The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 1:01 PM by Alan Boyle

The film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" gives the impression that "Big Science" is suppressing "smart new ideas" in America's classrooms - that is, ideas claiming that features of the natural world are so complex they had to be the work of an intelligent designer. The movie also reportedly follows up on efforts to blame evolutionary theory for much of what has ailed the world since Darwin, including Hitler and the Holocaust.

I haven't seen "Expelled" yet, so it's hard for me to judge how wacky the movie really is, but plenty of other folks are already weighing in. Here are a few Web links:

Update for 2:50 p.m. ET April 21: Arthur Caplan, bioethics columnist for msnbc.com, weighs in with his opinion of "Expelled," saying that "there is not a shred of intelligence on display" in the movie.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I find it interesting that evolutionists claim to be the only thinking people. In reality, they ignore the fact that the creation model fits the evidence far better than the evolution model. But, hey, what are facts when evolutionary dogma is at stake.

Jerry Daniel (Sent Friday, April 18, 2008 4:33 PM)

Evolution is a religion plain and simple. If you are an untenured college professor or a high school biology teacher and utter the words "intelligent design" without the context of slamming it, you are usually removed from teaching. This is a sad fact that continues to occur and frankly, even if evolution is true, which the fossil record does not indicate (at least yet), we sure don't have it proven yet, and it would be a serious miscarriage of education if we did not introduce alternative theories into the classroom. The Intelligent Design theory does not name a god as creator. Even Richard Dawkins buys into it partially and asserts that life on Earth was created by superintelligent alien beings. While this seems ridiculous, so do many of the claims of the theory of evolution. Universities and public school systems no longer promote the free exchange of ideas, but have become the subisdized gestapo of the darwinist religion.

Paul (Sent Friday, April 18, 2008 6:02 PM)

If you have to bring the Nazis into it, you've already lost your argument.

I suppose we could go into the innate fallacy creationists (excuse me, IDers) use when they say things like "the creation model fits the evidence..." (Um, what evidence exactly?) or how evolution is "just a theory" (look it up in the context of "scientific method"), but there's no real point. Things like using empirical evidence to refine a ... yes ... theory are beyond the scope of those who choose to shut their minds in the comfy closet of superstition.

You want support for your theory? Let's see the evidence. I've got 4.5 billion years of the geologic and fossil record on my side. You've got a 1,700-year-old collection of short stories. And a rather confusing one at that, since you're still fighting wars over it.

Chris (Sent Friday, April 18, 2008 6:16 PM)

Darwinists at MNSBC must be very worried about this film if they are only linking to anti-ID sources for the public to learn about it. In any case, there is much misinformation about Expelled in some of the links above. For a rolling correction of a lot of the interminable misinformation about this film, see:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

For a correction to Scientific American, see:

http://www.discovery.org/a/4689

Does Boyle's one-sided link-list reflect how many Darwinists working within the scientific community represent this issue to the public?

Casey Luskin, Seattle, Washington (Sent Friday, April 18, 2008 6:19 PM)

This film is asinine. Science can make no comment on the supernatural. It's a fundamental violation of the philosophy of science. Even if there are structures that are too complex to have evolved (and so far we haven't found any), science can only deal with explanations in the real world. Evolution is NOT a religion. That's just an excuse made by creationists. Religion requires supernatural forces. Evolution has none. Read a science textbook every now and then. It'll show how pointless this debate is.

Jacob Caporaletti (Sent Friday, April 18, 2008 6:24 PM)

Thanks so much for adding to the mix, Casey ... I usually do include a link to Evolution News and the Discovery Institute, just so that people understand where both sides are coming from. And I'm sure this won't be the end of the commentary on the intelligent-redesign movement. ;-)

Alan Boyle (Sent Friday, April 18, 2008 10:38 PM)

Nazis believed in a ranking system of sorts based on ethnicity. Aryan, Nordic were at top and Slavic, Mediterranean and Jews were at the bottom. This breakdown of person's value based on ethnicity stems from Darwin's theories. But I guess bringing up Nazis is irrelevant.

sam johnson (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:38 AM)

Casey Luskin works for The discovery institute, home of ID and writers of the Wedge Document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Casey is keen on establishing a Theocracy. The Discovery Institute publish no scientific output put lots of propaganda press releases.

Rich (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:51 AM)

Paul: "Even Richard Dawkins buys into it partially and asserts that life on Earth was created by superintelligent alien beings." This ridiculous assertion shows how little time you've spent studying your opposition.

vsack (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:52 AM)

I just saw the movie. Very well put together piece of propaganda. It's a shame that fans of the movie probably won't delve a little deeper to reveal all the lies and misinformation that the movie dishes out.
Their supposed "victims" of conspiracy have been refuted. The stance that Nazi deathcamps are associated with evolution is a lie. The Nazi's rejected Darwinism as shown by journal entries forbidding books and journals supporting it.

Brian, Traverse City, MI (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:56 AM)

In his own words, Richard Dawkins' professes himself to be an intellectual elitist ...

"I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist" (source: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins )

Gag!!!

Incidentally, the 'honestly stupid' Stein graduated with honors from Columbia in 1966 and was valedictorian of Yale Law (source: wikipedia). He also served as a law professor at Pepperdine for 7 years, is a featured writer for Yahoo finance, and has written 27 books.

KevinD (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:02 AM)

Casey why didn't you mention that you work for the Discovery Institute which has a vested interest in this movie's agenda?

Derrald Claville, Chicago, Ill. (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:02 AM)

Casey Luskin is a spokesperson for the Discovery Institute whose infamous Wedge Document revealed the true motivations of the ID movement.

Casey is quick to reject the well supported criticism of SciAm and the countless other website but it is clear that the accusations of Darwinists banning ID scientists is poorly supported at best.

PvM (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:38 AM)

The Scientist community must have the same freedom to consider Intelligent Design in all academic research institutions and classrooms not just Darwinism. Suppressing such freedom gives Intelligent Design the more evidence even a philosophical edge on how the establishment hates any contradicting facts perhaps afraid of any other proposal or exposure. A totalitarian platform of idea is a regime that will not allow the exploration of new frontiers. Life is infinitely beautiful to be just a chance of no design or purpose.

Miguel Morgado, plantation, florida (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:46 AM)

The thing that strikes me with the most force was the conceit of the possibility of an alien group "seeding" the earth with the first; self replicating cells. Please bear in mind the the word "conceit" is meant to express a form of "human higher thought".

Being an engineer and computer programmer the thought comes to mind, if I create a program capable of mimicking human emotion and activity but I give the software no way of reaching beyond the computer running the software; what are the options?
The software would likely come to the same conclusion regarding "Natural Selection" as does our enlightened species, we are nothing more than a positive movement forward in time for the original self replicating cell.

It is also likely that defining parameters for this software to maintain a narrow enough view, to avoid any argument, regarding the possibility of an original programmer and a computer simulation would be a likely result.

For any of you out there who are of the elite of our academic society, I ask you this question; doesn't this view of Darwinism (accepted as truth by our higher learning institutes) parallel the same mentality of the academic physicists view of the purposed "String Theory"?

String Theory is another truism purposed by the intellect as the one true reality. Never mind the fact that there are no possible tests to prove the theory (purposed) but it is being accepted as fact. Hmmmm?

Just goes to show, you guys are smarter than me.

John Selle, Dodge, ND (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:47 AM)

Thanks, Casey, for the links to http://www.evolutionnews.org/ and http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 If people truly believe in promotion of academic freedom, then movies such as Expelled - and further debate on the topic - should always be welcomed. My wife and I saw Expelled this evening in a packed theater and were very impressed - I suspect it will do quite well in the Box Office.

Dale, Tucson, Arizona (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:11 AM)

I have been a science teacher in the public school and the fact that NO OTHER theory is allowed to be discussed about the origin of life except evolution, throws a red flag up in the air. If you are a scientist, then you should be allowed to evaluate the evidence and follow it where it leads. It is extremely interesting to study the complexity of the human body and the unique details of DNA. If you want to tell me that this complexity came from unorganized chance, well there is not much evidence for that at all. You cannot reproduce that type of complexity based on chance.
All I am saying, is let the evidence take you where it leads and allow for discussion of other theories. If you are too closed minded to listen to others, then maybe evolution is a religion that is backed by faith. You have freedom to worship your evolution but leave it out of science if the evidence doesn't take you there.

j (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 4:00 AM)

It's fascinating that Jerry Daniel used the term "creationist model". What IS the creationist model, Jerry? Do you even know what a scientific model is?

A scientific model is a framework that defines the dynamics of a particular phenomenon. "God did it" is not a model. Also, appealing to one's inability to provide a naturalistic explanation to support one's supposition of a supernatural designer is not a model.

Intelligent design is an appeal to ignorance, because when you break it down, it asserts, "How did this complexity come about? I don't know. Therefore, God did it.".

That is NOT a model.

Neil, Wheaton, IL (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 4:32 AM)

One would think America is a democratic free thinking society. Your reaction to intelligent design is distubing. But not surprising considering your track record.

vn (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:48 AM)

The "Big Idea" of this movie is not evolution vs. intelligent design. It is about the free flow of ideas in academia. It became very clear to me in my college days that the way to get and stay on the Dean's List was to write papers which esposed my professors' views not my own.

Steve Parkin, Laguna Niguel, CA (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:00 AM)

"HOW WACKY THIS MOVIE REALLY IS" I am glad you're going in with no preconceived notions. Alan, that's what the movie IS about, people like you who automatically dismiss the idea of ID, who've stopped looking critically at Darwinism, who belittle those who want to investigate it further. So go see the movie with the idea of tearing it apart and you'll miss the point.

Paul, Nashua NH (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:08 AM)

I understand why science wants to 'discover' and why religion wants to have 'faith', but why on earth is either side motivated to debate the differences in opinion on this issue? They are simply two conclusions arrived at by two separate methodologies and neither one is absolute. Wouldn't it be more useful to drop the 'how did we get here' bickering and focus on 'what now'? Things like human disease, ecological challenges, food sources and improving life seem a tad more important to me.

Deeptoad (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:18 AM)

It's simple: about ID -- show me your evidence. I don't mean innuendo or specious theories or spurious logic. HARD EVIDENCE. Show me the paperwork on the Creation Project that God actually signed off on. Show me the ballpoint pen that he signed it with. The concept of "self-evident" as *science* doesn't cut it.

ArchiesBoy (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:27 AM)

Science is based solely on testable research. Religion is based on imagination. Science guides us in the process of making wise decisions. Religion deceives us while providing comfort for the poorly educated. Creationists are the most incredible fools I have encountered in my long life. Ben Stein is an ass. Period.

Ben Hurt (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:38 AM)

People seem to forget that facts never interpret themselves. Belief systems interpret facts. Evolutionists will observe and analyze the geological record and comment, "Wow, how amazing through time and chance the strongest organisms evolved to become more efficient and complex." Creationists would say, "Only a world-wide flood could have laid sediments so quick and aggressively so as to fossilize animals." Arguing facts is like being in OJ Simpson's murder trial--leads to futility. Instead, the real battle ground is determining what is TRUTH. I would much rather discuss evolution v. creation as a test for TRUTH. Are each, as belief systems, coherent (as a system internal parts mesh with external reality), consistent (it stands under its own weight and maintains laws of logic), justifiable (sufficient grounds for reality and adds legitimacy to life)? The answers to these questions is were the true argument is decided...

Darren Zink (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:47 AM)

I just contrasted the above article with the one on "An Inconvenient Truth" and it's 9 errors that the Brits touted as reason not to make the film mandatory in classrooms and find a distinct difference in tone and content. For one, the AIT article did not detail those 9 errors. For another, it didn't call them "9 things Al Gore didn't want you to know." I'm curious as to why there was such a difference in treatment. Could there be a bias involved? Personally, I do accept evolution as reasonably factual. It makes sense on a number of levels. And, in spite of those knee-jerk responses to the linking of the Holocaust, one might actually look into the basis behind eugenics (which was used as justification for murder of millions). Closing one's eyes to any possibility that might contradict one's core beliefs does not promote knowledge. And that stance should not be encouraged by a publication which touts itself as scientific.

Douglas Haire, Sebring, FL (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:49 AM)

The heart of the problem is that we have objective proof of evolutionary nature but the same can't be said for there being a second greater inner framework that gave rise to this one and sustains it. As to that however, we do have a wealth of subjective evidence (personal experience) that strongly supports a second framework.
Clearly it can also be said that we are creating this framework to a large extent from the inside out, taking from the invisable framework of 'ideas' and 'imagination and learning to fashion increasingly responcible and creative constructions from those ideas, imaginings / dreams. Consider for a moment that everything you see on your desk actually came from someone's invisible-idea universe as such.......so 2 points to support there being a greater inner framework that gives rise to this one...... Now to get people to be willing to accept and form a fair and equitable marriage between reason and intuition to ferret out the blueprints.

Buffalo, New York (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:54 AM)

The theory of evolution by the natural selection of undirected variation is incomplete. In 300 years, it will look 300 years old. However, it is unarguably correct in its basic outline, and more importantly, is an extremely powerful tool. ID on the other hand is nothing more than a sort of analogy that refutes itself in its very name, that has no value whatever as a research tool, and functions only as a pleasing but silly story. That college professors "aren't allowed" to be that stupid is no more troubling than if medical students were "not allowed" to prefer magical explanations to the false doctrines of microbiology and pathology.

Robert Wright (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:07 AM)

It's sad to see these two groups talking past each other. The religious and scientific mindset have very different ways of deciding what is true and what is false.

Perhaps the more interesting question is why people are so defensive about inflexible about their world view.

-------------------------------

When I started reading transcripts of the film, I asked myself one question over and over: Does Ben Stein know he's lying?". As I saw where he regularly re-arranges Darwin's words, cutting and pasting phrases together to change the original meanings, it became obvious that he does know. And there are many more example of outright fabrication (see the Scientific American article).

So the remaining question is why. If it's just for the money, then this is an entirely cynical work, intended to shave money from religious believers. If it's for God, that's somehow more cynical. If God exists, if He is not a big lie, then why would anyone need to lie to "prove" it?

Andy Cavatorta (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:21 AM)

I promise to come back with a follow-up once I've seen the movie ... but the Hitler connection appears to be one more proof of Godwin's Law:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

And it sounds as wacky as blaming everything on the rise of Christianity ... as other filmmakers do in another controversial documentary, "Zeitgeist."

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

But I will try to take a look at "Expelled" sometime in between the travels of the next few days ... and will try to keep an open mind, just as I did when I started watching "Zeitgeist" (I just couldn't finish it, though, it was so awful) or read "The Case for a Creator."

Alan Boyle (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:52 AM)

I am a public school science teacher and evolution has been included in my required curriculum for the 17 years I have been teaching. Just for the record, I wanted to state that when I teach basic evolution I present it to my students as theory, make sure they understand the definition of "theory", and tell them that nothing I present to them is designed to compete with their current beliefs. I tell my students every year that my providing them with the information on evolution is in no way instructing them that they have to toss their bible out the window and denounce creationism. That's not my job. My job as a teacher is simply to provide information they will translate into knowledge to be used to make their own decisions later in life. What they choose to do with that knowledge is entirely up to them...just as it was all of you.

Daoine, Virginia (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:04 AM)

Example from the movie of "discrimination and suppression" - Dr. Michael Behe teaches biochemics I believe it is at Lehigh University. He believed in Intelligent Design.

Lehigh University has a disclaimer on their website saying that they respecct Dr. Behe's right to express his views but disagree with him on ID and say it is not science.

That's not discrimination at all. The dude has a job and he's allowed to express his views. The problem is he's had two decades to work on ID but hasn't produced a single shred of evidence or research. I'd love to have a job where I could never produce research and still keep my job! Cu-shy!

The real issue is ID has never produced anything and we've been waiting since the 50s. Ask them where the fossils came from and they eventually end up saying Noah's Flood - and then you realise it's not just bad science but it's bad bad theology too.

Derrald Claville, Chicago, Ill. (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:23 AM)

"Noah's flood"? Give me a break. Nobody ever said fossils came from "Noah's flood". Dude, try reading something besides the back of your Captain Crunch box. Research at least a little bit before posting something.
Either side, it doesn't matter. Bad idea to post that.

Mike Raten, Nashville, TN (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:51 AM)

The whole contoversy boils down to a simple discussion of presuppositions. If you believe simply that "the scientific method" is the only way to know anything you muct first make some faith based assumptions. My personal favorite is you must assume the "uniformity of nature". This simple principle assumes that things that happened a certain way in the past will continue to happen that same way in the future, a simple example would be 1+1=2, a more difficult example would be in war tactic x won the battle so tactic x will work again. Of course at this point you are probably saying to yourself "that sounds true and even very reasonable" unfortunately the problem is that this way of thinking is really just blind faith in a idea, scientists (and most everyone for that matter) argue that the future will be like the past because it always has in the past, unfortunately this is exaxctly what Creationists are accused of doing when it comes to intelligent design. It is circular reasoning and if it isn't allowed I think all you evolutionists should start living by your own rules.

Nick, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:54 AM)

If Hitler was so keen on Darwin, why did he never refer to him and why were his books banned? If Stalin was so keen on Darwin, why did hundreds if not thousands of people like Vavilov (the originator of the study of the evolution of crop plants) who refused to renounce Darwin's ideas get shipped off to Siberia?

It's all very well to complain that ID does not get considered, but first there has to be a theory and some evidence to consider. At present there is an assertion but no theory and not one jot of evidence.

Richard Simons, The Boonies, Manitoba (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:56 AM)

I read when they carbon dated volcanic material from the Mt. St. Helens eruption that the material dated millions of years ago instead of this century. I bet you won't hear much of that in the current elitist scientific circles. And what I think this movie was designed to do was show that in this country you can even have a reasoned discussion about differences in theories without aggression, verbal abuse, slander, and even hatred displayed by those who purport Darwinist theory. I have not seen the movie yet, but I will. And really, from what I have seen from the mainstream media, and comments from those who have seen it...is that the movie is right on about the fact that there are those who just cannot allow for discussion of any other theory but Darwin. Wow, the truth must hurt.

Holly Bush, Maylene, Alabama (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:07 AM)

Richard Dawkins, in the end of the movie, was given an uninterrupted period of time to hang himself was an interesting section. Without prompting or twisting, Dawkins said that he believes an INTELLIGENT race from another planet may have started a carefully DESIGNED cell on the earth that evolved into all life. Excuse me? So, Dawkins believes in an Intelligent Designer of life...time to remove him of his position...right? Why should he be allowed to talk about a cell creator without consequence, when so many have lost their jobs over it?

Kenneth Clifton, Tulsa, OK (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:11 AM)

Hopefully "Expelled" will enlighten the public that wants to be enlightened to the agenda of the evolutionists/atheists/agnostics to shut the Christians up by their taunts and mockings, curses and belittling but, when people know the Truth, they cannot be stopped. This movie is causing almost as much stir among the evolutionist community as The Quest for Right book which was just released. It has a ring of the truth also and the atheists/evolution gangs just hate it and have jumped on it like ravaging wolves out to kill, and few have even read it yet. Truth will prevail no matter how hard you try to gag it. This nation used to be a nation of free speech, but no longer. Everyone can talk but the Christians yet the Christians were the ones that founded this nation. This nation was meant to be Christian no matter what the godless society say or think.

Gail, Georgia (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:15 AM)

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/

Black5 (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:28 AM)

Pubmed.gov is the central database for scientific publications from around the world. Almost all scientific journals and the papers they include are databased there. A simple search for "natural selection" returns 18218 papers of which all of them (at least to my eyes) refer to evolution by natural selection. These papers include the data which supports evolution. I ask, where are the papers on Intelligent Design? In other words, where is the data in support of ID???

Chase (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:48 AM)

There is no intelligence in 'intelligent design'. it is a myth, a story. All civilizations have creation stories: we call them myths when they are other societies like the Native Americans and the Greeks/Romans. I would hope that we as a society have evolved beyond arguing about scientific fact vs emotional religious thoughts. Both have a place here, but religious creation myths cannot be compared to scientific fact. Believe what you want, but the facts stand for themselves. Just because a person understands science does not mean he/she is 'unchristian'. Belief in god does not require belief in creation stories.

Julianne Baker (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:50 AM)

It's really ironic thta the author of this article chose these words:"I haven't seen "Expelled" yet, so it's hard for me to judge how wacky the movie really is," even more so is the fact that the links he provided are of those who are religously against ID. His comment are the supportive of the movies claim. He admits he hasn't seen the moive, but assumes it's wacky. This is precisely how ID has been treated, people have judge it based on emotions and not facts, only statoing that ID'ers simply believe life is to complex. Not only so, ID have provided evidence of the immpossiblity of evolution (from cell to humans). What was really wachy about the movie involves the evolutionist who were in it. They support any idea except ID.

Shacel Cooper DurhamNC (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:55 AM)

If you bother to actually see the movie, you'll find that most of the nonsense is coming from the evolutionist own mouths. Answer the question: where did the first *whatever* (cell, "seeding," "alien," crystal...) come from??

David Posey, Rescue, CA (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:55 AM)

I'm starting to get angry, which is usually a bad sign for rational discourse. Nevertheless...

As it stands right now, ID is in violation of the basic tenets of science. It does not present a testable hypothesis. It does not concretely fill a hole in the body of scientific knowledge. It provides no answers.

If you tell me that you think the universe was designed, you still haven't explained how the process works. If you tell me that evolution doesn't explain [x] trait, you'd better be able to show me a bunch of qualified people that have repeated your experiment and agreed. There has to be an experiment, with results.

It's not too much to ask, I don't think. All I want is an experiment to perform with predictable results that point to an intelligent designer. Until then, it's not science and shouldn't be in the science classroom.

Ian Maddox, Huntsville, Alabama (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:57 AM)

In response to Ben Hurt: What are you afraid of? If the scientific community were to come to the conclusion that there was an intelligence involved in the creation of the universe, how would your life be affected? If indeed there is no purpose to our existence, then we should have no fear of discovery. When we begin to accept any theory as the only explanation for phenomena we can observe but can't explain with our limited understanding, we are cutting off our opportunity for discovery. In other words, doesn't the scientific community have an obligation to evolve? Calling someone an ass because they choose to expose an intellectual conceit, says more about your lack of intelligence that it does about Mr. Stein's.

rreactor, North Richland Hills, TXq (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:09 AM)

Dear [...] creationists:

Intelligent design had a chance. It's had its time in court and failed HORRIBLY. Just shut up already. You people don't even understand just how wrong you are.

The worst thing that could possibly happen right now, in a time when globalization is quickly weakening the strength of the American scientific establishment, is that you [...] introduce non-science into science classrooms. So if you want to destroy the United States, by all means continue. If you want to be un-American, [...] then please, continue. I'm sure Japan and China and Germany and every other country in the developed world won't mind that their scientific advances are surpassing what used to be the realm of Americans.

The real threat to America isn't terrorism. It's [...] creationists trying to get their idiotic mythology into science classrooms.

Teach intelligent design in religion class or philosophy. Don't put it in a biology classroom, lest you want to import medicine from Canada for the next few generations.

[Alan says: Some terms have been excised to remove some of the heat of the comment. In these cases, if the commenter would rather rephrase or withdraw the comment, I'm glad to comply.]

James, Toronto, Canada (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:18 AM)

It's amazing to me how bent out of shape the science community can get when someone dares to disagree with any theory they have established to be 'truth', the stench of hypocrisy is sickening. Evolution, with all of its research and facts, takes a large degree of faith itself. The eveidence that has been discovered has been linked together by theory. There is a chain of evidence but all of the links in that chain are not there. How can evolution make an assumtion about these links yet rail against anyone who uses any sort faith to explain an idea as complex as life?

Aaron, Seattle, WA (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:26 AM)

Mike Raten, please look up Answers in Genesis, one of the leading proponents of ID 'theory.'

http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

I've done my research. Where's yours? We've been waiting 50 years.

Derrald Claville, Chicago, Ill. (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:30 AM)

Quoted from Tom Bethall:
The underlying problem, rarely discussed, is that the conclusions of evolutionism are based not on science, but on a philosophy: the philosophy of materialism, or naturalism. Living creatures, including human beings, are here on Earth, and we got here somehow. If atoms and molecules in motion are all that exist, then their random interactions must account for everything that exists, including us. That is the true underpinning of Darwinism. What needs to be examined in detail is not so much the religion behind intelligent design as the philosophy behind evolution.

Mel, Texas (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:34 AM)

I'm sorry, really sorry, that the science doesn't back up faith-based, young-earth dogma. I know it's disconcerting for the data to consistently support evolutionary theory but you'll get over it. You have before. Think of it this way--over the years you've had to come to grips with the fact that germ theory (yes, it too is a theory...an extremely well tested theory) better explains infectious diseases than the bible's interesting take on the subject. Eventually you'll recognize it's just as silly to argue against another of the best tested theories in science.

FullFrontal (Sent Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:42 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=915146

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG