The movie is not saying that Darwin is false or that ID is correct. It is saying that everyone should be welcome to research no matter where the evidence leads. If Darwinist are sure of themselves why would this film cause them concern?

Darwinist are doing far more damage to their religion than this little film ever could by their panic.

By the way, Dawkins can rebut or deny all he wants. Not matter how the lighting was or where the camera was set he sat there and said that life may have come from beings from another planet – that is so absurd and it does nothing to answer the question because the next obvious question is were did they come from. That foolish and juvenile attempt at a Tom Cruise kind of thinking simply moves the debate to another planet but changes nothing in the discussion of origin.

Remove the stops and tear down the wall. Follow the evidence where ever it leads and if Darwin is god follow him but if God is God follow Him.

FullFrontal - I am curious. What is the bible's take on germs - answer if you know [...]

All you people out there who claim that intelligent design hasn't produced anything apparently miss the irony of typing those comments on an intelligently designed computer.

In Expelled, the "best" idea the evolutionist had about the origin of life was that it, "came on the back of crystals". I am not joking, check out the movie. This pathetic speculation is typical of reactions by evolutionists when confronted with questions about the origin of life and the origin of biological information. Until they come up with a compelling (although I would accept coherent based on the relative lack of sensical ideas) explanation for how living cells formed from non living matter and how a biological language could write itself and encode itself into DNA molecules, people will be correct to doubt evolution.

If the paradigm of the film is true, then this author Alan Boyle, would not be able to give an honest evaluation of the film.  For then he would be expelled from his job!  So that is why you have no commitment at the onset, just hearsay.

The movie exploits a scientifically illiterate public's  ignorance in the further erosion of America's slide into technological obscurity. ID and "creation science" are not science, period. Science has rules.  An objective hypothesis is tested and evidence supports a conclusion.

ID and similar religious modalities start with a conclusion and cherry pick the evidence to fit it. That's not science, the rest of the world knows it, still advocates here pretend that it is.

There is no such thing as a "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist" as religious zealots would want you to believe.  There are scientists and non-scientists. Scientists MUST be open to all possibilities, including biblical creation.  We are. There just is no credible, reproducible, peer-reviewed, hard evidence that the earth was created in six days 6000 years old and in the center of the universe.

If such evidence were found then contrary to Expelled's claim of repression, legitimate evidence would elevate and expand science to new frontiers- it would be the greatest story of all time.

Sadly, the evidence for this does not exist and we have to rely on the brand of legitimate scientific inquiry that brought you technology, doubled your life expectancy, and all the toys from home computers to battleships. Science is good stuff!

However, in 2010 90% of the world's engineers and scientists will be in Asia. We'll be discussing whether we perpetuate the anti-science agenda of a small clade of nervous faithful, as scientific findings do not match their preconceived beliefs.

This is probably the worst setting for a good discussion on this issue, so both sides should probably take everything here with a grain of salt. That said, I think the evolutionists on here should produce some cold hard facts if they are going to require the same of the ID folks. You can't just assume that the burden of proof is on the ID folks because you have tradition behind you. That's not science, is it?

Plenty of scientists are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion, and believe that a god or gods created life. The theory of evolution does not conflict with any religion or culture's creation myth. In fact, for evolution to work, there has to be something to start with. Evolution needs some sort of creation!

Evolution does not address where the first cell came from, only how that first cell survived, competed, and produced the biodiversity we have today. That is all evolution attempts to address.

Where evolution begins to come into conflict with religion is when the theory of intelligent design (which is itself, less than 30 years old, and unfortunately somehow linked with Christianity) is invoked to describe the biodiversity we see on earth today, thereby competing directly with the theory of evolution. Intelligent design asserts that everything we see alive today was created exactly as you see it now. Therefore, by definition, intelligent design is asserting that life cannot change or adapt to the ever-changing environment it lives in and assumes that the world we live in is a static constant. An intelligent being has created every creature exactly for its environment. That’s why it’s so intelligent, right?

However, we know that this is not the case. The world around us is not a static constant. Environments change over time, sometimes drastically, and yet there are still plenty of plants, animals, bacteria, and fungus on earth that can keep up with this change by adapting. Without bringing billions of years worth of the fossil record into this discussion, it is possible to observe life’s adaptation to the environment within a person’s lifetime.

Rosemary and Peter Grant have studied the size and shape of the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands for the majority of their professional careers. They have witnessed how over time, as the relative abundance of types of food have changed, so have the shapes and sizes of the finches’ beaks that live on the islands. The altered beak sizes allow the birds to take advantage of the most abundant food sources to survive. Now the finches are not going to the finch plastic surgeon and having their beak shape changed, rather, the finches with the appropriate beaks are surviving by eating the available food and the ones with less-competitively shaped beaks die off because they can’t get as much food. This process has been described as natural selection, but you could call it “Bible School” if you want. Its name isn’t important, its going to happen either way. In intelligent design, however, none of these birds would die from lack of food because they were all created perfectly and intelligently designed for their environment.

This kind of adaptation, which is basically all evolution describes, is happening every day, in finches, in the bacteria that live in your body, in fish, livestock, in dandelions, in redwoods trees, in every living thing on earth, and in people. This readily observable process is impossible under intelligent design and merely described by the theory of evolution. A theory, after all, is just an attempt to describe a set of observations.

I'm' glad some people decided to waste their money on this piece of "science fiction" (my apologies to the serious genre), but I wasn't about to.  

After having read a number of reviews, however, I have to wonder why Stein even associated himself with this.  My assumption is that Ben Stein loves to set himself up as the great "liberal baiter"; which is absurd since science has no philosophical bent. But for the far-right fanatics, it is a nice big target.

Obviously, he needs to stick to a realm of discourse of which he knows; i.e., his own narrow-minded views on how society should operate.  But for him to venture into an area where he is hopelessly ignorant, he becomes simply a caricature of himself.  

While some might still admire Stein for his public veneer of intelligence, his acceptance of cafeteria science displays a wanton ignorance that all his fancy-shmancy words and apparent rationality can't hide.  

FullFrontal, in case you weren't aware, arguing the merits of a widely held theory is not valid proof of a different theory, else they would be one in the same. Apparently logic has no place in science either.

Expelled is exposing the lie of evolution.  The truth is, not only does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics, it violates the laws of Biology too. Something is very wrong when the government sponsored school system censors a particular viewpoint on science but allows contrary views on every other scientific subject.  Why the censorship from the government?  Why doesn't the government want other views to be explored other than Evolution?  This is the only "no debate" subject.  All other scientific views are open for discussion and debate - but this one.  Sounds like indoctrination is going on here.  5 stars for "expelled".  Let this be the beginning of a change in what is being taught in science in our government school system!!!    

What I find amazing is that we have MADE all sorts of complex machinery that required high intelligence and yet we want to say that we designers just meandered by CHANCE and LUCK to become intelligent humans.  If a car can come together without any human putting so can evolution come together. Why don't we say any apes today turning into humans??? Why has the evolution processed stopped???  Evolution is ILLOGICAL!

Just to refresh your memory: There was a big court case over teaching intelligent design in public-school science classes, and the decision pretty definitively said that intelligent design = creationism = religion. So this is why intelligent design is not addressed in public-school science classes. When it comes to public schools, it's a question of following the no-establishment-of-state-religion clause of the Constitution. So in that sense, there is a restriction on this in public-school science classes (although the ideas behind intelligent design can come up in a balanced treatment of religions and philosophies in other classes). Here are the stories about that previous court case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10548320/

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/
news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

to Brian, from Traverse City, MI: guess what, I have delved further into the arguments of darwinists and id believers. I don't see why you darwinists get your panties in a knot every time someone wants to talk about ID "there's no science behind it" you cry out - then why do you care if we say anything? Are Darwinists afraid? We do not seek to crush Darwinism, but to explain where it all started. As the big Darwinists claim "no one knows how it started". Well, we do. Just allow us to tell you about it. You may like it.

Jacob Caporaletti (Sent Friday, April 18, 2008 6:24 PM) said:
This film is asinine.
I say: you obviously haven't seen it yet.
Jacob says:
Science can make no comment on the supernatural. It's a fundamental violation of the philosophy of science.
I say: I agree. Yet some scientists and christophobes urge that darwinism proves there is no God.
Jacob says:
Read a science textbook every now and then. It'll show how pointless this debate is.
I say: You are intellectually lazy. You spend the first part of your comment saying science can't comment on the supernatural, then you say the debate is pointless because a science textbook will show you .... Show us what? That there is no God? Make up your mind.

We who believe in God are [not] at war with science. In fact, many great scientists (Newton comes to mind) were and are Christians. We simply have a different interpretation of the data. Why are you so afraid of honest debate and inquiry?  

James from Toronto Canada:

That's your argument? That ID failed in COURT? When did we get to the point where a JUDGE is considered the Master Scientist? Really weak, man. As for creationists being more dangerous than terrorists: get back to me when a creationist flies the plane you're on into a building....

So many of the criticisms here about the movie verify and validate lots of what the movie is talking about.  If you present a purely scientific argument that does not fit in neatly with evolution, then you get blasted for bringing "religion" into the discussion.  Present what the statistical odds are of getting enough "data" into a cell for it to be capable of replication, and suddenly you are a religious fanatic, an anti-scientific nut-case.  Point out the scientific conclusions that are necessary for evolution to be true for which NO verifiable or tested evidence exists and suddenly you are scoffed at for bringing theology and personal philosophy into a realm where neither belong.  Stein is right: the opposition is neither honest nor logical nor civil.

Ian wrote ---
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.

So, Ian, tell us: where are your "experiments, with results" that prove evolution??

Of course, you'll get angry; you have no scientific proof for what you are claiming to "know."

As others have said, evolution is a faith-based philosophy itself; and its proponents say they are putting their faith in science, but, when it comes right down to it, "they don't know" how the universe came into existence (Dawkins, et al do not claim to know).

If someone knows how that first cell came into existence SAY SO and give us the evidence; we're listening. Until you provide the answer, my belief that someone bigger than all of us designed it and created it is as good as yours -- both are based on faith; so whose faith is more reasonable? THAT'S the real debate.

David

Kenneth Clifton: "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."

False.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,
2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

Start with the paragraph that begins, "Another example..."

David Posey: "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??"

You misunderstand evolution, which makes no claim to the ultimate origins of life.  Scientists may speculate, but until there is testable, falsifiable evidence, it is just that: speculation.

Mel: "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"

Why is it that only evolution receives this criticism?  Why don't astronomers get pegged for being "materialistic"?  I mean, they don't ever discuss the possibility that Earth is being carried on the back of a turtle, or the possibility that the cosmos was horked from the nostril of Saturnus.  Why don't THEY take untestable religious beliefs into consideration?

What I find interesting is the comments from people who clearly know almost nothing about the subject, for example 'evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics' (then why are physicists quiet about the subject?), 'evolution has stopped' (ever heard of nylonase or Culex molestus, the London Underground mosquito?), 'why don't we see apes turning into humans' (an argument regularly used on evolution blogs to spoof creationists, the answer is because they are perfectly good at being apes and that is not how evolution works in any case) and volcanic material that was carbon dated to millions of years old (hint: carbon dating does not work beyond about 50,000 years). Does it never cross their minds that it could be possible that the thousands of biologists and geologists who have each studied the subject for decades might possibly know more than they do?

The point is not whether creation, evolution, or intelligent design is correct or incorrect; the idea is that people in the scientific community (from the movie's p.o.v.) are systematically taking out anyone who discusses a different theory... now, try to think about this without attacking any of these "theories" (evolution, creation, and intelligent design)... If we aren't allowed to question, and aren't allowed to share and discuss questions with people, then how on Earth are we going to move forward? Most major changes occur when people question the current regime of thinking... just saying..

We are pressured to accept both that time makes an incredible degree of beauty, order, and complexity possible and that there cannot possibly be Anyone substantially greater, more complex, or more powerful in the Universe. (Little green men, maybe, but no Great Big God, certainly.) This is just one more untestable, faith-based assertion, wishful thinking masquerading as science and forming the basis for one more exclusivist, intolerant religion. "We're Scientists and They are not" isn't just unfriendly; it's a fundamentally dishonest position. We liked the movie and recommended it at ExpelledExcels.com

Dear ...: I don't think the issue is so much that questions are being suppressed, but in order to be addressed scientifically, the questions have to be cast in a way that they can be examined through hypothesis and experiment. It really doesn't work to say "there's just no way that bacteria could develop a flagellum" ... rather, researchers look into the mechanism whereby that could take place.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

When the bulk of the evidence supports a set of hypotheses, those hypotheses work together as a theory (such as evolutionary theory, gravitational theory, germ theory). That's not to say the theory is the final word. Even gravitational theory has its gaps and unanswered questions (e.g., dark energy):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047871/

But that doesn't mean the theory is thrown out, or that we are left with saying that the universe had to be designed because we don't fully understand how mass or gravity arises. In a similar way, there will be continued testing and questioning about evolutionary theory ... there may even be someone else who comes up with an idea that explains things better, just as Einstein followed Newton. But there's no justification for setting the currently held theory aside.

It's interesting how people continue to maintain their opinions despite actual proof.  This is very similar to a scripture in the Bible where a rich man dies and asks for a dead person to be sent back to the earth to share with its inhabitants that hell actually exists and the reply he is given is that even if someone comes back from the dead to share with others about the afterlife, they still won't believe.  My point is people believe what they choose to believe regardless of the facts.  I find this to be very sad for the human race.

Any theory that requires even the slightest amount of faith is a religion. The very idea that naturalists do not have the answer to many of the largest proposed question (right now), means they are believing in a theory with the use of faith and evidence (not just one or the other, but both). They believe they will have the answers in the future, but thats faith. All the evidence is not in yet on either side, so that requires faith.

There is nothing wrong with faith, scientists use faith everyday when they have a big idea or a testable theory they believe will yield the results they are trying to achieve. The big question is, why are they afraid to say they use faith? Why are they afraid to admit faith is very important to scientific endeavor? Why do atheists deny being a religion when their belief system requires an absent of God? Almost everything can be broken down to faith or a belief, in essence, a religion.

I just finished seeing the movie. Theatrics aside, why are some theories fair game for academic inquiry and others not? No theory, regardless of how well supported through the years should be so cherished as to not encourage the full scale refinement of being subjected to GOOD science. ID or no ID is not really the question. What we need to do at this point is examine the published literature to discern if there is a noted bias against the refinement of this theory. My field is leadership, not evolution. But if leadership theory can grow from "The Great Man" theory to the multitude of leadership theories today then we must ask the question, "Are there theories that cannot be challenged by GOOD science?" I hope the answer is a resounding NO.

I learned in 7th grade a basic tenant of science: "Energy is neither created nor destroyed--it just changes form."  That means that all of the energy in the universe has always been here.

I also enjoy reading Steven Hawking, and he speaks of the beginning of the universe as a "singularity" which contained all of the energy in the universe.  That singularity exploded, he says, in a "Big Bang" which eventually spread out to become what we have now.  Very enjoyable reading.  I love Steven Hawking.

The question he doesn't ask, or try to answer, however, is this one: Where did the singularity come from?  In fact, I've yet to see that question answered (or attempted) by the scientific community.

I'm a computer programmer, and as such I'd like to think that I'm a very logical individual.  I know that it takes a lot of planning, design and effort to create a working piece of software that performs even fairly trivial tasks.  An operating system (like Windows or Linux), is far more complex, consisting of millions of lines of human-written code.

I can't say for sure, since I've never tried it, but I have a sneaky suspicion that if I formatted my hard drive, disassembled my PC, put all of its parts into a bucket and set that bucket in my front yard, millions (or billions) of years would pass without that bucket of parts ever becoming a working PC with a from-scratch operating system installed and ready to boot up and connect to the web.

In my (albeit limited) life experience, it takes intelligence to create such things.  Random chance produces only noise and chaos.

Another example, and then I'll hang it up.  I'm currently working on a multi-document summarizing algorithm.  It has taken years of effort and study to reach the point of understanding I now have to create this piece of software -- and it is still full of difficulties and problems.

It would be nice if I could create an algorithm that simply extracts words from documents, randomly selected and spit out the chosen words, and produced a readable, informative summary.  I can attest from experience that it does not.  There is much logic, decision and reason that goes into that selection of words.  Blind chance, or even chance guided by some unintelligent force, is not involved.

My own logical, rational, educated evaluation of experience in life has led me to believe in an intelligent Creator.  Every house is built by someone, right?

Based on what I’ve read in these comments, that makes me unscientific.

Don't try to hold me down with your gravity Scientist Man, the bible says the Holy Spirit will lift me to heaven and if that doesn't convince you it just goes to show how closed minded the scientific community is. Surely you scientists will have no comprehension of this because you’re religiously indoctrinated with Big Science. Science didn't give us irrigation, electricity, or medicine - God did, end of story. You're all a bunch of Nazis. God bless America. Remember 9/11.

I watched the Super Trailer and am familiar with the
subject of Darwin v. Creationism, because I have
written about it. Here's the problem: If you question
Darwinism, there's a knee jerk reaction to cast
you as a biblical creationist. Neo-Darwinism does
indeed defy common sense when you look at the
arguments against it with an open mind, but that
doesn't mean Genesis is the answer by default. Better,
in fact, to forget religion and just have an open mind.
My mind is open, and evolution as the beginning and
end all theory is weak. It is a scientific fact only in the
sense that a  scientific fact is a theory without a better
one to replace it. Theoretical physics throws a huge whammy
into the Darwinian paradigm, as an understanding of
how reality works. Scientists need to examine the
reasoning that questions evolution without thinking
they are doing anything more than being good scientists.
And Biblical creationists need to understand that belief
is not science. There's a profound mystery to be under-
stood. Puny minds with axes to grind (on either side)
are the problem. True scientists are the ones asking
the hard questions.

God created us ...end of story... look at the complexity of a single cell and you will see clearly we did not evolve by accident or natural selection..It takes more faith to belive we were apes than it does to accept the truth.. When you draw your last breath who will you be looking for God or tarzan???

There IS no "creation model."  There is NO scientific theory of creationism.  Doesn't exist.  A scientific theory is falsifiable and can be used to make accurate predictions.  That is true of evolutionary theory.  There is no such thing in Creationism.

I'm a dedicated Christian, and I resent creationists making Christians look like idiots.

Creationism is NOT SCIENCE, in any way whatsoever.

Science can neither affirm nor deny origins because the method deals with repeatable and verifiable hypotheses. Therefore the idea of origins inherently is "worldview/religiously" oriented.  Can't Dawkins and his peers admit this.  Or are they really that ignorant of the philosophy of science. I was once given an article by my science prof from "biology" magazine entitled "Biologists Help" (still have it in my files) in which a university philosophy teacher, himself an evolutionist, decried logical inconsistencies in his peers' support of evolution.  I think the debate here is good, but better to try and keep motives out of it.  Stein's movie is provacative.

The evolutionist can find a pig's tooth and write a book on his "proof" of evolution.  It's kind of unfair that Creationists such as myself have to study biology, cosmology, anthropology, etc... before we can be "allowed" to counter Darwinism in any form.  Do point lists work for you?  Here's just a few.

1. Diamonds supposedly formed in the carboniferous era, between 3 billion and 4 billion years ago.  Why is there radiocarbon in them?  If the planet's entire mass was radiocarbon, it would decay away to an unmeasurable state in less than a million years.

2.  The periodic table of elements supposedly formed from fusion within stars, as the big bang supposedly only created hydrogen and maybe helium.  The elements formed by the stars are the building blocks of stars.   Does the term "catch-22" mean anything to anybody.

3.  The first living cells supposedly formed on the ocean floor between 3.8 billion and 4 billion years ago.  Well, forget the entire cell.  Let's just look at the proteins they contain.  While it is true that amino acids can be formed by natural occurrences, i.e. the Miller experiment, these occurrences always result in a 50/50 of "mirror-image", or left and right handed amino acids.  These acids connect easily with one another.  Do you mind telling me how all lifeforms are consistent of ONLY left-handed amino acids?  There are an average of 400 amino acids in proteins, and the addition of a single "rightie" kills the entire chain.  Likewise, the sugars which are found in nucleotides occur in mirror-image forms in nature, yet only the righties are found in DNA.  Also, the sugars and amino acids merge so readily with one another that they effectively cancel one another out.  So, based on the inarguable interdependency of chromosomes, both DNA and proteins had to form at the same place, same time, exclude all right handed amino acids and left handed sugars, and never touch one another in the process.  And it all "just happened?"  Even Richard Dawkins admitted that if genuinely irreducible complexity could be demonstrated it would wreck Darwin's theory.  Of course, he covers his butt by refusing to debate Creationists, and also presents the scaffolding theory, which suddenly makes belief in the Bible seem a lot less crazy.  

For the record, I am a Christian, and I deliver pizzas for ten bucks an hour.  Any further questions, hit me at discodaggett@hotmail.com
 

I saw the movie last night. Couple comments: the nazi section of the movie was, honestly, not needed and a bit intellectually dishonest. The only message it was designed to send is that "Hey Kids, if you subscribe to Neo Darwinism you'll become an ATHEIST JEW KILLER"

Boo on that.

However, the movie DID bring up some really good points. Its hard to get any evidence for a theory if you don't get funding. It's hard to get evidence when most qualified people will not work with you because a) they are afraid or b) they think your nuts.

At this point, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a reasonable discussion on the topic of Evolution and/or intelligent design because both sides have been hijacked, not by scientists, but by political activists and and religious nuts.

Science is a business. Those scientists whose funding comes from Left Wingers arent gonna jeapordize their paycheck by giving any funding or time or thought towards any view their Liberal backers have labeled as Religious.

Likewise, those supporters of ID have a majority of their funding (substantially less?) from religious backers. Of COURSE they are going to try and get Religionist hopes up that 'Hey! Maybe this will prove GOD did it! Please, give us money now'.

Both sides have become Not Science. So, any debate is meaningless. Sad, but true.

If, as ID'ers propose, the complexity of life on earth requires an even more complex "creator", we have to carry that logic to the next level, and the next. As ID proponents assert, all the complexity of life was created by a "God" - by that logic, there must have been something even more complex who created "God". Maybe that would be called "Super God"? Well, of course, that amount of complexity required an even more complex "creator", we'll call that "God Mach 2". Yet again, that complex entity required an even more complex "creator", "God Captain Fantastic!!!", and on and on and on.

ID is purely conjecture, which can not be falsified nor proven, and therefore incompatible with peer reviewed scientific theories. There is nothing to test or teach.

Until ID can actually provide testable, verifiable data and equations which can be peer reviewed, and actually get accepted on a purely scientific basis, it does not deserve special "treatment" or a place at the science table.

Dear James,
We only lost the lead in these areas after we removed God from the classrooms

Evolution is a theory. Theory is not truth. To prejudge another theory as wrong is unhealthy, and close minded.  

I just saw this movie.  I am absolutely amazed that the ID critics responding in this blog regurgitate the exact same verbage and spurious tactics used by the neo-evolutionists in the movie: mainly, resorting to name-calling instead arguing the merits of each side.  It just reinforces the central theme of the movie.

Intelligent design does not refute evolution or natural selection. The theory of ID proposes an idea as to how life was originated. Evolution is what happens after that point. Whether God created life or it was brought here by an alien species or it was spontaneously created by piggybacking on crystals or whatever, evolution is the process that occurs over time and leads to what we have now. ID is the process that the first organism came into existence. Can't it be that both evolution and natural selection can coexist with Intelligent Design?

If there is no debate or question and the intelligent designers are such idiots, why all the shrill crying?

The bottom line is when "scientists" like Dawkins cross the line and write books on theology (see "The God Delusion") they just opened their little sandbox up for theological debate.You can't have it both ways - either stick just to science or shut up.

How interesting that when religious people want to degrade evolution, they call it a religion.  Really, what does that say about religion?

If the evolutionists are so certain of their beliefs why do they try so dang hard to squelch any other ideas?  What are they afraid of?

I have one question that has never been answered by either side...for the evolutionists...science states that something canNOT come from nothing...so...where did that FIRST something come from that lead to all that exists today...as for creationists...if something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from?  Afterall, He is something isnt He?   The theory of God always being makes more sense than the something coming from nothing theory that directly contradicts science, so I will go with the creationists...unles of course one of you evolutionists can PROVE to me where that first something came from.

It's quite amusing watching some people scrambling to disconnect social Darwinism from Darwinism... like the names are just a random coincedence.

Intelligent design is the assertion that an intelligent designer designed and created the universe, including living things in their present forms.  This assertion cannot be verified.  Intelligent design is not and cannot become a theory.  Any person who represents intelligent design as a "scientific theory" is making a grossly false representation.

I saw Expelled today and thought the documentary provoked much thought about the erosion of freedom of speech in this country. I am shaken when I realize that only a few short years have transformed our teaching of science and have begun the erosion of our freedoms. We went from the the Scopes trial where it was ruled that the THEORY of evolution could not be taught because creationism was taught to a society where God is not even mentioned in the classroom. Arguments can be made for no mention of God in school, although I disagree with them; however, no valid arguments exist for a failure to allow even the mention of creatism or ID. Each should have a fair presentation in the classroom. Expelled was thought-provoking and ironically coincided with my reading of a Case for a Creator.

Evolution is the assertion that Evolution designed and created the universe, including living things in their present forms.  This assertion cannot be verified.  Evolution is not and cannot become a theory.  Any person who represents evolution as a "scientific theory" is making a grossly false representation.

Intelligent Design is too shallow, and conveys nothing of much value, other than "life is too complex to have developed on it's own". Beyond that, what does it tell us? Does it tell us why there are extinct life forms in the geologic strata? Does it tell us why and when prehistoric mankind lived and disappeared from the face of the planet? Does it tell us when and why an extra-celestial battle was fought over "control" over our universe? Does it resolve the differences between what science has discovered and what unskilled people have perceived to be written in Genesis?

Instead of wasting time with ID, and only teaching the insanity of evolution, we should be seeking the correct literal interpretation of Genesis, and climb out of this abyss of ignorance.

Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com

The simple fact is that this movie will further vaccinate our teens from naturalist lies......when these kids get to class, they will ask the questions that naturalism can't answer. amd the other kids in the class will see the failure of naturalism.

We will still have to put up with naturalist idiots for a while, the old ones will have to die off leaving our kids armed with the truth to take their place, but anyway you slice it......Naturalism is going to go extinct.....LOL!

i just saw this movie and I'm afraid I saw something different. I saw no support of ID but for the idea that freedom of speech should be respected in all instances.
I didn't get the idea from the movie that Hitler used Darwins ideas but the ideas from the eugenics movement, which was based in Darwinism.
I guess my thoughts on the movie are that it called for a tolerance of dissenting views rather than demanding compliance to a single view. Which in and of itself makes sense.
One note, in discussions about these conflicting views i notice that many times the arguements become ad hominem rather than focusing on the merits of the argument on both sides.  

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