The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Jerry Daniel — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:33:04 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Paul — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:02:29 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Chris — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:16:48 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Casey Luskin, Seattle, Washington — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:19:32 GMT

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?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Jacob Caporaletti — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:24:20 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Boyle — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:38:26 GMT

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. ;-)

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

sam johnson — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:38:48 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Rich — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:51:47 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

vsack — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:52:33 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Brian, Traverse City, MI — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:56:06 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

KevinD — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:02:34 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Derrald Claville, Chicago, Ill. — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:02:43 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

PvM — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:38:40 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Miguel Morgado, plantation, florida — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:46:57 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

John Selle, Dodge, ND — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:47:35 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Dale, Tucson, Arizona — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 06:11:50 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:00:12 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Neil, Wheaton, IL — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:32:14 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

vn — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:48:14 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Steve Parkin, Laguna Niguel, CA — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:00:50 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Paul, Nashua NH — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:08:59 GMT

"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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Deeptoad — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:18:39 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

ArchiesBoy — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:27:57 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Ben Hurt — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:38:56 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Darren Zink — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:47:00 GMT

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...

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Douglas Haire, Sebring, FL — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:49:58 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Buffalo, New York — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:54:08 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Robert Wright — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:07:36 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Andy Cavatorta — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:21:05 GMT

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?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Boyle — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:52:20 GMT

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."

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Daoine, Virginia — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:04:33 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Derrald Claville, Chicago, Ill. — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:23:53 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Mike Raten, Nashville, TN — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:51:59 GMT

"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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Nick, Phoenix, AZ — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:54:17 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Richard Simons, The Boonies, Manitoba — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:56:17 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Holly Bush, Maylene, Alabama — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:07:52 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Kenneth Clifton, Tulsa, OK — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:11:18 GMT

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?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Gail, Georgia — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:15:04 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Black5 — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:28:34 GMT

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/

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Chase — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:48:31 GMT

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???

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Julianne Baker — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:50:23 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Shacel Cooper DurhamNC — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:55:24 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

David Posey, Rescue, CA — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:55:34 GMT

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Ian Maddox, Huntsville, Alabama — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:57:11 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

rreactor, North Richland Hills, TXq — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:09:18 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

James, Toronto, Canada — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:18:07 GMT

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.]

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Aaron, Seattle, WA — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:26:26 GMT

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?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Derrald Claville, Chicago, Ill. — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:30:56 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Mel, Texas — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:34:51 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

FullFrontal — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:42:23 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Dwayne — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:44:14 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Dwayne — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:54:06 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Jordan, Columbus, Ohio — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:09:59 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Becky Clark, Ypsilanti, MI — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:18:11 GMT

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 reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Kevin Folta, Gainesville, FL — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:29:01 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

David H. — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:30:00 GMT

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?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Bryan, Michigan — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:31:04 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Mike, Racine, Wisconsin — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:43:45 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Aaron, Seattle — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:48:14 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Dean, Seattle, WA — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:58:14 GMT

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!!!

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

John, La Grange, IL — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:04:14 GMT

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!

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Boyle — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:18:25 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Joe, Rexburg, Idaho — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:22:29 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Chris Branson — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:25:14 GMT

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?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Chris Branson, Houston Texas — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:30:18 GMT

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....

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Chad Woodburn, St. Cloud, FL — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:33:55 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

David Posey, Rescue, CA — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:39:58 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

vsack — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:40:08 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

vsack — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:46:08 GMT

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?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Richard Simons, The Boonies, Manitoba — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:14:48 GMT

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 reviews are in on 'Expelled'

...., ..., ........ — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:25:11 GMT

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..

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Valerie, Wisconsin — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:35:54 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Boyle — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:40:55 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Adrienne Greene, Atlanta, Ga — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:10:49 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

John Doe, Seattle, Washington — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:22:53 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Retired 18Z — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:42:21 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Jon, Dallas, Texas — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:47:10 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Eric, Dallas, TX - Beyahh!! — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:55:36 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Harry Priest — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:51:04 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Sheila , St petersburg Florida — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:51:54 GMT

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???

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Carl Fortunato, New York, NY — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:03:35 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Edmond Caouette, Norcross, GA — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:23:38 GMT

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 reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Lane, Chetwynd, BC, Canada — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:44:47 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Howard Fudge, Melbourne Florida — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:50:52 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Jason Atkinson, Los Angeles, CA — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:56:48 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Jon Welch, Wilmington, Ohio — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:57:55 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

billNYC — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:01:07 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Larry, Marietta Georgia — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:06:59 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Adam, Columbia, MO — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:25:50 GMT

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?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Brad,Oostburg, Wisconsin — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:37:55 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Arpio — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:05:32 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Kathy, Chicago, Illinois — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:33:44 GMT

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?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Rob Lundy — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:56:35 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Porter — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:05:45 GMT

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Scott, Santa Clara, CA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:12:03 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Helen Smith, Plano, Texas — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:36:47 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Colorado — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:58:55 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Herman Cummings Fortson GA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:00:06 GMT

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 reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Michael — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:03:14 GMT

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!

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

C Watson, Norwalk, CA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:04:06 GMT

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.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Jennifer Schrank Kirkland WA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:06:07 GMT

I went to see Expelled today. I hope people who are debating this have actually seen the movie so they can discuss what they saw, not what they've heard about it. I found it helped me to see a distinction between Intelligent Design and Creationism. I also found the cases of actual people who have been fired for discussing Intelligent Design in academic settings disturbing. I do think that science should be allowed to update its conclusions on modern science by allowing all discussion rather than solely on Darwin's outdated scientific understanding that has almost become a religion to some in itself.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Shelby Hernandez, Tacoma, Washington — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:12:14 GMT

Merely: BELIEVE; don't gamble!!!

This may or may not be posted. Comments are approved or disapproved according to constraints tagged by parental msnbc (movie>faith> & recall, ~Media).

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Scott, Santa Clara, CA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:46:09 GMT

Dear Colorado: Evolution (descent with modification) does occur. To confirm that, look at yourself in a mirror and then look at your parents. And please take note of the fact that some people leave more descendants than others, and that differences in reproductive rates can cause changes in the average genetic characteristics of a population. That is evolution.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

John, Chicago — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:54:35 GMT

The theory of intelligent design states that evolution is governed by a creator. This implies that evolution is a fact and therefore contradicts creationism and the Adam and Eve story. Since Jesus was a Jew who believed in his religion, I.D. advocates do not believe the same things that Jesus believed. One can believe in I.D. or be a Christian, but not both.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Kelley Eidem, Panama City, FL — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:02:41 GMT

Before I start, there is another theory of evolution called "Hierarchic Organization." I wrote a book that covers it.

Unlike Alan Boyle, I've actually seen the movie. Ben Stein does a masterful job getting top notch Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins to flat out admit they have no clue about how life started. (You'd think that would be kind of important if you've decided Darwinian evolution is settled science.)

It's priceless.

Then there is the part of the film that shows just how complex a single cell is, and how tough it would be to get 250 proteins to line up in the exact correct order to produce a cell.

Again, it's priceless.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Craig, Ft Myers, FL — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:03:00 GMT

"Expelled" zeros in on the real source of all the controversy - One's World View! One world view is open minded enought to at least allow the possibility of a superior being, a god, a creator that at the very least kick-started LIFE! The other world view is totally intolerant of any such thought and therefore unable to look honestly at the facts and truths revealed by scientific observation. This is the deep dark secret of human history - we simply refuse to have see the truth when that truth even come close to hinting that there may be one to whom we will all have to give an account for our thoughts, deeds and actions. We are very broken, we know it and do all we can to fix ourselves but simply cant without the help of the designer. So in our refusal to admit our need of such a one we will turn to crystals or aliens from another world seeding ours with life. Not stopping to think of how silly such thoughts are for it only causes a truly thinking person to ask even more forcefully - And how did their life begin?!

This all-out rebellion against TRUTH is what creates such silliness, such anger, such fear of open dialogue and an entrenchment that is absolutely intolerant. Simply put, "Rebellion" against the TRUTH, what the religious world calls "SIN" makes you STUPID!

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Derrald Claville, Chicago, Ill. — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:27:29 GMT

Rob Lundy, I have a standing bet of 25,000 dollars to the first person who can show me a biology textbook used in public high schools that states and presents as undeniable fact "The first life came from nothing."

IDists are very VERY sure that that's what evolutionary theory claims, yet none have been able to claim the 25,000 dollar reward for something that should be so simple! I wonder why that is. With all that money, I'm sure you could do wonderfully charitable things.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Paula, Orange County, CA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:35:38 GMT

I have a question for those of you arguing for teachers to have the 'academic freedom' to teach ID with/instead of evolution. Would you also support the teaching of geocentrism (the idea that the sun revolves around the earth) as proposed by the Association for Biblical Astronomy? Should we 'teach the controversy' regarding the arrangement of the solar system?

Of course not. There is a scientific consensus that heliocentrism is the best explanation of our observations of our solar system (and yes, it is considered a theory just like evolution). The fact that there are still people (some of whom have PhDs) who will argue for geocentricity does not mean that it is a viable theory or that it should be taught in school as an alternative to heliocentricity. The same is true for ID.

The idea of hearing both sides of the argument is a persuasive one, especially when people don't know much about the topic in question. But ID has produced no falsifiable hypotheses, much less any significant contributions to the general body of knowledge. Unless it can do this, it should remain out of the science classroom.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Kramer, San Diego, CA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:39:00 GMT

Nazis = liberals = evil

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Kramer, San Diego, CA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:41:31 GMT

[...] i'm still waiting for an explanation as to where the first cell came from.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Derrald Claville, Chicago, Ill. — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:41:39 GMT

Also, to those who believe that people actually get expelled for having ID viewpoints, please visit expelledexposed.com and learn the truth.

Sternberg was never fired from the Smithsonian. He published a paper without allowing anyone else to comment on it or present their opinions on it. Also, the paper had nothing to do with the journal he published it in. On top of this, it was his pre-determined last issue as editor of that journal.

Despite not doing his job properly, they actually offered to keep him on at the Smithsonian in another position after his contract was up. Apparently this wasn't good enough for him. He expected that for doing a bad job improperly, he should be crowned King of the Smithsonian? I'd be very happy to keep my job when I can't even do it properly! I'd like to ask Ben Stein why he got every single fact of the case wrong. He either didn't know the story or he's purposely lying. I would like to assume the former.

Compare all that to Chris Comer from Texas who was fired from her job for _suggesting_ via e-mail that people attend a lecture given by a woman who was critical of Intelligent Design.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Scott, Santa Clara, CA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:06:30 GMT

Dear Craig: Your "open minded" world view and your "totally intolerant" world view are not the only possibilities. A person who has a superanturalistic world view can use a perspective named "methodological naturalism" while he is engaged in scientific investigation. From this perspective, he is trying to find natural explanations for natural phenomena. He does not postulate supernatural causes nor does he assert supernatural effects. If you cannot accept those limits then you should not seek a career in science. Don't expect scientists to change their rules just to accommodate you.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Dogger, Jacksonville ,FL — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:06:34 GMT

It's obvious this movie highlights a fact the film makers would never concede too if asked directly. The fact is simply "Science is more reliable and accurate than religion". This is the reason for the attempt to masquerade religion as science.

There is a lot of noise on fairness of teaching opposing views from ID supporters but they gloss over the fact that they want their view taught as equal to evolution despite the lack of evidence. In short they want to build up ID as equal to a scientific theory ,and simultaneously tear down evolution to be equal to religion. Thus the terms Darwinism and evolutionist.

I just have to thank them for their blatant Intellectual dishonesty . Their redundant argument(s) and circular logic are more responsible for people losing faith in faith than they are for people finding faith.

OK ... simple question. Since we are dealing with a movie who's objective is to promote ID (please ...don't insult anyones intelligence by claiming it doesn't because it wasn't directly referenced).

Anyway ...simple question. If ID is a valid scientific endeavor, why has there been no rebuttal to it's base paradox? That paradox being if life is so complex it obviously needed to have a creator, how is it then possible to have a intelligence that complex without it needing a creator in turn? And so on and so forth.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Steve Schweigerdt, Sacramento, CA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:09:37 GMT

Loved the movie! Debate is what we need. Evolution lacks real evidence and I'm in the ID camp until you can show me:
1. A mechanism for macroevolution - and don't just say mutation because we all know mutants are freaks. I need to see a positive mutation.
2. For all the millions of species and diverse ecosystems there must be some new species out there that just evolved -find it and show me what it is!
3. How does Darwinism not lead to eugenics? Have never heard an answer to this one.
4. We can't even make life with all our technology - you expect me to believe it just happened on the back of some crystal?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Bronwyn Schweigerdt, Sacramento, CA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:24:42 GMT

In addition to what my husband just mentioned, I REALLY like Stein's admonishment to the "freedom of inquiry". Yes, I'd like to think the U.S. still has some basic freedoms, and freedom to think and question authority being two of them.

If Darwinian evolution is so very true, why the defensiveness? If this theory is so obvious, it shouldn't need defending: the evidence should stand on its own. But I'm not convinced it's merely a scientific theory, but rather a world view. And that explains the fanatical defense.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Rose, Vancouver, Canada — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:56:26 GMT

Darwin wrote a book, which I suspect is abbreviated for more than just because of it's length. That book?... On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE OF LIFE. Is it possible that another reason for preferring a shorter form of the title is because of it's eugenics, racist (IE. Nazi) implications?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Dick Vee, Milwaukee, WI — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:04:23 GMT

The point was, that no other position is allowed. Teachers losing their jobs, and other scientists too. The Nazi point relates since Darwinism was the basis for the belief in the purity and superiority of the German race. Libtards on MSNBC are not my idea of intelligent design, so those are descended from the ooze. When I went to the movie, over 300 were talking and very animated. At the end there was a standing ovation....no libtard from msnbc was in sight.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Remnant, Tampa, FL — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:20:25 GMT

The fossil record

Most honest evolutionary scientists will admit that the fossil record provides weak evidence of transition between species. There have been over 200 million fossils found. These have been grouped into around 250 thousand different species. The fossil record better reflects the sudden extinction of species and the sudden appearance of new, entirely different species rather than transition between species. In spite of over 200 million fossil finds, there are less than 100 fossils that scientists even can SPECULATE that MIGHT be evidence of POTENTIAL transition between species. That represents a mere .000001 % of all know fossil discoveries that scientists can even use for their SPECULATIONS to support their FAITH in their RELIGION of evolution. Oh if there were just any evidence that just 1% of the 200 million fossils that could be open to SPECULATION, then they could INVENT scenarios and fairy tales about 2,000,000 fossils. No, they are stuck with a mere 100 FOSSILS out of 200,000,000 fossils to support their FAITH. You have to give them credit though, for they sure do have a tremendous amount of BLIND FAITH.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Bunc — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:12:34 GMT

You know reading this stuff from the other side of the Atlantic makes us realise just how intellectually barren much of the US education system must be if there are actually people over there who believe all this creationist (sorry ID) bull.

Do any of these folk understand even the slightest thing about science or the scientific method?

I feel real sorry for you rational folk over there in the US because these religious fundy types who are pushing all this ID nonsense are just making your country look like a high tech version of Iran.

This whole "debate" about evolution and biblical creationism was put to bed at the time of Darwin and Huxley et al.

It's just more religious huffing and puffing at scientific findings that just dont happen to support their attempts at literal interpretation of their "Holy Book".

Well wake up - because the world is the way the world is and no amount of "magical thinking" is going to wish away all the cross supporting evidence of fossils, genetic studies, radioactive dating, geological evidence etc etc.

It's infantile this creationist stuff.

As far as I am concerned if my childs Physics teacher starts telling them that things fall down to earth because "God created it that way" and attempts to denigrate the science by claiming that its "only a theory" then I would want that teacher sacked as they clearly a) should be teaching religion not science and b) don't even understand that calling something a theory is actually quite a compliment in science.

Could we not have a debate about something where there is actually evidence on both sides of the srgument. The IDers are like the Emperor wearing his new clothes.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Boyle — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:57:33 GMT

I'm sure people more knowledgeable than I am will chime in here, but I just wanted to provide some quick responses to the points Steve made, because you do hear this sort of thing a lot:

1. Mechanism for evolution: Actually, mutation and natural selection are the right answers here. I'm not crazy about making a big distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" because we're just talking about a matter of degree. Here are some examples of beneficial mutations:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

I'm still reading the award-winning book "Before the Dawn," and that's a great book about how humans have evolved over the millennia.

2. Speciation: The rise of new species generally happens over millions of years, so that's why some folks come to believe that evolution doesn't lead to speciation - we don't have a good handle on just how long a million years can be! Nevertheless, others have pointed to the rise of new species:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

... And there are also examples of two species merging into one, most recently:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24052365/

Which helps to illustrate the point about the false distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.

3. Darwinism and eugenics: If you think about it, eugenics is a crude form of intelligent design, conducted by not-so-intelligent designers - that is, us. Darwin was a smart guy, but he wasn't right about everything. One area where he was probably wrong was in talking about distinct "races" ... as I wrote here, the concept of sharply defined races is more of a social matter than a biological matter:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/21/589402.aspx

4. Origins: The question of how things originated ... such as life, the universe and everything ... is the hardest question to answer, particularly if the pre-existing conditions are hard to duplicate. That's why scientists don't have much to say about what happened before the big bang. In fact, some scientists would say the concept of "before the big bang" is meaningless (scientifically), just as you can't really answer the question "What's north of the North Pole?" That doesn't stop scientists from trying to speculate on pre-origins (they're only human!), so that's why you might hear about virtual universes, multiverses, quantum fluctuations, etc. Maybe someday there'll be some sort of data that will point to a scenario that's more likely than others. But if you want to say "God did it," I'm personally fine with that (apologies to the atheists out there). If more data come in, maybe someday we'll have a better guess as to *how* God did it.

The jump from replicating molecules to simple organisms is also one of the hardest questions in biology, and although some experiments have been conducted in this regard (Miller-Urey experiment), I don't think there's any good scientific answer out there yet. That doesn't mean you have to throw out evolutionary theory, just as you don't have to throw out cosmology because the cosmic origin question hasn't been answered scientifically (yes, I know that Genesis has something to say on this topic).

A third hard question has to do with the origins and nature of consciousness, but that's another story altogether. Again, a lot of scientists and thinkers are putting out some intriguing ideas about that question, but it really hasn't been nailed down yet.

We should have an appreciation for our technology, to be sure, but we should also have an appreciation for what we don't yet know. After all, we don't yet know the nature of 96 percent of the universe ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077421/

... So it'll take some time to sort all this out.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Tom, Madison, WI — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:48:13 GMT

EXPELLED is creationist hogwash, this time with an attitude. Guess what, Casey et al. - there are no flat-earthers hired in geography departments. Do you think it's because geography professors are Stalinists - or because flat-earthers are idiots who are blind to the evidence, and do not deserve a position where they can mislead our students and further reduce our scientific/techical competitiveness?

Tens of thousands of pieces of evidence supporting the PREDICTIONS of evolutionary theory (which you will never know from watching either the OC or EXPELLED); there is no such backing for biblical creationism, which is in any case believed literally only by a few fundamentalist sects. If the creationist story is correct, how did all those moas and kiwis walk from the Ark atop Mt. Ararat in Turkey to the Pacific, and then swim all the way to New Zealand? Don't you find it a bit curious that all those flightless birds on NZ were each other's closest relatives? And what about the many thousands of freshwater fish, intolerant of saltwater, that now live only in the Amazon, cut off from Ararat by thousands of miles of the Atlantic?

It is remarkable that – despite the huge amount of evidence for evolution, adaptation, and speciation we have uncovered in the 149 years since Darwin published ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES - some people cling to a story they first heard and could understand when they were 3 years old. Most mainstream sects of Christianity long ago conceded that one can accept evolution AND believe in God without there being a contradiction. What's with Ben Stein and the Discovery Institute trying to overturn that widely accepted view, overturn science as the basis of modern society, and return to a theocracy? That is the question that films like EXPELLED should raise in every thinking viewer's mind.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Tom, Madison, WI — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:53:47 GMT

For those on the fence re intelligent design, please spend 4 minutes 18 seconds watching a highly entertaining, easily understood video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g&feature=related

In terms everyone can understand, with no preaching or attitude, the utter stupidity of intelligent design is laid bare.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

LucyQ — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:04:42 GMT

Bunc (Sent Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:12 AM) – good post!

Creationism/Intelligent Design promotes dangerous anti-science religious superstition ideologies. The point is that religion should not be taught in science classrooms. The topic of religion is best covered in mythology and literature courses as the stories and god characters are fictional.

Every day there is yet another assault on human scientific discovery brought on by those in the religion business. Yes we know that they are keen to protect their market share of pushing hot air against all reason.

As of this scientists are still seeking answers to questions and those who expect delivery today are not reasonable. Time and brain evolution will provide resolutions.

Those in the religion business IMO are evil as they lie to the gullible and emotionally immature about things that to date lack evidence. Clerics must be kept away from children as they pollute the minds and early childhood brainwashing is quite difficult to shirk off later in life.

Consenting adults can be free to engage in fantasy cults as long as they do no harm to others or their property.

Scientific American: Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed
"In the new science-bashing movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,
Ben Stein and the rest of the filmmakers sincerely and seriously argue
that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution paved the way for the
Holocaust.”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

While I can somewhat understand that many people having suffered early childhood religious brainwashing supervised by wicked clerics continue to exist in a perpetual state of fear. There are others that when thinking about why earth exists find the cosmos too big and scary to contemplate so they invent mostly mean gods to become overseers of their consciousness. The invention of gods becomes really problematic when the irrational, delusional beliefs lead humans to start religion business. From there everything goes downhill. (see the current Child Abuse Cult story from Texas)

Those that say Atheists do not love or are not loved are mean spirited and ignorant. When they accuse Atheists of not recognizing beauty again this is preposterous. 20th Century art is secular thankfully and brilliant. Oh and don’t please some of you start whining about the Roman Catholic Hitler and his wicked ways. He of course god his training wheels via the Vatican, ouch I digress.

Atheists love trees, our families and are thankful for a few short years of being alive. Religions scare people into wasting lifetime worrying about death. After death is exactly the same condition as before birth and that is non-existent. There is no need to worry about some supernatural god with a vile temper watching your every move and eager to punish after death. Those who perpetrate crimes in life suffer our criminal justice system, that is reality.

Even if there is some smart alien the invented the cosmos while playing on a super computer it still wouldn’t justify all the absurd religious groveling that is ongoing around us.

A world without religion would be one of peace, love and understanding and that should be the common goal for building emotionally healthy communities everywhere.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

William Campbell, Denver, Colorado — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:05:21 GMT

I appreciate Alan Boyle's mere mention of "Expelled" on his site, and commend him for only linking back to one of his own articles once. True journalism like Boyle's is what we really need more of in America. It's time to stop actually WATCHING films before slamming them, and rather automate the labeling of any conservative media as "wacky".

On that note, I'd like to applaud Boyle's decisive use of quotation marks in many of his posts. It's obviously more justified to put quotes around "Big Science" than "global warming", because, after all, global warming IS a proven theory. Yes, theories CAN be proven without conclusive evidence, my fellow comrade, and it is up to you to stand up against the conservative bigots, because they are the unfair ones.

I eagerly await further awards in journalism on Boyle's part, because he is obviously the fair scientist of the bunch.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TJ, Nowhere, PA — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:26:25 GMT

Gail - please bone up on your history! This country was not meant to be a Christian nation!! They fled Europe where they were not allowed to believe anything other than what the government told them to believe. Oh wait, that's where evangelicals would like the US to be!

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Lydia, Cullowhee, NC — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:01:32 GMT

After seeing Stein's documentary and reading a few of the comments presented by supporters of evolution, I am able to make a very clear connection between their comments and that of scientists like Dawkins. Their words display complete pride as they assume absolute correctness in their understanding. Without self-criticism and a bit of humility you are in for a rude awakening. If you believe that you are in full knowledge of truth and never think enough to question that, then you claim yourself as God.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Boyle — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:02:29 GMT

For what it's worth, I put quotes around "Big Science" and "smart new ideas" because I'm quoting from the publicity blurb for "Expelled." I'm glad my efforts are appreciated ... although I'd hardly call this slamming. I've been a slammee of wacky creationists from the very beginnings of this blog, six years ago - but nevertheless will keep popping up:

http://groups.msn.com/AlanBoylesCosmicLog/mayarchive.msnw?
action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=7

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Richard Simons, The Boonies, Manitoba — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:43:56 GMT

To respond to a few points: "I would like to see a positive mutation". How about the Milano mutation that protects against atherosclerosis, or nylonase (there are many others)?
"there must be some new species out there that just evolved -find it and show me what it is!" Bread wheat, brown mustard, nectarine, grapefruit, Fatshedera lezei, Primula kewensis, Spartina townsendii, Culex molestans. Again, just a brief selection.
"How does Darwinism not lead to eugenics?" An 'is' is being confused with an 'ought'. Eugenics, which derives from animal breeding, predates Darwin by several thousand years. The theory of evolution was used to give it a 'modern', respectable gloss. Genocide reduces the gene pool and therefore increases the vulnerability of the population.
"In spite of over 200 million fossil finds, there are less than 100 fossils that scientists even can SPECULATE that MIGHT be evidence of POTENTIAL transition between species." I don't know what is intended here. All species are either transitional or about to go extinct. Perhaps genera or families is intended instead of species, in which case it is woefully wrong.
"Is it possible that another reason for preferring a shorter form of the title [of The Origin of Species] is because of it's[sic] eugenics, racist (IE. Nazi) implications?" No. It's just too long for modern tastes. In Darwin's day the word 'race' was used much more widely than it is today, to cover 'variety' and 'species'. Did you know Darwin got into trouble with the devoutly Christian captain of the Beagle, FitzRoy, for daring to argue that slavery was immoral?
"i'm still waiting for an explanation as to where the first cell came from." There is a lot of speculation and some evidence. Try doing a search for 'abiogenesis'. This is the word used by people with a serious interest in the topic.
"Teachers losing their jobs, and other scientists too." I am not aware of a single teacher or scientist in the US who has lost their job because they taught creationism / ID. There was one who did not have her contract renewed (along with quite a few other people) but she was teaching out and out lies, e.g. there is only one Archaeopteryx fossil. If you believe otherwise, try to find out, for example, when Sternberg lost his job and what has become of him. On the other hand, there are well-documented cases of people losing their jobs because they did not accept creationism.
" . . how tough it would be to get 250 proteins to line up in the exact correct order". I did not realize they had this canard in the film. It shows a basic misunderstanding of statistics, cell biology and the theory of evolution.
"If Darwinian evolution is so very true, why the defensiveness?" Because people are spreading lies, lies and yet more lies and accusing others of massive evil conspiracies while claiming to themselves be honest, downtrodden victims. BTW, Many preachers, so I'm told, are provided with sermons that they then present as their own. Any scientist caught doing the equivalent would be quite quickly out of a job.
Regarding the funding for ID research (I can't find the quote now), the Templeton Foundation offered funding but got no applications. A science lab with the funding of the Discovery Institute would be expected to produce about 10 scientific papers per year, but Progress in Complexity, Information and Design (the ID 'scientific' journal) has had no new issues since November 2005 because there is nothing to include.
There still seems to be a misunderstanding of what a theory is. It has to explain something and make predictions, so a scientist can say 'If I do this experiment and get X then my theory has been shown to be wrong. If I get Y then it has not been shown to be wrong.' For example, using the theory of evolution I can confidently predict that if the DNA of a gorilla is examined it will be found to have a broken gene for vitamin C. There are well over 1000 scientific papers published each month that test the theory of evolution in this way and not one has ever caused us to doubt the theory. By contrast, IDers have never made a testable prediction or told us what evidence would cause them to doubt their notions.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Rob F — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:05:28 GMT

Responding to "Neil, Wheaton, IL"

If I may paraphrase your remark:

"How did this complexity come about? I don't know. Therefore, it must have been time and chance mutation.
That is NOT a model."

Interesting that there are so many in established scientific circles who admit the impossibility of knowing how life began because no one was there to observe it, but at the same time are convinced of one way that it didn't.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Rob F, Lincoln NE — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:14:50 GMT

Julianne Baker,

Facts can be observed, but they don't interpret themselves -- they require an interpreter. "There it is" is science. "What does it mean?" That's philosophy. You do the math.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Ben, Kansas — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:39:08 GMT

Intelligent Design is putting lipstick on a pig. The pig was once creationism and before that simply Christian religion. Each time these ideas have been dressed up it has revealed the ground that religion (supernatural thinking) has continued to concede to science and will perpetually concede.

The fastest growing belief system in the world is Atheism. As billions of people enter the middle class and get more educated they’ve continually chosen to not believe in a God far more often than others choose faith. Even in the midst of resurgent fundamentalism the basic fact of life on this planet of nearly 7 billion human beings is that far more choose no God than a specific God. That trend is driven by economic opportunity, education and liberal socio-economic policies that make life freer, safer and more comfortable for people in those emerging societies.

Intelligent Design makes no predictions or provides no useful explanations of about living organisms, it merely plies some weak syllogisms in an effort to make people who’ve chosen to believe in God feel better about their choice. They need this because their choice is under siege, religion no longer arms people with an outlook that helps with a modern 21st century, socially liberal, globally capitalist, technological world.

Expelled is little more than an act of desperation in the face of large scale trends which are marginalizing the value and role of religion in society. Being compassionate and just and kind is something we can choose without the need to resort to supernatural explanations. It’s the birthright of being a tool using, language able ape that has acquired a glimpse of the profoundly vast, beautifully complex and endlessly fascinating universe we evolved in.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

josh — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:50:59 GMT

I just want to say, I believe that creation still holds wait in science. Many say "Where are the facts?" Evolution has never proven ID wrong. If you really want facts, Id uses the same facts and comes up with a diefferent result. However, many things evolution considers fact isn't truly proven fact, but mere speculation. I would recommend someon looking at the Answers in Genesis website to see some "hard facts". : )

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Jeff Wunder — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:56:47 GMT

It is not scientists, but creationists who are dead wrong here. They really have no idea what they're up against. Evolution itself has evolved over the last 150 years to become what it is today, and it has done so via complex evidence and logic, not simple dogma and superstition. It has survived complex attacks of all kinds (both externally from religion and internally from science), and it will continue to do so because there's truth in it. It's easy to believe fairy tales that make you feel good, but very hard to go back and research why evolutionary theory is the way it is, and how the all the detailed evidence and strong arguments shaped it over the long term.

And you don't do science by making movies, reading holy books, influencing popular opinion, or trying to get your untested ideas directly into the classroom without passing peer review.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Derrald Claville, Chicago, Ill. — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:20:26 GMT

To all the ID folks out there asking for 'just one!' beneficial mutation, here's my advice:

Go drink a glass of milk or eat a slice of cheese. If you digest it properly, then bully for you, lactose tolerance is a pretty beneficial mutation I'd say!

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Sara Heitz — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:02:26 GMT

I just have to laugh reading some of these, one mentioned 4.5 billion years of fossil record??? Sure ya do, and there are quakers on the moon too. There is no infallible record of exactly how old the earth is, and for Christians, we accept the earth was created and all was created by God. When, I don't know. Do I have to? No. My faith and my beliefs are not based on fossil record, thank God)).. In the Bible it says a day (for us) is as a thousand years to God. Does that mean it took 7000 years to create the earth, don't know that either. It's really not all that important, at least to most of us. Expelled is just another movie causing people to ask questions only God can answer. I have several I am asking when I see Him, starting with, ok, why the fly?

Sara

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

erik, Baltimore, MD — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:18:56 GMT

This is a great film! It definitely accomplishes the purpose for which it was designed. I especially liked watching the pompous evolutionists squirm when asked the most basic questions about the origin of life. "Crystals"... "aliens"...Their answers certainly didn't sound too scientific to me...but, I nearly forgot, they are not to be questioned.

I find it interesting that even with our intelligence, modern science has not even come close to creating life. Let me say that again…even with all of the combined intelligence of all scientists in the world, man has failed to come even close to creating the most simple living organism. The Miller-Urey experiment only showed that with our intelligence, under unrealistic early earth atmospheric conditions, the best we could do is create a few amino acids, but not the right amino acids. Of course, even if the right amino acids had been produced, they would have needed to be sequentially arranged into complex protein machines, and they would have needed to be sequentially arranged into the integrated functioning mechanisms of the cell, but even then, only the ‘hardware’ of the cell would have been ready. A computer or cell with no software isn’t much good. The DNA would have to be placed into the cell hardware to enable its function and replication. But, oh my, DNA only exists in living organisms. So what came first, the living organism, or the information needed to make it? We are told to believe, and not to question, these men wearing lab jackets and pocket- protectors, who tell us that mindless dirt and chemicals created what they are unable to come close to creating. Come on guys, rise to the challenge, show us what you’ve got, and prove you are smarter than that dirt! As the proverb says… “Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes; there is more hope for a fool than for him.”

The human eye has 136 million light sensitive rods and cones transmitting millions of electrochemical messages per second through a fiber optic cable called the optic nerve. Those messages, along with messages from billions of other cells are sent for processing by a three pound grey supercomputer which can store between 100 trillion and 280 quintillion bits of information and serves as a master control center, making trillions of decisions every second. Think dudes, do you really believe such incomprehensible complexity is the product of wind, rain and erosion? Even if you throw in some lightening, it doesn’t happen on its own. Could it have been crystals after all? No,mind is only and always the product of mind…a Great Mind!

C.S. Lewis may have been onto something when he commented on the roots of modern science… “Men became scientific because they expected Law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a Legislator”. I like the quote from Dr Micheal Denton, who appeared on this EXPELLED film... "It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest elements of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:02:11 GMT

What I find so funny is that so many people are angry that someone (or a LOT of someones, to be exact) has opinions that don't match up with theirs.

You say that ID is Creationism (ergo must be "Christian"). There are a LOT of people in the scientific community who are seeing that Darwin's theories have HUGE holes in them (and not all of them are of the "One God" persuasion). All Stein is asking (as well as a bunch of other people in the scientific community) is that we open the floor up for other theories to come up for debate.

You know, for a very long time the Catholics burned anyone that thought different than them. Isn't it ironic how "Catholic" these evolutionists can be?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Leyan, Partlow, Virginia — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:39:13 GMT

Most of the comments I have read here show me that minds are closed on both sides of this discussion, which is why Ben Stein made this film. The worse arguments seem to be on the evolutionists sides. While they cite reason and science the arguments come across as emotion and spite. Since when is calling someone an “ass” or telling people to “shut up” intelligent discussion? Are inflammatory statements like “The real threat to America isn't terrorism. It's [...] creationists trying to get their idiotic mythology into science classrooms.” supposed to be erudite arguments? I think both sides of the argument, evolution and ID, should be examined and people should be allowed to think for themselves without fear that they will be attacked for choosing the wrong one. It is usually the one who is going against the prevailing theories that leads us to our next paradigm shift.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Jim M, Falmouth, Virginia — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:54:40 GMT

Mr. Boyle, you say: "I haven't seen "Expelled" yet, so it's hard for me to judge how wacky the movie really is.." You haven't seen the movie yet, but you already assume it is "wacky" based on other peoples' opinions - it's just a question of "how wacky"?! How professional! Obviously, like many pseudo journalist-bigots, you're already made up your mind.

Actually, EXPELLED is one of the most important films of our times. The self-delusion of Big Science propagandists is there for all to see. Actually, we shouldn't say "Big Science", but rather, "Big Scientism" - since those who stand in the way of true discovery and questioning should not be called scientists.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:46:58 GMT

Neither ID nor any other form of creationism is science. I'm not aware of any actual research being done at the Discovery Institute. I thought pub-jacking was their primary method.

People reject evolution for one reason - they have a comic book understanding of science and a knowledge of evolution that amounts to little more than barbershop gossip.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:48:39 GMT

Being a creationist and repeating false assertions is much easier than actually doing homework on evolution.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Magdelen, Houston, Texas — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:54:22 GMT

THE GRAND FINALE: Richard Dawkins admits there is Intelligent Design! Of course it is only the kind that HE happens to have a huge leap of faith in. That's funny, I didn't think atheists believe in ANY kind of God. Richard Dawkins was funnier than Ben Stein.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Ben Andrews, Palmdale, CA — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:33:26 GMT

Wow, you haven't seen expelled yet, and you're already calling it wacky. Not surprising the media usually likes to side with the status quo of the establishment. If evolutionists have nothing to fear from this movie then they would simply ignore it. Yes there is such a thing as evolution, but it only exist on a small scale. Evolution through natural selection can give us several breeds of dogs and kinds of birds, that much can be tested and proved. Going beyond that is bad science. One species changing into another cannot be observed, there is no possible way to conduct an experiment proving evolution. Where's the proof for evolution? Evolution also leaves many questions unanswered, such as what is the origin of matter?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

willa cartwright, zürich, switzerland — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:10:38 GMT

What’s particularly disturbing about “intelligent design” is that in order to reject evolution, you must reject nearly all other scientifically established theories. Evolution isn’t an idea that stands by itself – it is backed up by many other disciplines such as atomic theory, germ theory, electronic theory, physics, chemistry, etc.

If evolution is wrong, then these other disciplines must also be wrong. The implication is much of the modern world would not work. Computers would not work, the internet would not work, power stations would not work, nuclear power wouldn’t be possible, much of medical knowledge would be simply wrong, etc. However, since most of these items are present and in fact, do work, the theories can’t be wrong.

Stein’s “expelled” is particularly sad because such an intelligent man had to resort to what is clearly lies, deceit, “quote mining” and popular misconception to bring his “personal” belief across. The problem with “expelled” is that it shows people of faith demanding special consideration and the desire by the intelligent design community to be afforded some form of legitimacy by the scientific community, and when it can’t make the grade, then go on the attack and demand the “entry-level bar” be lowered so that it can enter.

On top of this of course, even if evolution was wrong, the alternative is not necessarily a judeo-christian based origin belief, which clearly "Intelligent Design" is.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:26:40 GMT

"Actually, EXPELLED is one of the most important films of our times."
We can see from the trailers the kind of uninformed, lying stupidity the film perpetuates. Ben Stein's law degrees and his vast experience as a television personality have not given him any insight into what science is or how it works. He is a pseudo-intellectual twit.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

OLR3 — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:47:08 GMT

"Expelled" is a two-pronged attack on scientific intellectuals and fine arts (film critic) intellectuals and the firestorm of criticism is to be expected. Note to film critics: Critique the film for what it is - a documentary exposing limitations on freedom in our science community - instead of an inclusive argument promoting ID over evolution. If one more critic cites the lack of "evidence" in the film on behalf of ID, I'll scream...THAT'S NOT THE POIINT! The evidence in the film are the many scientists who have been dismissed from "scientific" communities (yes, the Smithsonian purports to be one) for considering ID. Get it?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Chuck, Lynchburg, VA — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:30:20 GMT

Evolution has made itself sufficiently plastic that there is now no conceivable data set under which it could be scientifically disproven or even challenged. That isn't science - it's dogma. Since any alternative to evolution has been branded as "religion" or "supernatural" evolution, and it's closed-universe, materialist outlook must be, and indeed is, regarded as truth. Sadly, evolution has become the unlikely cult-myth of the scientific community.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

dale, Oil City, PA — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:53:30 GMT

There are 480,000 scientists in the US. They traveled the whole world to find three or four examples? There argument is statistically invalid.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Boomer SR — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:59:54 GMT

This is not about "academic freedom".

If you were a neurology professor and started teaching phrenology as a way to diagnose illness, you might well be fired.
If you were an infectious disease specialist and you started teaching that illness came from an imbalance of humors rather than infectious organisms, you might well be fired.

ID is not a "competing idea" with evolution, not even close. It makes no predictions, cannot be falsified, is based totally on a posteriori reasoning, and is a shill for Christian fundamentalism. The "designer" always turns out to be the same guy - why is that?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

boomer sr — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:05:39 GMT

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??
===============
This is not evolution. This is abiogenesis. Darwin never dealt with this. Dawkins was presenting one possible view - there are many competing ideas about how the first "replicator" came about.
If you answer is "God did it" - tell me which god out of the 3000 or so you think did it and why - don't forget to explain exactly why you excluded the 2999 you did not pick, or you are a hypocrite.

P.S. this is why science leaves supernatural explanation out - they are lazy and leave you open to argument about who's supernatural reality you are going to utilize.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

chris, pittsburgh, PA — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:51:06 GMT

dear creationists,
Hitler was a Christian. the Nazis used the IRON CROSS symbol as a symbol of the HIGHEST valor. it is modeled after the iron cross of the knights templar. they were christians too. Ben Stein should stick to third rate, comedy central game shows. Creationists should think about what their masters pontificate a little better. It is really pathetic to see so many religious folk betray the insecurities of their faith in this way.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:22:54 GMT

There seems to be some confusion about ID. First of all, it's not a religion; neither is evolution. Both are theories. Evolution is based on a compilation of a few thousand scientific findings and observations (out of the trillions and trillions of accidental sequences that had to take place for the evolution framework to be viable). ID is based on observation, intuition, comparison, and a belief we're not here by accident. Both sides have faith in their theory, and neither one has room for the other. Throw religion into the mix, and all hell breaks loose. The key reason I believe in ID is that it at least helps me try and understand the "why". Evolution is a possible "how", but can never answer the why. If I didn't have a desire and need to know why I'm here, it wouldn't matter really one way or the other about the how. All the truly great thinkers that our world has ever known always thought about the "why". So why don't you?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Gary Watson — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:52:42 GMT

If you believe Ben Stein is a creationist, you have missed the whole point of this movie. It is about whether "academia" is really about open dialog or if science is really about exploring any possibility other than what is status quo. If that is the case, then science (like finding new cures for illnesses) should cease. Let's just accept what is presently taught and never question anything. We would still be back in the dark ages if the Neo-Darwinists win in shutting down debate or exploration of any ideas or idealogies except their own.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Randy Talbot — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:18:03 GMT

I just finished reading a book on Intelligent Design called the The Design Matrix A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene. The book can be summarized as the Intelligent Designer used "Evolution" to create everything. Which leaves me to question why is it so unscientific to say that the designer used "Evolution" to create everything. Unless, the critics of Intelligent Design are saying that the Theory of "Evolution" is unscientific.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

L.D. — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:10:08 GMT

I wish I could cash in on the faithful and easily led. For that I give props to Ben. But the fact is we will never allow teaching a religious idea in a science class. ID is not a scientific theory, it's not on equal footing with evolution, we won't "teach the controversy", or any other way you want to spin it. People who are paying attention will come away with a new respect for propaganda and I guess the country is going to be run this way from now on. It no longer matters what you know or who is right but how many people can you rally to forward your personal agenda. The saddest part is they people don't even know they are being played for fools.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend LORTON, VA — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:17:47 GMT

It's not about an "open dialog," unless the trailer for the movie is misleading. It's about creating an artificial debate where none exists in the scientific community. Stein raises points in the trailer that anybody who's done a days' research would realize are irrelevant or just plain wrong.

Chris Comer was fired for being an evolutionist. P.Z. Meyers was kicked out of a showing of the movie itself. The creationist intelligentsia (such as it is) has no scruples at all.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

geekmoid, CO — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:22:41 GMT

Oh man, I am getting so tired of defending evolution and debunking ID as valid scientific theory, but this issue continues to raise it's ugly head so here goes (for all those of you who never took basic biology in high school and tuned out when teachers covered the scientific method):

The scientific method is based on a highly rigorous system, in which, in an attempt to understand natural systems we postulate assumptions (or theories) about why things happen the way they do. Now, all you ID proponents, pay close attention to this part: these theories and ideas MUST BE TESTABLE, either through OBSERVATION OR EXPERIMENT!! In this way, a work can be published, and then independently verified by other scientists, who can then perform the same observations and experiments and either validate or disprove the given theory or postulate.

OK, I hope you ID folks were all paying attention, because here is the problem with ID: IT IS NOT TESTABLE, either through observation or experiment! And before you all go and charge me as being ignorant about what ID theory says, I'll have you know, I have researched many ID supportive publications and web sites, and I have yet to find a single idea that could be tested, and therefore considered valid scientific theory. The problem is with the basic premise of ID, that an unknowable higher power has caused these changes to come about. The first person that comes up with a valid way to test or observe the influence of a (by definition) undetectable supreme being, will set all of science and the natural world on it's ear! So good luck with that. Until then, ID does not fit into the rigorous definition of valid scientific theory.

On the flip side, the theory of evolution IS testable and observable, and as such it has mounds and mounds of published data, both observational AND experimental, that support it. And all that data was taken by thousnds of scientists from all over theo world, some who are atheists, some who are Christians and some who follow other religions as well. If you want to get an inkling of how much data is out there and what it consists of, just go to the local library and look it up, and you will find manuscript after manuscript full of data that support the theory. You can even google it, and on line you will find literally thousands of published documented findings.

So, basic biology lesson is over. Naturally, I'm sure there are still many closed minded individuals out there who will read all of this and be completely unswayed. Fortunately for true science, the fact that ID does not live up to the foundations of scientific rigor, it will eventually die off, and join the thousands of other so called scientific theories that could not stand up to the scientific method. Thank God ( and yes, I am a scientist who does believe in God AND Evolution) for true science and it's practitioners.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Walter Merriam, Ellicott City, MD — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:55:49 GMT

ID/Creationism is not a "Smart new idea." It is the idea that existed before Darwin. The ID/creationism versus Darwinian evolution debate has been going on for 150 years. The ID side lost.

Besides, don't get so upset about the godlessness of evolution. Scientific laws that scientists discover about our physical world don't prove or disprove the existence of God. Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation or Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism or Darwin's theory of evolution tell us about how the world works. If you believe in God, then you believe that they tell us how God's world works, how God makes it work. If you don't believe in God, then you believe that they tell us how the godless universe works.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven, Paisley, Scotland — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:58:03 GMT

Does this quote belongs to a Nazi? What do you think?

"With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." -Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Second edition, pp. 133–134, 1887.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Michael T Roberts — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:32:20 GMT

The thing about this whole controversy that apalls me more than anything else is the depth of ignorance exhibited by so many people. Obviously we as a society are doing a horrible job of teaching the basic principles of science--Darwinism aside--most people clearly have not a clue about what science is or how it works. That both saddens and scares me. What is even worse is that there are organized groups of people purposely misleading others about what science is and what science does. I personally don't care whether or not a person "believes" in a scientific theory or in a religious story, but I do care that so many are being brainwashed by people determined to undermine the advance of human knowledge of the world around us.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Ronald, NYC — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:59:43 GMT

"I haven't seen 'Expelled' yet, so it's hard for me to judge how wacky the movie really is..."

Talk about vapid. MSNBC pays for this? By the way, the film does not blame evolution for the Nazis. To suggest so is intellectually lazy.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

regina,rio de janeiro, brazil — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:00:41 GMT

Ok you know what you evolutionists are completely right! YOU CAN'T PUT GOD IN A TEST TUBE!!! then how you explain all the countless supernatural events that have been recorded and still happen in history? did some aliens come and pull some strings? evolutionists have built this wall around themselves so that no influence from creationists can get so they cover up for the fact they are stuck at trying to get rid of God. AND THEY CAN'T! until you can make a "simple" life form out of nothing without using any kind of material to do so, I will remain a creationist. Darwinism does deal with abiogenisis because he states that there is no ID and that everything started from a single organism that just popped up out of nowhere! I thought the human race decided that spontaneous generation was absurd?! but yet all you evolutionists can do is expound upon this concept!
Why do you degrade humans?! every human should be insulted and infuriated with these ideas of humans coming from lower animals. how can you be proud of that?!!!!!!!!!! tell me dear evolutionists, how can you have no freewill? you chose to believe that you didn't have free will didn't you? If we do not have free will, then how can we speak of freewill if we do not have it? Why dont we all just run around like animals?! but yet we choose to be civilized.
You can't prove God? well prove to me that i have a memory and that i have emotions. can you touch that?
How can people who are not scientists believe in evolution or want to support it after seeing that movie? Dawkins made such and idiot of himself and hes their leader!!!!!!! the evolutionists even admitted that their agenda is to rid of all religion and for us to become so degraded as to the level of animals! the more technology we have the more absurd evolution sounds.
what happened to "ALL MEN ARE EQUAL"? why cant creationists have a say? why do evolutionists teach this Darwinism as scientific fact when it is merely a hypothesis? there are so many "missing links" in evolution its ridiculous! something that is not complete cannot function correctly. could a car function without the wheel? NO, then how can evolution be taught if we have no proof of where it all began?
This whole evolution thing started because someone was thinking outside the box. why can't we do that now? howcome there has to be only on solution? No one has the right to speak or even suggest their own opinions anymore? what happened to charity? is there no love in the world any more?!

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Chris mankey — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:00:53 GMT

"Even Richard Dawkins buys into it partially and asserts that life on Earth was created by superintelligent alien beings. While this seems ridiculous,"

Well, Richard Dawkins doesn't believe that aliens created life on earth. He was simply using as an alternative example of "intelligent design" . Since intelligent design IS the same idea as directed panspermia only using a metaphysical being instead of alien material ones, tell me why one idea intelligent design is ridiculous and the other isn't

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Tom, Columbus , Ohio — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:01:14 GMT

Theory of Algebra
Theory of Calculus
Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory
Atomic theory
Where are the crackpot fundy films about these 'theories'? and where are the 'alternative' theories to these that our children need to be forced to listen to? Algebra...bah..godless math as sure as your born...any math teacher knows that...
And how about the only theory of germs that is truly biblically supported? The Intelligent malign theory...use bad language(scripturally speaking), and smote them and ...bang! No germs!

Oops...forget that bang....not part of any theory that has a god in it...

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

regina,rio de janeiro, brazil — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:03:37 GMT

BEN STEIN IS A GENIUS FOR ADDRESSING THIS SUBJECT! HES GOT COURAGE AND WAS MAKING A COMPLETE FOOL OUT OF THOSE EVOLUTIONISTS!!!! HE WAS BEATING THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME! LOVE YOU BEN!!!

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Dustin Strobel, Atlanta, Georgia — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:50:40 GMT

I actually saw the movie today and i think alot of these posts are missing the point. For me the point was the world view that was attached to Darwinism versus the world view attached to creationism. The film never dealt with the science, such as the complexity of biological micro machines that run at 100% efficiency (i apologize for not knowing its classification).

I think the message of the film is that there are other credible ideas out there, and that you should have th right to express and learn theses. Neo-Darwinism is flawed. There are many things it can not explain. First among them is how life started. You know unless we came from crystals or were seeded by aliens.

Intelligent design does not reject change over time. It does reject that this change is random and unguided. It rejects that man is nothing more then animals and as such man has a soul and morality exists. Good and evil exist. This would not be true if man was nothing more then an animal whose only purpose is survival as Neo Darwinism implies. That was the point of the talk of Nazi's and Eugenics. If Mans only purpose is survival and there is no morality why is it wrong to "help" nature, why should the weak feeble and diseased be allowed to survive and retard the evolution progress.

Most people who believe in intelligent design (aside from the wacko fundamentalist's who do not understand it)beleive in the fossil record and change over time ... they just do not believe it is all caused by a cosmic mistake.

That is the point IDers want exposed, and there inability to express these ideas to other with out harsh consequences is what Ben Stein is complaining about in the movie.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Tom, Columbus, Ohio — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:54:47 GMT

Derrald Claville, from Chicago-This is some of the trash from the site you linked-http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

"Secularists deny the possibility of a worldwide Flood at all. If they would think from a biblical perspective, however, they would see the abundant evidence for the global Flood. As someone once quipped, “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.

Those who accept the evolutionary timeframe, with its fossil accumulation, also rob the Fall of Adam of its serious consequences. They put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering, and death, before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world. In doing this, they also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ. Such a scenario also robs all meaning from God’s description of His finished creation as “very good.”

"Back of a Captain Crunch box" was too kind for this egregious nonsense-and not fair to the far more useful info on cereal boxes.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Tom, Columbus, Ohio — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:04:21 GMT

Captain crunch continued-Sorry, I didn't finish my last comment on the fossil-flood thread because of a Net burp'-I agree with Derrald-the lunatics in uber denial about the fossil record try to obliterate any fact that gets in their way...

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Boyle — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:10:58 GMT

For what it's worth, the quote from "Descent of Man" comes from Chapter 5, and is followed by further discussion. The entire chapter does come off as sounding a bit cold-hearted, and I can't say I agree with the thrust ... but there is some reflection on the subject of good and evil and the beneficial effect of religious belief. Here's the full paragraph following the one quoted:

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."

You can read the whole thing at:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/
the-descent-of-man/chapter-05.html

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Karl Hallowell, Sacramento, CA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:23:03 GMT

Once again, we're rehatching the same old arguments. My take is simple. Evolution is a tested theory. intelligent design is not. To those who think ID is or can be a a scientific theory, there is only a couple of ways to do this. You need to either find the designer(s) or sufficient evidence of their handiwork. That's it. It's not enough to spot an occasional possible flaw in our current theories. You need to find the designer. Nothing else will do.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Magdelen, Houston, Texas — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:04:39 GMT

Responding to Bunc. Was it not England responsible for Piltdown Man? Hmmm.... in the scope of the things, the U.S. has some catching up to do when it comes to a country making a fool of themselves on this issue.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:26:19 GMT

"then how you explain all the countless supernatural events that have been recorded and still happen in history?"
Alleged supernatural events.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:29:17 GMT

The message of the film is that the "controversy" is manufactured. Irreducible complexity is a sham argument as Ken Miller and ably and forcefully argued in Dover and on the web.

Harsh consequences to creationists - like Chris Comer?

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Boomer SR — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:32:31 GMT

"Intelligent design does not reject change over time. It does reject that this change is random and unguided. It rejects that man is nothing more then animals and as such man has a soul and morality exists. Good and evil exist. This would not be true if man was nothing more then an animal whose only purpose is survival as Neo Darwinism implies. That was the point of the talk of Nazi's and Eugenics. If Mans only purpose is survival and there is no morality why is it wrong to "help" nature, why should the weak feeble and diseased be allowed to survive and retard the evolution progress"
---------
Because that's anti-Darwinian artificial selection. Today's weakling is tomorrow's survivor. Example: sickle cell genes also impart a resistance to malaria. If tomorrow a super-malaria developed that wiped out everyone, only the sickle-cell gene carriers would survive. This is what NATURAL selection means - sometimes the beneficial traits are obvious (bigger teeth) and sometimes not.
Eugenics is by it's definition artificial selection.

And you will find no more vocal critic of social Darwinism than a Darwinian scientist (like Dawkins).

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

a p garcia — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:54:56 GMT

I have taken too much science to believe Ben Stein when he talks about science. I would believe him when he talks about stocks and the stock market, but not science.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven, Scotland — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:40:04 GMT

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [Just so there is no doubt, the author in particular is claiming that whites will exterminate blacks.]
– Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 6.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven, Scotland — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:40:56 GMT

"Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. ... But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel's greatest influence was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national socialism. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science-all contributed to the rise of Nazism. The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:40:14 GMT

watch this video http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:14:15 GMT

By modern standards, Darwin was a racist. He was predicting genocide, he wasn't advocating it.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:39:23 GMT

No, Darwin and his supporters were white supremacists. Racial Supremacy differs from racism in that, racism is the dislike or disrespect for a particular ethnic group. Racial Supremacy is the belief that one's own race is superior, dominant, chosen, smarter, more civilized, or more productive than any other race.

Following the development of theories such as evolution and eugenics, supremacists have sought scientific justification for their views through notions such as Social Darwinism. The most notorious and far-reaching example is probably the Nazi belief in an Aryan master race, which ultimately led to the Holocaust.

"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smallerjawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest." (Huxley, Thomas Henry [Anatomist, Dean of the Royal College of Science, and "Darwin's Bulldog"], "Emancipation-Black and White," in Rhys E., ed., "Lectures and Lay Sermons," [1871], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 1926, reprint, p.115).

Darwin and his followers did far more than merely predict genocide. They legitimized it. Western Europe and America had a long history of exterminating indiginoues peoples and making them slaves. Stamping out the inferior races could now be seen according to "good" Darwinian science as doing the human race a favour. Why should our good victorian worry about the condition of his slaves when "scientists" using there infallible logic had shown them to be so much closer to the apes.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:46:04 GMT

Alan Niven..."Darwin and his followers did far more than merely predict genocide. They legitimized it."

You and people like you are all too often grand examples of interpreting such scientific marvels as Darwins theory, to measure up to your own deluded mind sets.

I challenge you to actually quote anything from "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" that remotely speaks of humanity and legitimizing genocide!! What a trashy thing to say.

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

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:31:58 GMT

Darwin did not legitimize genocide. He was an abolitionist who abhorred the violence against what he perceived to be the inferior races. Almost everyone of that period believed the other races were inferior, including Christians.
Rewriting history doesn't change what happened.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:11:44 GMT

Darwin and his followers are all too eager to spell out exactly what its logical conclusions are. Look at the quotes I have already provided CAREFULLY. Open your mind and ask yourself if you really want to be associated with this theory. History is full of examples of Darwinists ready to play God and try their hand at developing the master race in the name of Darwinism

Francis Galton believed that religion could be a force for good, provided it's the Darwinist religion that is. He was Charles Darwin's half-cousin, sharing the common grandparent Erasmus Darwin. Francis is best known as the FOUNDER of modern 'eugenics', inventing the term in 1883. He admits that he was bowled over by Darwins theory.

"The feeble nations of the world are necessarily giving way before the nobler varieties of mankind." Hereditary Character and Talent MacMillan's Magazine November 1864 (Francis Galton)

“The chief result of these Inquiries has been to elicit the religious significance of the doctrine of evolution. It suggests an alteration in our mental attitude, and imposes a new moral duty. The new mental attitude is one of a greater sense of moral freedom, responsibility, and opportunity; the new duty which is supposed to be exercised concurrently with, and not in opposition to the old ones upon which the social fabric depends, is an endeavor to further evolution, especially that of the human race.” Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development (1883) p. 33 (Francis Galton)

“(Eugenics) must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claim to become an orthodox religious tenet for the future, for Eugenics co-operates with the workings of Nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races. What Nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man must do providently, quickly and kindly.” Essays in Eugenics (1985) p.42 (Francis Galton)

Now Leonard Darwin (Charles Darwins son) was Chairman of the British Eugenics Society between 1911-1928, (succeeding his half-cousin once removed, guess who? Francis Galton), and became Honorary President from 1928 until his death. Its like happy families.

“It is quite certain that no existing democratic government would go so far as we Eugenicists think right in the direction of limiting the liberty of the subject for the sake of the racial qualities of future generations.” Eugenics Review February 1912 (Leonard Darwin)

“Dedicated to the memory of MY FATHER. For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book.” The Need for Eugenic Reform (1926) Dedication (Leonard Darwin)

“Of all the problems which will have to be faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those concerning the treatment of the inferior races of mankind.” Birth Control Review April 1930 p.112 (Leonard Darwin)

The link between Darwinism and Nazism is blazingly obvious for anyone prepared to look at the historical facts objectively.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

a p garcia — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:37:20 GMT

I am a student of Cell & Molecular Biology and Genetics and both of these sciences backup Darwin. It makes me a little sad that no one mentioned that the fundamentals of Genetics were first developed by a Monk, a man of religion.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:15:59 GMT

Most scientific discoveries were made by men of religion up till the last 150 years or so. The foundations of modern physics were laid by physicists such as Isaac Newton who were guided by the principle that One God created one universe in an ordered way which is intelligible to us. This is a fact that is conveniently forgotten by a vocal number of mediocre scientists nowadays who argue that science provides evidence against a Creator. Before you allow yourself to be brainwashed by the current ruling paradigm in the biological sciences you should look into the history of science and the philosophy of science. I suggest The Structure of Scientific revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. Some evidence provided by genetics and molecular biology is supportive of the idea of evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis as such but most says nothing about the particular mechanism of evolution. Darwinists greedyly claim any evidence for evolution as evidence for their theory of mutation and natural selection. They then proceed to tack on a series of unprovable materialistic philosophies akin to a new religion. But science always admits alternatiive perspectives on the data so lets look for a theory which explains more of the facts with less of the racist, materialist ideological baggage.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Thomas Ashby,Calgary — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:18:16 GMT

Well, [Alan] Niven, obviously Leonard was the black sheep in the family.

Your case against Charles is still quite weak.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:06:24 GMT

Alan N.,
You're quoting people who allege to be "followers" of Darwin. But your quotes from Darwin don't support your conclusions about HIM. You can't argue the science of evolution and so you have resorted to ad hominem, and to arguing the consequent. Learn the science. Putting your head in the sand won't change the facts, but educating yourself will help you to understand how to respond to them. It can even help to inform your ethical concerns.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:15:55 GMT

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

The key elements in the ideology that produced Auschwitz are moral relativism aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of human life, a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser races, that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews.

All but the last of these ideas may be found in Darwin’s writing. Since Darwinism as a 'scientific' theory was always useless when it comes to predicting things like “who is the fittest” or even defining “fittest”, the choice for extermination must be made by whatever despot is in power.

While it must be very clearly emphasized that the gentle-souled Darwin himself never supported ill treatment of any race or group, his words inspired a movement to “scientific” racism.

“Eugenics,” breeding humans for excellence, is a word coined by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton in 1865, six years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species. In America itself, between 1907 and 1958, in states including Indiana, California, and Washington, some 60,000 genetically “unfit” persons were legally sterilized against their will. Germany took eugenics to the point of murder, euthanizing 70,000 of the unfit.

Mr Fallible, the damaging ideological implications of Darwinism and the scientific case against Darwinism are two separate issues. Both arguments are easy to make but I am concentrating on the former due to my surprise at the number of Darwinist who are evidently in denial about the implications of their faith as revealed by their reaction to Expelled.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:22:40 GMT

N,
There is no Darwin-Hitler connection any more than there is a Christianity-Hitler connection. The fact that Hitler abused science to achieve his end is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the science. The belt buckles of Wermacht soldiers weren't blazoned with "Darwin mit uns."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_beliefs

Nor was it moral relativism that produced Hitler. Hitler had a very definite moral code, but it was skewed. That his morality "positive christianity" differed from yours does not make it a relative code.

If "both cases" were easy to make, then you might be more successful at making it. The movie "Expelled" is a bit of anti-intellectual nonsense. It's not just wrong, it's idiotic - and it pathologically misrepresents both the case for evolution and the trumped-up arguments against it.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Donny — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:22:48 GMT

And exactly what facts are those? I'll wait while you cut and paste some talking points, but it wont help you. There are no "facts" that support ID. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. The worst part is that people like you already know it - the self delusion factor takes over at this point.

Have you even LOOKED at the challenges to this turd of a movies' claims? Of course not. They're all wrong right? Here, I'll help you out. I'll misspell sumthing. Now you can attack my intelligence instead!

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

antiXian — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:30:07 GMT

LOL! Is it just me, or has roughly 50% of the loonie bin been given internet access?

You christians - lol! Persecution?! LOL! Try being an atheist, hell! try being an agnostic...better yet! Try being ANYTHING other than an Xian these days...I say bring back the lions...you folks have grown fat, lazy, and weak! wait a sec...you've always been weak.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:31:08 GMT

Its great to see the low level of argumentation coming from Darwinist supporters these days. Start critiscising Darwinism in any shape or form and the adhominems start flying thick and fast. It must be frustrating to see pages of evidence supporting the link between Darwinism and the holocaust and be powerless to defend it. I can see why its supporters would feel they have to lash out rather than perform the more difficult task of engaging in some serious soul searching. Hitler used Evolutionary Theory to Justify the Holocaust.

Darwin's idea that evolution means "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" eventually led to Nazism and the Jewish holocaust - even though Darwin himself would have been appalled at the thought."

Sir Arthur Keith (a Darwinist)wrote: "The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the 'national front' of Europe is also the 'evolutionary front;' he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people." and "Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?"
Sir Arthur Keith, ‘A new Theory of Human Evolution‘ 1948

and

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because of the theory of evolution, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application." Sir Arthur Keith, 'Evolution and Ethics', Putnam, New York, 1947, p. 230.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of s." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others.

Hitler exterminated over 273,000 people even before the Holocaust! "The first to be killed were the aged [those who are an economic burden, who detract from the happiness of society as a whole], the infirm, the senile, the mentally retarded, and defective children [that included epileptics]. Then there were WW I veterans - amputees - still in hospitals. Their reward for giving an arm or leg for Germany was extermination as 'undesirable.' Even bed wetters and children with badly modeled ears were put to death - all part of the euthanasia project of Germany."

Instead of letting chance factors dominate reproduction decisions, Hitler proposed that the scientists use the power of the state to influence these decisions so that the gene pool would shift to what "informed conclusions" concluded was the desired direction. Consequently, Hitler encouraged those individuals that he perceived as having Aryan traits to mate, and discouraged "interbreeding," supposing that this policy would gradually cause the Aryan race to evolve "upward". He believed that the Nazi race programs would further evolution by intelligently deciding which traits were not beneficial, and preventing those with them from reproducing.

An important argument that Hitler used to support his programs of racial genocide of the Jews, Blacks and other groups was that they were genetically "inferior" and that their interbreeding with the superior Aryan race would adversely affect the latter's gene pool, polluting it, and lowering the overall quality of the "pure race."

"From the ‘Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life' [that is, Darwin 's subtitle to Origin of Species] it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes or nations - and from their preservation to their glorification . . . Thus, it has become a portmunteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race . . . recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here."

Mr fallible. I noted at the link you gave that under Hitlers RELIGIOUS beliefs we have

"Hitler believed in Arthur de Gobineau's ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the "Aryan race"—guided by "Providence"—was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization. In Hitler's conception Jews were enemies of all civilization.

While hitler laments that Christianity was not well suited to his purposes with its "meekness and flabbiness"

I would be grateful if anyone new to this thread would take the time to read all of my post on the link between Nazism and Darwinism before posting a string of adhominem arguments. Having seen that the evidence for the link is beyond doubt you may then be better informed to post a longer string of adhominem arguments.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:03:59 GMT

"I find it interesting that even with our intelligence, modern science has not even come close to creating life. "
Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. Also, we are VERY close to creating life.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:04:47 GMT

For the sake of argument, lets assume that with the aid of billions and billions of dollars, the directed efforts of the worlds top scientific minds and by borrowing heavily from existing biological structures we may produce some Frankenstein like life form the lab. Remember, it would be tiny, useless and hardly discernable as life. This would not be Darwinian evolution but INTELLIGENT DESIGN with some sick scientist as the Designer

Now, if anything, these experiments show just how much design goes into the most basic organism conceivable. These experiments are the culmination of thousands of years of scientific progress made by the cumulative efforts of the scientistific community of the entire human species. Are we supposed to believe that life appeared in the first place and then evolved into todays diversity of complex lifeforms through entirely UNGUIDED processes akin to Darwinism.

Somehow the word "incredulity" just doesn't go far enough. One thing that all the failed origin of life experiments have taught us is that unguided Darwinian evolution is a non starter as an explanation for life's origins. Anyone who supposes otherwise is committing the fallacy of wishful thinking and is capable of believing anything so long as it is not in the possibility a transcendent Creator.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:38:12 GMT

Alan N,
The link shows clearly that Hitler manipulated Christian religious beliefs and evolutionary scientific ideas to justify what he wanted to do. The evidence for the "link" is imaginary.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Alan Niven — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:41:44 GMT

Mr Fallible

In [William] Robinson's book, Eugenics, Marriage and Birth Control (Practical Eugenics), he advocated gassing the children of the unfit. In plain words, Robinson insisted: 'The best thing would be to gently chloroform these children or give them a dose of potassium cyanide.

Check out this link:

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

Margaret Higgins Sanger was the founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood). She was famous for citing the work of german eugenicists. In September 1930, she received at home the Nazi anthropologist Eugen Fischer.

Eugen Fischer (July 5, 1874-July 9, 1967) was a German professor of medicine, anthropology and eugenics . He was one of those responsible for the Nazi German scientific theories of racial hygiene that legitimized the extermination of Jews, sent an estimated half a million Gypsies to their death in the Porajmos, and led to the compulsory sterilization of hundreds of thousands of other individuals, deemed racially defective, such as the Rhineland Bastards, the mentally ill, and the mentally retarded.

Did I imagine this link? or are you in a state of denial?

Manipulating a belief implies twisting it in order to draw conclusions which do not flow naturally from it. As I already conclusively demonstrated through several quotes from Darwin and Darwinists: Hitler was not TWISTING Darwinian thinking when he chose to exterminate the weaker members of his own society in order to "improve" the stock. He was logically and systematically APPLYING Darwinian thinking. It's that simple.

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Austin, Austin, Texas — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:12:40 GMT

This whole argument is a moot point.

1) Darwinism has considerable more evidence, as such it is considered more probable.

2)Those who are religious don't want any reason to question their faith, and as such, are willing to lash out at things that may do this. (to themselves, or others)

3)Trying to say that the 'intellectual elite' are trying to hold back this 'theory' is like saying the speed limit is trying to hold back someone who is trying to speed.(there are certain laws observed in these here parts.[lol])

4)The attempt that is made to disprove Darwinism, is the very reason creationism doesn't stand its' ground, however, Darwinism stands its' ground MUCH better as a theory.

5)Dinosaurs

6)What's the big deal? Anyone who goes to church or any sort of religious ideal that agrees with intelligent design is going to teach it.

7)Talking about the origin of things is nice, and science hopefully will be there some day. Further more, hopefully people who have blind faith backed by theories created from a collection of STORIES, will not. These stories exist to help people live better lives and be better people, not explain science.

8) I feel better knowing that religion hasn't given up the fight to stop science. Why not just compare Hitler and stem cells, cause you know, even if you can get stem cells from an adult, I'm sure you can find some reason for why god disapproves.

9) Dinosaurs

10) Couldn't you be a little more at peace in the fact god believes you, more than any of us heathens who believe in science. Sure has done a number with this whole "internet" thing as well of a few other things you've probably heard of.

Bottom line, it is pointless because people are going to believe what they want. If you want to believe in intelligent design, go for it. These days, in 2008, people have finally realized that science has done some things for humanity, and probably will continue to. Sure, knowledge gets abused time to time, but what about all the times religion was abused in some form or another... witch trials anyone... crusades... what...? Sure easy to say people are fallible, and I'm sure you'd try to use that in an instance to disprove Darwinism... and any other theories that are in conflict with your religion. If you really look at what is keeping people in the dark ages, I don't like saying, often times it is religion... oh, and fallible people. Well, go ahead and take that argument that people are fallible and try to use it against Darwinism, I doubt you'll have any better. Further more, my apologies for any combative feelings you may get from reading these posts... just read your little book, and leave science alone, otherwise it will have to kick your quaint asses some day! (Though I hope it has some place for you in a museum of art.)

XD

The reviews are in on 'Expelled'

Chosen by Grace — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:13:11 GMT

PvM commented, "but it is clear that the accusations of Darwinists banning ID scientists is poorly supported at best."

Well cuz ye said so and if ye said it I believeth it!

I don't think so feelings-basher.