of years of time.

    The bible states everything was created in 6 days.

    The Bible states the flood occured 4400 years ago, not millions of years ago.

    Evolution is the complete anti-god theory. Its a culture of death. Where Christianity is a culture of life.

    In evolution, death exists before sin.

    In the bible, death is the punishment for sin. So sin is before death. (which is the whole underlying concept of why Jesus died for our sins)

    People who are “creation-evolutionists” are either a. not christian or b. christian and dont understand their own faith.

    Why are people hostile towards evolution? Because 75% of college students will lose their faith in the first year of college based on false research, hoaxes, and just flat out lies in textbooks. Lies and hoaxes that were proven decades ago but still exist in the the textbooks. When people dont believe in god, they have nobody to answer to but themselves. And it can lead to dangerous things, as it has, hitler, eugenics, etc. Which also then justifies abortion because if we are just animals and cells mean nothing then sure lets kill lots of babies, but lets leave that for another forum.

    Still the underlying concept is that no single shred of evidence exists to prove evolution. NOTHING.

    If you have no proof, no measurements, no observations, then all you are left with is a hypothesis. And a hypothesis is not fact. Its an educated guess and any 10 year old who has had a science class will tell you that.

    Moths in england, embriology, “Lucy”, trillobites, all of these examples people will spit for evolution were proven hoaxes years ago.

    So, I am still challenging anyone, anyone who can provide one example of evolution please link it here. If you cant, then my point is made that evolution is nothing more than a religion, it is no more science than ID or creationism. It is the religion of no god. Any belief about the origin of life is a religion whether it include god or not. People keep making this assumption that evolution is science. Its not. Its a religion and philosophy.

    And besides, didnt the greeks(aristotle, socrates etc) disprove naturalism centuries ago?

  • http://www.flipsidemovies.com Rob Vaux

    Fallacious reasoning rears its ugly head yet again. To wit: “if you can’t prove evolution, then it must be a lie and Christian theology is the only conceivable alternative.” That’s a rhetorical device, designed around a false equation and attempting to define the parameters of the debate in rhetorician’s favor. Science is not an either/or equation. Science does not base itself on “if it isn’t X, it must be Y.” The very basis of science as an ethos is constant questioning, testing, revising, retesting and arriving at certain reliable conclusions. Uncertainty is a natural and beneficial part of its process. It continues to grow, it continues to change, it continues to (dare I say) evolve as old assumptions are cast out and new ones emerge in its place. ID does not enter into real science because it cannot stand up to those rigors and indeed none of its proponents has seriously subjected it to them. Until it does, it cannot be accepted as scientific. Rather than do so, its proponents turn to rhetoric. “My way is A. Yours is B. If B can’t be proven, then it must be false and A is therefore the only logical, rational alternative.” Horseshit. And extremely unscientific horseshit to boot.

    There’s another fundamentally fallacious assumption in there, and that is the inability to distinguish “fact” from “truth.” I believe that the story of Noah’s ark is true. I believe in its message of hope amid despair and its cycle of death and renewal which serves as a beautiful metaphor for life on Earth. I believe in it and I see its wisdom and I acknowledge the lessons it can teach us and I hope, sometimes, that whoever wrote it down was inspired by a power greater than us. I can do all of that without believing for one single moment that there was actually a giant flood that covered the planet with water and that one guy survived by building a boat full of animals from which all subsequent life descends. Fact. Truth. Please take a moment to grasp the distinction before continuing.

  • Grant

    Dave, Dave, Dave…

    It’s late, and I’m sleepy, so you’ll have to click-drag-rightclick-google these yourself…

    1. Cosmic evolution: Background microwave radiation, the “afterglow” of the Big Bang. It’s coming from everywhere, and is stronger the farther away you look. Also, the concept of the “Primordial Atom” which became the Big Bang theory, was devised by a Catholic clergyman. Make of that what you will.

    2. Chemical Evolution: elements up to iron are fused together in the cores of stars. We can do the first step, hydrogen to helium, in the lab, and in the H-bomb. Supernovas have the energy needed to make heavier elements, and the light from supernova remnants (such as the Crab Nebula) contain the chemical signatures. We watch heavy elements decay into lighter ones all the time. It’s the basis of nuclear energy and your home smoke detector.

    3. Stellar Evolution: astronomy on many stellar nebulae (such as the Orion) show protostars, small hot objects which are stars in their earliest stages. If you’re waiting to see a cloud of interstellar gas ignite into a star, I applaud your diligence, but realize it’s like watching the New Years Eve crowd in Times Square through a telescope from the top of the Empire State Building, hoping to catch one person pop their champagne bottle.

    I’m going to skip 4 and 5 because the details of macro- and micro-evolution are hard to miss on the intarwebs these days… they’re starting to clog the tubes.

    Age of the Earth: its not based on carbon dating, as carbon dating only gets you 20,000 years with any accuracy. Radiometric decay using uranium, on the other hand, can get you 4 billion (with a “b”) years. AS far as the column, the principle of superposition is more of a rule of thumb. Geologic processes tend to scramble things up. But radioactive isotopes can’t lie.

    The Piltdown man was a fake, not Lucy. Then, so is the Shroud of Turin. I think we’re tied on forgeries at this point…

    Try to understand that the modern theory of biological evolution was devised to explain things we’d already seen (why are there so few fossils like things that are alive today, and why are there so many fossils of things we can’t find anywhere alive, and why are so many creatures adapted to their specific environment). You seem, and perhaps I’m gravely in error, to think that the idea sprang forth fully formed in the mind of Darwin and the scientists have spent the last 150 years forcing the data to fit. But you’d have it largely backwards. In broads strokes, the data doesn’t justify the theory, the theory explains the data. Now in the finer details (and the devil is certainly in the details) there are certain predictions that have yet to be conclusively confirmed by theory. This shouldn’t be cause to toss the whole kit and caboodle out the window. Newton couldn’t explain the motion of Mercury, but we held onto his Law of Gravity for centuries, because it worked most of the time, till Einstein showed us a better way.

  • charles

    Stein knew he would get negative comments about this film like this review (in fact, he predicts it at the end of the piece), and he knows he will not get any awards like that master of truth Michael Moore or that power-point illusionist Al Gore; instead, Stein was just making a point that real academic freedom is in jeopardy. That there is only one hand clapping is palpably true. His goal is not to disprove Darwinism per se, but to question why so many credible minds are being unnaturally deselected from the discourse.

  • The Dude

    Can someone direct me to at least a website that proves Lucy fake? Proves now. Not “I read this awesome book and now everything that you say is real I am going to say is fake”

  • shoop

    Dave, God didn’t create the sun–that which we use to measure a 24-hour day–until the fourth day. See the Spencer Tracy-Frederic March film “Inherit the Wind” to follow that line of reasoning to a logical conclusion. In fact, everybody ought to take a break and go see it, either again, or the first time.

    In the meantime, work on how the Bible “explicitly” tells us where Cain got his wife.

  • Grant

    Dave, Dave, Dave…

    It’s late, and I’m sleepy, so you’ll have to click-drag-rightclick-google these yourself…

    1. Cosmic evolution: Background microwave radiation, the “afterglow” of the Big Bang. It’s coming from everywhere, and is stronger the farther away you look. Also, the concept of the “Primordial Atom” which became the Big Bang theory, was devised by a Catholic clergyman. Make of that what you will.

    2. Chemical Evolution: elements up to iron are fused together in the cores of stars. We can do the first step, hydrogen to helium, in the lab, and in the H-bomb. Supernovas have the energy needed to make heavier elements, and the light from supernova remnants (such as the Crab Nebula) contain the chemical signatures. We watch heavy elements decay into lighter ones all the time. It’s the basis of nuclear energy and your home smoke detector.

    3. Stellar Evolution: astronomy on many stellar nebulae (such as the Orion) show protostars, small hot objects which are stars in their earliest stages. If you’re waiting to see a cloud of interstellar gas ignite into a star, I applaud your diligence, but realize it’s like watching the New Years Eve crowd in Times Square through a telescope from the top of the Empire State Building, hoping to catch one person pop their champagne bottle.

    I’m going to skip 4 and 5 because the details of macro- and micro-evolution are hard to miss on the intarwebs these days… they’re starting to clog the tubes.

    Age of the Earth: its not based on carbon dating, as carbon dating only gets you 20,000 years with any accuracy. Radiometric decay using uranium, on the other hand, can get you 4 billion (with a “b”) years. AS far as the column, the principle of superposition is more of a rule of thumb. Geologic processes tend to scramble things up. But radioactive isotopes can’t lie.

    The Piltdown man was a fake, not Lucy. Then, so is the Shroud of Turin. I think we’re tied on forgeries at this point…

    Try to understand that the modern theory of biological evolution was devised to explain things we’d already seen (why are there so few fossils like things that are alive today, and why are there so many fossils of things we can’t find anywhere alive, and why are so many creatures adapted to their specific environment). You seem, and perhaps I’m gravely in error, to think that the idea sprang forth fully formed in the mind of Darwin and the scientists have spent the last 150 years forcing the data to fit. But you’d have it largely backwards. In broads strokes, the data doesn’t justify the theory, the theory explains the data. Now in the finer details (and the devil is certainly in the details) there are certain predictions that have yet to be conclusively confirmed by theory. This shouldn’t be cause to toss the whole kit and caboodle out the window. Newton couldn’t explain the motion of Mercury, but we held onto his Law of Gravity for centuries, because it worked most of the time, till Einstein showed us a better way.

  • Ronny

    I find it hilarious that people, Dave in particular, will blast people for not understanding the Bible, then spout things that clearly show that they have never looked at a legitimate science textbook in their lives, although clearly they’ve looked for things that supported their own prejudices toward evolution and held them up as fact.

  • truthwillsetyoufree

    2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

  • truthwillsetyoufree

    It is not Dave you pick on, but rather Christ whom Dave defends. Good work Dave! If those of you who defend evolution are right – what does that cost those of us who are wrong? But if what Dave and those who beleive that a loving God created us are right – what is it that you stand to loose?

    RO 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

  • MA

    I’m never surprised by the ignorance and wilful stupidity of the deeply deluded, such as ‘Dave’. A poor education and living in an echo chamber of ignorance, surrounded by other fundies explains the cause quite well. Cognitive dissonance explains the inability to escape the stupidity.

    I’m not surprised that religion flourishes in the corners of the world where there is little or no education, or where death and deprivation is commonplace. The fantasy of life after death and the idea of a benevolent sky dadddy would be very seductive to the impoverished.

    However, I have no understanding how an educated, scientifically-minded individual can become and remain as confused as John Hansen PhD (we’ll assume the qualification is true):

    “…the scientific community is so impressed with the theory of evolution, that it closes its mind to any discussion of any alternatives.”

    If any alternatives were available, they would be discussed. There are none, so there’s nothing to discuss. It takes very little intelligence or research to discover this. As has been said over and over, ‘my invisible friend’ aka ‘goddidit’ aka ‘Creationism’ aka ‘ID’ is not science – it’s Bronze Age fantasy. If you want to disprove that assertion, you need to produce evidence. Good luck with that – I won’t be holding my breath.

  • Ryan

    [quote]However, I have no understanding how an educated, scientifically-minded individual can become and remain as confused as John Hansen PhD (we’ll assume the qualification is true)[/quote]

    It’s actually not that surprising MA. The uneducated and downtrodden cling to it because the afterlife is a better alternative to their current life…but often educated people, frustrated by the lack of concrete answers provided by science and the quest for knowledge, give up and turn to religion is the quick fix.

    It’s a kind of disillusionment, and it’s not uncommon. Also, educated people are as prone to the societal pressures of life as the rest of us. (Say, devoutly religious parents, or spouse) So, education does not entirely preclude somebody from being religious. I have found it decreases the amount of fanaticism though.

    I only know one educated person who takes the bible literally, and many of my friends are devout Christians.

  • The Dude

    How can you be a devout Christian and not BELIEVE in the bible? Anyone who doesn’t take the bible literally for what it is isn’t really a christian. That is just someone who has the bible on their favorite book list. Explain this to me please.

  • MA

    Ryan,

    Yeah, I guess disillusionment, childhood indoctrination and societal pressure all play their part… but I still struggle to understand how the brain keeps such ludicrous beliefs ring-fenced from otherwise rational brains. Oh well, keep fighting the good fight! ;)

    The Dude,

    Is there anything other than ‘a la carte’ xians? They all ignore and filter what doesn’t suit their circumstances or has been neutered by modern, secular society. The nice, moderate xians filter most of it, while the fundies swallow all but the most vile stuff.

    Maybe Westboro Baptist Church are living it to the letter? ;)

  • Ryan

    I’ve met several Catholic priests who don’t take the old testament, or even the entirety of the new testament literally, ‘The Dude’

    People who do are a very small minority.

  • The Dude

    So they shouldn’t be priests. If I still was in organized religion and found out my priest didn’t I would demand he be ousted. How can you believe in God and not believe in the history of your faith and then preach it? That makes no sense whatsoever and I would like someone to try and justify that one. So these priests think Moses was tripping? No real commandments? The bush wasn’t really on fire?