Movie review: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

gibbkathy, says:

Darwinism and it's " little sister", Eugenics, were some of the factors directly responsible for the Holocaust. Hitler was trying to build a pure, master race and relied heavily on the advice of his peers in the Eugenics movement, especially Margaret Sanger ..do some history research,you might be surprised to find many of the great men of that time embraced Darwinism because it went hand in hand with Eugenics..Men like Henry Ford, William Kellogg. HG Wells, Carnegie, Rockefeller.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_h...

DC, says:

World premier here? I guess they did some market analysis Gooooooooo forward DAAALLLLAAAASSS!

xdavidwattsx, says:

Good review. I was planning on avoiding this film to begin with and this confirms my initial intention.

Billusa99, says:

Agent 99 was at the opening party at Palomar this past Wednesday evening. Since Stein was there, and she chatted with him, I asked her later if she had asked him this: how is it a Jewish person is making a movie about intelligent design, the poster boy talking points of the evangelical Christian set? Alas, she had not....

EdWeirdness, says:

I thought it more a swipe at the pompous arrogance and elitism of university "know-it-alls". Are you sure you saw the same movie?

I liked the premise that "As long as the questions go unanswered, somebody will continue asking".

jasonleonwright, says:

I love a good polemic, and this seems like a great one. What a great point, that Darwinism, aka Social Darwinism, spawned Eugenics, which were some of the ideas behind the Holocaust. I’m glad that religious ideas have never been convoluted into anything evil. It’s also exciting to hear that it’s only difficult if you’re a teacher trying to teach I.D. Glad to know that teachers and education agencies in Texas and Kansas have no problems teaching evolution. It’s all eye-opening. Gotta see this movie and quick.

javascript, says:

What movie did you watch?

Quote: "Like other documentaries which embrace one side of an argument without any pretense at objectivity, Expelled bites down hard on its thesis - which states that proponents of Darwinian evolution are mindless, elitist drones unwilling to own up to the folly of their flawed beliefs - and refuses to let it go."

You call yourself a journalist? If anything, Expelled gave equal time to both sides of the argument and the truth of what is taking place in the academia world became abundantly clear? The Darwinists were free to make their own beds and so they did. Are you at all capable of doing your job without filtering everything you see or hear through YOUR WORLD VIEWS AND BIASES? Apparently not... which is why Ben's next movie needs to be about the suppression, deception and left wing, liberal propaganda agenda spewed from modern day American journalism. Funny how the media's reporting is nothing like anything the movie goers are saying. Your reporting reflects nothing of the majorities views, not to mention the rousing applause and standing ovations the movie received in theaters all across the country last night. You might want to consider a new career because frankly... you really SUCK at this one.

javascript, says:

Exit polls indicate a 96% approval rating for EXPELLED... Much disconnect from this journalists review, or what?

xdavidwattsx, says:

Uh, it has a 9 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is about the worst rating I've ever seen on that site. Sounds like there isn't much disconnect.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expel...

PS. Rotten Tomatoes > Exit Polls

javascript, says:

uh... Da... Rotten Tomatoes is far from an exit poll. They're all media reviews as well moron! The media are 92% liberal and that is an actual statistic based on their own polls. There's barely a paper in the country giving Expelled a good review and yet 96% of the actual movie goers who were polled across the country exiting the theaters on opening night, loved the movie. Only way you can't see the disconnect is if your smoking one of those rotten tomatoes...

javascript, says:

How about we not take this spin-detour your throwing at me and instead you answer my original questions to you... tell me why your review and the reviews of your media cohorts on "Rotten Tomatoes" fail to even remotely represent the huge success the movie has been in the theaters so far. The audiences are applauding and giving standing ovations in even the most liberal cities in the country. The viewers are going home and jumping on blogs to talk and rave about it... Why doesn't your review represent that?

javascript, says:

You know what Alex... You're right. I have apparently read far too many reviews from the media trashing what I believe to be an incredibly important film that sheds light on a very, very real issue and I have all but lost my cool completely. In John's review above, he has taken every single point the movie worked hard to make and twisted it to belittle the importance of what the film makers are trying desperately to report... I have read about and known about these issues for years. I was elated to learn of this movie and have been following the process closely over the past year and the media has NEVER even given it a remote chance at being heard unbiasedly.

As for the figures on the exit polls and where they came from, you wouldn't believe me if I told you any more then you believe the scientists in the movie who tried to tell you something very important. As for the blogs... you're all savy web people... Get outside the media mags and leftists groups and hear what real America is saying about the film. Make it easy on your self and start with the Expelled blog its self... Or go to a showing and watch and listen to the audience with an open mind. I'm on email blogs with with a couple dozen friends who've seen the movie in different theaters all up and down the West coast and we've all experienced the same thing... Roaring laughter, rousing applause and standing ovations. I honestly don't recall a movie I've been to where the audience applauded at the end. I would greatly admire a journalist brave enough to report what is really happening in the theaters playing Expelled. Of course... beware of the backlash you surely will receive from your own peers if you do.

My apologies to you all for the moron and suck comments. Thanks to Alex I'll do my best to bite my tongue in the future.

wlennon, says:

Back when I took Journalism, we were still taught the Five Laws of Journalism, Who, What, When, Why, and How. To get an article published, a reporter must have no less than two dependable and provable. resources. For years now, the polls such as Pew, Zogby, Harris, NY Times/ABC, and so on, all have concluded most all newspapers, and the main stream TV news shows from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN, combined 96 to 97% all claimed to have voted for a Democrat.

When you add Fox News into the mix, the media claims they are biased toward Republicans, when in reality, it is the only news forum (on Television) which invites both sides to every debate and/or story.

The N.Y. Times for the past eight years have lost 55% of their circulation, the Chicago Sun is nearing bankruptcy...

CBS and (CNN/HNN) are doing so badly, they are looking to merge resources, MSNBC is in jeopardy of being pulled from Cable/Satellite, ABC, CBS, and NBC have all lost severely in ratings. What is really sad is, most main stream media is now getting much of their news from the Daily KOS, MediaMatters, and The Huffington Post from the Internet, all of which are vile and hate filled sites.

The Democrats in D.C. are still trying to push what they call 'The Fairness Doctrine', this would cut off Free Speech of more than 75% of talk radio. There are only three groups which can be legally biased, White People, Christians, and Smokers (not so bad on that one).

xdavidwattsx, says:

"I'm on email blogs with with a couple dozen friends who've seen the movie in different theaters all up and down the West coast and we've all experienced the same thing... Roaring laughter, rousing applause and standing ovations. I honestly don't recall a movie I've been to where the audience applauded at the end."

Well, if your email blogs say it's good then it MUST be good. Sounds like the same "science" being sold in the film.

javascript, says:

xdavidwattsx writes: "Well, if your email blogs say it's good then it MUST be good. Sounds like the same "science" being sold in the film."

Yea, that's right... must have been a fluke in the dozens of theaters on the coast. All the other theaters in the country had no applause, no laughter and no standing ovations I'm sure. It just so happens the ONLY theaters that happened in were the ones I heard about. Sounds like the same unlikely odds Darwinian Evolutionist sell their theories on...

javascript, says:

I took your advice Mike... I did the google you suggested and found this review... I'd like to submit this to your readers as a fair and balanced rebuttal to John's perspective on the film.

http://twilightslastgleaming.com/word...

javascript, says:

Andrew, I appreciate the invitation but am not qualified to debate the subject matter specifically. My field of study does not prepare me to do so but those that are involved in I.D. are willing and have been trying to be heard for years... This much I am aware of and this is the argument I have with the way the media, including John, have so casually and carelessly, reviewed this crucially important film in a way that jeopardizes any truly fair debate. As you were, I think suggesting your self... the issues are MUCH bigger than reviews. What's at stake is monumentally important. There are truly and honestly excellent points raised in Expelled that reviews such as John's don't even mention. All I hear is a mind already made up and a review intended to persuade, influence and impress. No matter what side of the argument, "wall" you may be on... to walk away from that film without hearing at least one worthing thing to write about, you clearly have to have a personal agenda and closed mind. THAT is what angers me... That is what I see as poor journalism. This IS too important of a matter to be treated with flippant disregard. You really want your debate to have meaning... Take another look at the movie and re-write your review with an unbiased opinion for either side. Set the stage for a truly meaningful open forum that might actually ignite further discussion and produce something genuinely beneficial for the world. There's a challenge for you. Regards.

DC, says:

Well, MOARenn, since the subject material is basically stupid, I don't think you'll see any reasonable discourse.

Instead, I suggest a debate regarding the merits, if any, of this film:

http://www.mst3ktemple.com/images/man...

javascript, says:

Ok John... What did you think about the suggestion made by many and in many different ways, that it's possible that world views are directing science rather than science directing world views? That question comes up a number of times in the film. I could never quote the movie accurately enough so I won't try yet for fear of my own inadequacies. But I'll promise you that I'll go back to see the film again and make some notes and get back to you.

On another subject, what did you think about Steve Myers who talked about the fact that there are two possibilities for explaining the origin of life... One being unguided and organic evolution, the other being design. All admit no one knows the truth but currently science will only allow discussion about the unguided organic possibilities. The skies the limit for discussion on that side of the argument. Even mutating crystals or highly evolved aliens are acceptable. But the wall expels the only other option completely without a shred of credible evidence for ruling it out? You have to ask your self, why? Why would any scientist want to do that? When did science become so narrow minded as to rule out the only other probability to a problem they still haven't solved? That's not science. That sounds more like a religion... a faith based belief one is unwilling to budge from.

There was the point in the film made that I.D. is simply creationism in costume but one professor defined I.D. as a "minimum commitment to the probability of detecting design in nature." That is the best attempt I can make of that quote... I'll double check that when I go again.

The media is reporting that the stories in the film about the "punished" scientists are all fabricated and yet in the movie we see one university admit they fired a professor because of his affiliation to I.D. studies, two were caught in lies via emails or letters and the other universities refused to comment.

Then there's the whole issue in the media about the movie claiming that Darwinism lead to the holocaust. The producers and Ben have been lambasted for that and yet in the movie, while they clearly show the obvious connections they also on more than one occasion clarify that they do not for a minute believe Darwinism is responsible for the atrocities but rather that Darwinism was one of the key components necessary to arrive at what history remembers as Nazi Germany. Ben clarified that alone in that tomb and Berlinsky clarifies it again in his office lounge chair. We never hear that part of the story in the media though.

I could go on but I'm taking up too much room in your blog. The point I'm trying to make is that your review could have been really awesome and unique and stand alone had you reported the very uniqueness of this film. But instead you sound like all the rest. Conforming and fitting in never gets you anywhere in a life. Dare to take an opposing side for a change. All your media cohorts are trashing the movie. That's an easy act to follow.

You ask your self why I choose to focus so much attention on your review with all the other media writers doing exactly what you're doing? Well... Because I met you once at a press conference John. Or I guess I should say I saw you and sat near you more like. We exchanged glances. You looked like a decent guy, laid back, non-conformist type... I'm disappointed you're taking the easy way out on this one. I really challenge you to go see the film again. Take another look at it. I'd be willing to bet second time around you'll hear some things you didn't hear the first time. The movie has a legitimate message. It needs at good and brave writer to promote it. Think about it. Ciao.

javascript, says:

P.S. I want to directly apologize for saying you suck as a writer... Because you clearly are talented with words. But that's all the more reason I'm disappointed in how you're using that gift.

Regards.

javascript, says:

John says, "it pins its underlying premise on a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science."

Move on, end of subject eh? Ok John. Although what you just said is actually the fallacy Darwinian elite science have been hiding behind for years and is a completely inaccurate, misguided, smoke screen intended to manipulate science towards a particular world view... there is no misunderstanding of the nature of science at all... Elegant smoke John, Elegant smoke.

Your column. I'll move on.

tipdawg20, says:

Personally I feel that the movie was generated to cause people to really think about what they believe. A group that mindlessly follows one side or another will end up as Germany did under Hitler. Well written column.

Briaan, says:

Briann

I have found it interesting to read many comments abou the film. Most seem to miss the main point. Ben Stein is not making a case for evolution, or for creationism. His concern is this: Why can't another opinion be put forward by other scientists. In this case it happens to be Intelligent Design. It is the fact that when this very idea is put forward by scientists who have, are shunned by the established critics. All Mr. Stein wants to know is why is their view so treated? There are a host of hard questions for each side.

I found this from another blog quoting Charles Darwin, I had find it myself.

Chapter 15 Recapitulation And Conclusion,

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creatorinto a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according tothe fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are beig evolved." (No. 49 of Britannica Great Books, Origin of Spicies by Charles Darwin p243)

It seems the question that Mr. Stein asked is lost in the issue of evolution vs. creationism which is not the question he chose to raise.

Again why were these scientists not allowed to question what Darwin proposed? Or maybe what other scientists propose?

javascript, says:

Andrew, I live in Seattle which is one obstacle for me and I run a business that won't allow me to get away too often. The second reason I wouldn't bother with a debate like that is because it will eventually turn to hard core scientific discussion that I am not qualified to discuss in enough detail. I have only enough understanding to hear both arguments and like a juror in a courtroom, I see enough evidence to vote guilty for the accused who from my perspective have highjacked science, not for science sake but for a world view. I can only hope someone will be there to stand up for that viewpoint. I started off nasty in this column because in just about every other blog I've read those opposing the movie are extremely nasty in the manner in which they criticize alternate views. I've developed an extremely defensive posture because I grew tired of being labeled an ignorant, narrow minded creationist. It took me a while and Alex's "spanking," to realize you folks in here are at least civil. I do applaud most of you for that. That's also why I've hung around longer than I probably should have. Cheers.

xdavidwattsx, says:

Just for kicks:

"Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary which makes an argument for intelligent design over the theory of evolution, debuted at just number eight among the top ten grossing movies last week.

The film made $1.2 million on Friday in 1,052 theaters. By comparison, Michael Moore's 'Sicko' raked in $4.4 million its opening weekend from just 441 theaters, and Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9 million from only 868 slots."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ben_Ste...

Thinker2, says:

My industry source for movie data, tells me that "Sicko" opened in 1 theatre for a total gross of $69k. Its big release was the next weekend, with 441 screens and a gross of $4.5 million after the publicity machine really got going.

It will be interesting to see where Expelled goes. It beat two other new releases so far in its gross for releases the first two weekends in April. April is notoriously bad in the movie biz, so it didn't have much competition but it did really good for an independent documentary type movie.

I will find it very interesting to track it's progress and to see how wide the initial distribution of 1064 prints becomes. Chronicles and Indiana Jones will hit soon and small theatre circuits (under 25 screens) won't want or get prints until mid June at the earliest because of print availability and restrictions. If the interest is still there from the consumers amongst the summer movies, the prints will circulate.

If the prints get over 2,000 or they start to move sooner, and it hits the smaller circuits, just like Juno, Bucket list, and Gibson's Passion, the numbers will move up. The production company won't spend $1000-$1500 for each print unless they know they will make it back. They may just wait to see how long the prints are kept before they start to produce more. If theatres are hanging onto them, they are making money.

DC, says:

Since this still seems hard to understand, let's break this down a little bit.

Scenario 1: you work for a 'science place' or a 'science publication.' You decide to start spending your budget working on goblins and publishing papers about the booger man. Poor choice, look for another job.

Scenario 2: you work for 'churchy-church 1' or a 'gays are stupid' publication. Start doing work on embryonic stem cells and publish positive editorials in the church bulletin on abortion rights and acceptance of homosexuals as contributing members of society and guess what? Same situation as scenario 1.

There's no more good reason to have people with PhDs in cell biology doing research on hobgoblins than there is to have priests doing cell cultures and running clinical trials.

Now, then, back to Manos: The Hands of Fate, a much better premise for a movie. http://www.cadeland.com/miscpics/mano...

Billusa99, says:

Agent 99 is going to get a complete scream out of this javascript stuff.

I would note that Motive Entertainment, the marketing company that marketed 'The Passion of the Christ' and 'The Chronicles of Narnia' was hired to "spread the gospel" according to Stein, I.D., et al (ref: Variety). It was promoted heavily in conservative and Christian circles throughout the U.S.

Therefore, based on the constant industry osmosis I am subjected to from 99's cone of silence (Not!), I predict this film will be relegated to the same trash heap of history that contains Thomas Dolby's first attempt at new wave pop. That song was called "She Blinded Me Without Science."

DC, says:

Don't bother. Go for that workout you've been talking about instead. Eat some vegetable fed chicken. Call your family. Do anything productive, but don't go to that thing.

Otherwise you'll get to hear Frank Sherwin try to use biblical verse as evidence for something that cannot be tested with the scientific method.

Like most anything around here, if you want to find the answer, follow the money. These intellegent designers are all in a knot not because they're so worried about academic freedom, but because they feel cut out of federal research dollars.

They're feeling slighted because you cannot get a research grant of real merit to study something that cannot be investigated by the scientific method. That ICR group claims to be doing all kinds of genomic testing and blah blah blah without any real deliverable.

Their site is crammed with real "send money now" and implied "need significant financial resources" begging for money.

There's no way these jokers should be in any way compromising real scientific progress and funding. They've got their own donors and their own publications and they shouldn't expect their magical elves to get published in Nature or Cell any time soon.

Trust me, the last thing we need to do is to continue to validate this sort of thing with ongoing public acknowledgement and indirect funding.

Rather than spend money to see this movie or listen to these people wax not so poetic in some panel chat, donate that cash to your local animal shelter. Make the world better instead of feeding the trolls.

DC, says:

Since printing that shirt looks like a nightmare, maybe you should wear one of these instead:

http://www.hardkor-sports.com/Humor-I...

DC, says:

I see you are clearly open to all points of view and areas of discussion. Do all attendees get such warm welcomes at your rabies meetings?

If Frank Sherwin is not going to be referencing scripture to advance his bogus scientific enterprise, what's the point in having him there? Isn't the point that he's all for deities and somehow that makes his institute totally worthwhile? Other people will disagree and discussion ensues, no?

I would really, really be shocked if somehow he managed to make it through an entire night without even once coming around to biblical writings.

Do you really think that none of the ticket sales profits from this movie are going to get back to the ID people? Truly?

I'll bet you had never really considered that the real agenda behind all of this was truly about the cash and not anything more existential.

I'm saying that just because someone says something or makes a movie about whatever does not mean that it's worth attention. This particular piece of propaganda is not worth more time than having a debate about the high points of Gigli. Did you have a similar discussion after "The Confederate States of America" came out to debate the merits of slavery?

Surely your high powered group of uber spell checking intellectuals could come up with something better than this.

Whatever, since I'm not a scientist and I don't have 4 fancy degrees from a bunch of forgein universities and I don't use semi colons for apostrophes I suppose my novel viewpoint on this matter wouldn't be welome at this discussion. Thanks for the heads up.

Prior to this I had really no opinion about your group other than it was unfortunate you chose to host this particular topic.

Another $5 to the SPCA.

javascript, says:

Andrew... see it's guys like DC that I ran into all over the place that put the "crook in my giblets" for days before coming to this site. It's guys like DC that created the need for a movie like Expelled, (In my opinion). Lucky for your group it sounds like DC will not be attending the Dallas Philosopher's Forum.

DC wrote: "I see you are clearly open to all points of view and areas of discussion."

If I'm not mistaken that was "sarcasm," right? Funny listening to a guy trashing a film he admittedly will never watch, implying someone else is not open to other points of view. :Interesting: (The bracketed semi colons are just for you DC.)

javascript, says:

Jeremy, I suppose you could be correct and I'm mistaken... If so I would gladly stand corrected. But DC's second half of that same paragraph makes it really hard for me to believe that:

"Do all attendees get such warm welcomes at your rabies meetings?"

I don't know... sounds like it's dripping with sarcasm to me...

DC, says:

First of all, could you point out those semi colons to me? I guess since I'm not a practising scientist, an intellegent designer, nor a statistical fabricator I can't see them.

Additonaly, would you mind not starting sentences with conjunctions? It's almost as unreadable as poor spelloing.

Furthermore, I'm not the one who describes my meetings as rabid. You know, since I don't have a BSc, MSc, MD, nor PhD, and don't have millions of dollars in research funds, I had to look up rabid on wikipedia and found rabies. Because Andrew says I am anti-intellegent and ignorant, I thought I should look the word up. What do you know, there's rabies!

Surely a group of people who "are much more educated than the general populous with almost all having a degree and a great amount having more than one or graduate degrees" would agree that a rabid meeting implies rabies!!

Lastly...guy?

tipdawg20, says:

Interesting comments. Just because one person believes one thing is fact and the opposite belief is garbage doesn't mean the "garbage" doesn't deserve a voice. I believe that was the purpose of the documentary - to show that "intelligent design" deserves some relevancy for discussion on the campuses of colleges and universities. Even if you disagree with "intelligent design" would you not at least want it presented in the classroom to "prove" its inadequacy in presenting the origin of the universe? I've heard that almost 80% of the American population is not opposed to the idea of "intelligent design." (That's only a percentage I've heard) Why would it not be allowed to be debated in the classroom? Why would its good and bad points not be allowed to be observed. Although this is almost an irrelevant argument because I'm not sure it goes on in other churches, but my church presents the good and bad points of evolution and doesn't criticize someone or kick them out of the church if they disagree with "intelligent design" and are staunch evolutionists. Why would colleges not present the same respect for "intelligent design" scientists and new ideas? Just a thought.

xdavidwattsx, says:

Because when I pay tuition for a science class, I want to be taught sound science. If I wanted to be taught creationism I would go to church. Big difference.

Those classes have a lot of legitimate material to cover in a short time and wasting time on hocus pocus is unacceptable.

xdavidwattsx, says:

This thread only has 60 comments, though. Some of those epic horsebeaters had well over 100.

DC, says:

The "intelligent design" as presented in this discussion is a Christian concept.

There are many other religious ideas out there that we could choose to include in a curriculum instead like re-incarnation, killing infedels etc etc etc

There is all night and all weekend to indoctrinate the young with whatever someone's choices on religion are.

It makes no more sense to have real universities and academics teaching a religious ideology than it does to have priests or pastors giving up their sermons to explain electron transport to their congregations.

I really, really hope that future generations of American scientists are trained in actual medicine, engineering and the like and have the freedom to choose whatever religion they want for their after work activities.

The real plan for the chain of events goes something like this: 1) legitimize intelligent design by garnering support for inclusion in classrooms 2) reverse that in to support for evidence of fact for underlying premise 3) leverage 1+2 into political action to open up taxpayer dollars to fund 'research institutes' like Frank Sherwin's.

The trailer for the film really sets the tone. BS's hang-dog, we're so persecuted talk ends with basically asking everyone to leave, BUT THEY ALL READY GOTCHA MONEY HAHAHAHAH SUCKAS!

Billusa99, says:

Scott... DC's the ugliest woman I've ever seen. And that's not open to debate.

Scott, says:

Most college textbooks on evolution that I've seen include discussions of the historical and contemporary opposition and alternatives (including intelligent design theories). The claim that intelligent design isn't discussed in colleges is inaccurate. The nub of the complaint is that it is discussed, debunked, and dismissed, rather than being advocated or presented as a scientifically satisfactory alternative to the modern evolutionary synthesis.

javascript, says:

Where did anyone get the idea that ID or Expelled are about Christianity. I'm sure the Jewish Mr. Stein would be more than horrified to be referred to as a Christian.

Second contradictory point about that statement is that the movie does not in any way represent any religion of any kind. It addresses the fact that there actually are only 2 world views with regard to the question of life's origin. 1) Organic, unguided, undirected evolution over billions of years. 2) Observance of evidence that suggests intelligent causation.

Before anyone leaps to the digits on their keyboard frothing at the mouth to shred me to pieces for uttering such blasphemy, I would like to recommend again that you go see the movie so you can see for your self, Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor, author of "The God Delusion", renowned atheist and self proclaimed hater of all religion and most ardent denier of a deity of any kind, proclaimed in his own words that signs of an intelligent signature are apparent in nature. Of course Dr. Dawkins gave credit to aliens for that signature, but he admits to observing what he described in his own words as, EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT SIGNATURE IN NATURE.

ID simply says... "Hey we see it too! Let's discuss, compare it and study it right along with evolution, the only other viable possibility we know of today? Why would any intelligent person want to EXPELL the second of only two options we have to consider, before proof has been discovered one way or the other. Maybe the two possibilities are actually compatible and related in some way. Maybe by opening the doors rather than closing them we can advance in our awareness to life's origin.

It's a thought anyway. Besides, simply acknowledging intelligent causation in the origin of life does not in any way shape or form, commit one to any one particular religion. That is a ludicrous notion to say the least. Recognizing intelligence in our origins is only the beginning. How one perceives and or interprets that source of intelligence is what one would then interpret as religion. They are not one in the same thing at all. I have no idea how many religions exist in the world but I think I would be safe to guess that the majority of them believe in some form of a deity. Tribes have been discovered in remote parts of the world that had never been exposed to any outside influences, who had established without influence, a deep seeded belief in some form of superior being. Does that make them Christian by default?

javascript, says:

I still stand by the explanation of ID that I've described... completely void of any religious aspect whatsoever. You can label it whatever you like Susan, but that won't change the actual definition.

Apologies to Scott for the verbosity of my previous post.

xdavidwattsx, says:

You can throw in all the cute buzzwords you like but ID still = creationism no matter how fancy you make it sound.

javascript, says:

Susan... you have GOT to be kidding me. You think a Wikipedia definition is without a doubt, unbiased???? A dictionary definition that lists the name of an organization like the Discovery institute??? Are you really convincing your self of this... because you are truthfully only kidding your self if you are... You do know that I can hop on there right now and alter that definition don't you? As can anyone who wants to.

I can NOT stop laughing!!!!!!!!!!

javascript, says:

Wikipedia definition for Susan: Noun gullibility (uncountable) The quality of readily believing information, truthful or otherwise, usually to an absurd extent.

...still laughing!

javascript, says:

Amen to that brother Rick... amen to that!

isumitup, says:

Wow! This whole thread proves the point John makes in his review - the topic is polarizing and the movie won't change many -if any - minds. Kudos to javascript for graciously accepting a well deserved "spanking" and still hanging in here and to the staff for tempering the discussion. And a standin o' to Andrew and the Dallas Philosopher's Forum for holding a panel discussion about the movie. Only wish I lived near Dallas to be there!

Note to John: I reacted to the scene with Stein & the statue of Darwin differently. Less of a stare down and more of a wondering about who this man was. I found it humanized Darwin, with his kind and gentle face. I wonder what he would think or say today regarding this discussion.

Catawba, says:

The review wrote: "Enter the myopia which allows the filmmakers to overlook the fact that religion-based movements and conflicts have led to wholesale slaughter on a global scale since the dawn of humanity."

That must be some sort of a sliding global scale, what with all that terra incognita millenia ago. Maybe it started out retail.

looknrnd4, says:

Kudos to javascript and tipdawg20!

OpusthePoet, says:

Before I was a bicycle builder, I studied science and the scientific method. One of the bedrocks of the scientific method is a true hypothesis will not only explain observed phenomina but will predict phenomina that has yet to be observed. Evolution predicted that as conditions changed rapidly reproducing creatures would be observed to evolve to change with their changing environment, and that was found to be true. That's how we got antibiotic resistant diseases, among other things, like different breeds of dogs. ID predicts nothing, because it isn't science, it's religion gussied up in pseudo-scientific babble.

Billusa99, says:

With regards to javascript and his saying Richard Dawkins lending credence to said movie and its message, I give you this, which has been common knowledge for months (except to those in the ID sect who don't like common knowledge):

"Professor Dawkins, who is speaking at the Atheist Alliance convention in Crystal City, Virginia, said in an email that had he known the film's premise he would not have agreed to take part. "Some of the world's best-known atheists, including British scientist Richard Dawkins, appear in the documentary, but they are unhappy with it. They say they agreed to appear in a documentary called Crossroads, but have ended up instead in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. ... "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," he said. Other atheists said they were uneasy about the way they felt they had been duped."

See :http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/28/religion.film

Secondly, javascript using an example of isolated, indigenous tribes having a belief in a supreme being being behind their "fact on earth" means nothing other than that they, too, have existential beliefs that can't be scientifically posited. It's a non-starter -- you can't know what you have no access to.

Thirdly, the article today in the DMN about the people behind the movie is well done. I can tell you, they will not get their wish; this movie is not going to ramp up screens going forward. No way is any money going to spent on more prints. It's on that slow downhill roll that happens to most niche movies after week-2.

Finally, the numbers of the exit poll are also quoted in that article. It should be noted for scientific posterity (and fact) that nobody does independantly paid-for exit polls for movies (except these guys, looking for answers to bolster their premise).

That's what RenTrak is for, which anyone in the distribution and exhibition biz would already know. http://www.rentrak.com/

javascript, says:

Billusa99: You misrepresent my words on every single point. Typical. I never implied Richard Dawkins lent credence to the movie other than when in the uncut interview with Ben Stein towards the end of the film, Richard clearly admits it's quite possible to see what he referred to as "the signature of intelligence in nature." That's quite a different thing from saying he lent credence to the movie. While twisting my words to refer back to Richard's' rant about how he was "tricked" into being in a "creationist movie" all one has to do is look at the well publicized letter that Mr. Dawkins first received, inviting him to take part in the movie. In that introductory letter, here is exactly the way the movie was described by the producers:

"We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement."

If you can prove this description misrepresents the core of Expelled, THEN you have a legitimate argument... HOWEVER... you cannot make such a claim so you should be ashamed for spreading lies and rumors. That description is EXACTLY what the movie is about and Mr. Dawkins makes a living at giving his opinion on this subject. He has no honest argument and neither do you.

As for the name of the movie... Are you kidding me? Dawkins was first approached nearly 2 years before the film was released. SO WHAT if the name was changed later... do you have ANY idea how often movie titles change in this industry? Dawkins also signed a contract with the producers and in that contract it was clearly stated that the film name might change. You have no case here... No smoking gun or evidence of wrong doing. Just a smoke screen attempt to distract people from hearing the truth about the unscrupulous actions of an atheistic elite group who are distorting and highjacking science... and how they use "tools" like your self to do most of their propaganda spreading for them.

Regarding my mentioning of the tribes... You completely misrepresented why I mentioned them to begin with. If you had read more carefully before you falsely twisted my words, you'd have seen that I was referring back to the statements by previous posters claiming that ID and Expelled are Christian propaganda. I was pointing out that Ben Stein is Jewish and that the majority of religions in the word believe in a creator and that even uninfluenced tribes believe in a "god" so clearly it would be impossible to label all who believe in an intelligent creator as Christians.

Lastly with regard to your predictions of the movie... time will tell. I'm no psychic but apparently you think you are. I would not lay odds on your predictions though. It may take a while for this to spread as the Producers of Expelled are no financial match for the Hollywood marketing budgets but over time I would not be surprised to see this movie become a film of significant importance... maybe in the theaters or maybe later in the DVD release. This wouldn't be the first time a film gained it's greatest success after leaving the theaters. We'll see.

EdWeirdness, says:

Opening in 1000 locations, doesn't sound like the public is "avoiding this picture in droves". Applause at any point, in any film, particularly in our "jaded" society would seem to argue that at least some, perhaps a majority of viewers like the film. Still, an opinion piece, if it is to truly have any value at all, should be provided in an vacuum of personal pov, the original piece (that engendered these comments) didn't! The point I took away from the picture was the exposure of the elitist vacuum that most pompous college "know it all's" exist in. The closest many of these people ever come to dealing with the "average person" is insisting on "paper" at the grocery store check out, or talking down to the service writer when they drop off the Volvo or the Saab for service. I'm paying for a child to go to college, a child who has to suspend reality simply to attend classes. The result of this sort of self centered elitist environment is that we churn out more social workers than we do scientists or engineers.

Life experiences, and your environment shape your pov, colleges, teachers, should give students tools and not opinions. Certainly anyone who allows either reviews or opinion pieces to color their decision whether or not to see a film, read a book, or attend an event, has already abdicated the "free will and thinking" that Expelled seeks to encourage. Lest we get goofy over this, its just someone else's opinion, take it for what it is, value it in consideration of the source, and go see, or don't go see the movie. If you chose to "not" see Expelled, why are you here?

joshua, says:

Hi, from the UK where we wont be seeing the film for a while.

I wanted to say how much I have enjoyed reading the review and the long list of comments - now I really want to see the film.

One thing - that may have been said but I missed it - is that there is no real conflict between religion and science. Putting it slightly differently science is, usually, not trying to do religion.

The idea of magisteria, of separate bodies of knowledge, is reasonably well known and science and religion are such separate realms.

When scientists, like Dawkins, say ID should not be part of science it is because it cannot be tested and therfore is not within the realms of evidence based knowledge. It is a reasonable position to take.

But when science attempts to be the only realm of knowledge and become a pseudo religion giving answers to questions it clearly has no evidence for the proponents of ID can quite rightly exercise their opinions.

That there are different realms of knowledge is possibly the real struggle for the modern mind (and indeed some writing here). But if we have no time for philosophy or metaphysics or religion how much poorer we will be.

xdavidwattsx, says:

I'll take shrooms for $100, Alex.

javascript, says:

Ok, so let me see if I'm following you all... You guys will contemplate stories such as mushrooms being remnants of antiquarian matter from aliens, that may have lead to the first belief in God but a scientist who looks at the code in a DNA strand and determines the mathematical equation necessary to create the first living molecule by chance is astronomically impossible and is therefore lead to theorize intelligent involvement, is ludicrous and non-scientific? And Richard Dawkins can admit he sees the signature of intelligence in nature but if he were to want to examine that further that would no longer be science... That would be philosophy and he'd have to leave the science room and go down the hall to the philosophy classroom and set up his equipment again to proceed with his studies legitimately. Am I following you correctly so far?

xdavidwattsx, says:

No, you missed this part of the equation:

shrooms > creationism

joshua, says:

Hi, Pavel, I would say very few people in the UK believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis. We are 'Enlightened', you might say.

And Rick from Texas makes my point - some really do think the only knowledge worth having is scientific knowledge. Is he saying that he only knows something like great music, love, art only if it is in some way provable?

In the context of this discussion we do not know how life began, we do not know what came before the big bang, and science rarely tells us what is right and wrong, or what is great music etc etc.

Science is limited, it is not a 'way of life' or a moral choice, it is not a belief system. It wont help you get on with your neighbour or mend your marriage.

And, just in case I am in danger of going off topic, evolution is also limited. It is a great theory and, yes, it probably does mean the world was not created in six 24 hour 'days' but it does not mean that there might not be a creator and that it is worth investigating as to whether there are any signatures to be found.

Not unlike the work of Prof Heller, the latest Nobel prize winner who is, to quote Ruth Gledhill of the Times, 'a pioneering cosmologist and philosopher specialising in mathematics and metaphysics'. His work " as a creatively working scientist and reflective man of religion has brought to science a sense of transcendent mystery and to religion a view of the universe through the broadly open eyes of science." says fellow Prof Karol Musiol.

Having such a prizewinner looks like it contradicts the premise of the film. But as I have yet to see the film I cannot say.

I suspect, Javascript, that with the thread starting to focus on mushrooms it has descended into frivolity.

Billusa99, says:

javascript... until you've done 'shrooms, you will not be able to follow this correctly.

javascript, says:

Joshua,

No doubt Michael Heller is a "stand alone" kind of guy... Priest, cosmologist and philosopher. Few if any of the "big names" of science who get the media's attention the most, could hold a candle to Mr. Heller. (R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, etc.) Unless I'm mistaken though, Michael did not win the "Nobel Peace Prize," but rather he won the Templeton Prize of 1.6 million dollars in March of 2008.

The "John Templeton Foundation" is a privately owned organization that awards grants to encourage scientific discovery on the "big questions" in science and philosophy. That's how the NYT describes the foundation. The Templeton foundation also presented the makers of the Passion of the Christ with a $50,000 award for "Most Inspirational Movie." The Templeton foundation has also been strongly criticized by much of the scientific community as an extension of other right-wing causes, for it's linking of scientific and religious questions.

The John Templeton foundation has in the past been a supporter of ID proponents. In 1999 it provided a grant to the Discovery Institute... the organization strongly criticized by many of the anti-ID scientists in the Expelled Film. Alas, the pressures of Big Science have influenced the Templeton foundation as well and the foundation released a statement in 2007 denouncing their support for ID. None the less the Foundation's views on the connections between religion and science has lead to great debate within the scientific community.

So all that to say... I don't really see how Michael Heller's Templeton Prize does anything to undermine the premise of Expelled. If anything it shines more light on the mystery into why more people like Mr. Heller aren't encouraged rather than criticized and ostracized.

javascript, says:

Billusa99... Been there, done that. Gave up shrooms and pot around the same time my acne cleared up. But thanks for the advice.

joshua, says:

Javascript, thanks for the correction, you are right and I read the Times article wrong.

It just makes me more intrigued to see the film.

Apparently Prof Heller is donating his prize money to an academy for research into science and theology.

Good.

javascript, says:

Joshua,

I'm glad to hear you're intrigued to see the film. You may want to go see it soon though... the press and lawsuits have destroyed the movies opportunity to be unbiasedly represented, which has strongly impacted ticket sales and it may not be in theaters much longer. It's a crime too because the message is very real, very important and effects us all.

joshua, says:

112 and counting.

I am sure Javascript will answer as adroitly as ever but as far as I can see the film is about freedom of speech, thinking and scientific investigation.

You have to remember that atheists like Dawkins think religious education is worse than child abuse and that any scientist who believes in God is not really a scientist.

Mein Kampf anyone?

joshua, says:

Javascript, I forgot to mention, I am in the UK and probably wont get to see the film for a while.

But I have read quite a few reviews of the film from the US and quite a lot of them are favourable.

Maybe it is my english google filtering out anything too racy.

DC, says:

So, they're finally starting to make some comments on the money.

Hopefully Andrew whatever enjoys providing these whackos with some more low-cost advertising.

You're right, not going and wouldn't bother even if I was actually in Dallas.

javascript, says:

Susan, Joshua's description is accurate without a doubt. I think the film has more than one message though. Freedom of speech definitely is raised when members of the scientific community are outwardly ridiculed or "punished" if they question or challenge the status quo. There's even a journalist in the movie who describes the hate mail she and her paper received when she just wrote an article about a scientist speculating on ID. That's an attack of her free speech rights, wouldn't you say? The list goes on extensively in the movie but you get my point.

The point I was referring to mostly and the one I think should be alarming to us all is the obvious influence the Atheistic "world view plays" in shaping science today. This should be every bit as alarming to you as if the Pope were influencing science. Neither one belong in science but it would be extremely naive to suggest Atheism is not an influence.

In the movie you hear Atheist PZ Myers speak of that utopian world without religion. You hear Atheist Richard Dawkins read from his book "The God Dilusion," a collection of the most demonstrable words in the English language, describing in his personal perspective the Judeo Christian God. You see Atheist Jeanie Scott with her map of the country covered with pins indicating the thousands of places in the country were her organization is fighting legal battles to stomp out any and all attempts by anyone, who dares to challenge or question the complete authenticity of Darwinian evolution. Her organization is DEDICATED to stopping out the discussions before they get a chance to begin. You hear Atheist Dr. Will Provine, step clearly outside the box of science to describe life as meaningless, purposeless, godless and with no foundation for ethics... Dawkins, Myers and Provine all 3 share their de-conversion stories from Christianity to Atheism and all 3 give credit to Darwinism for their lost faith. This very same world view is being force fed to our children in the public schools, where science is clearly selling more than scientific ideas... it is selling a particular world view. That is dangerous, that is not science and this needs to be made public and stopped.

WHY, would you want to encourage this any further... unless you are sympathetic to that same Atheistic world view. In which case you're no longer talking about science and you need to be EXPELLED as well.

kps, says:

I plan to someday see this film as I have followed the ID/evolution debate both pre and post the release of the film.

I only wished I lived near enough to Dallas to attend tonight's discussion.

I started listening to religious radio channels some years ago and could never understand why many Evangelicals seem to hate either Darwin and/or Darwinism. I now think they hate it because it seems to counter their literal belief in Genesis.

I did notice from reviews that the filmmakers used a sort of "gotcha" approach to evolutionists ala Michael Moore or Borat. More than one comment in favor of the film on some of the websites I looked at stated that the "academic elite" got their commuppance.

If the film makes the pro-ID evangelicals happy, I suppose it has some entertainment value.

Personally, I like to think that scientists at prestigious universities are in the elite as I want them teaching the future doctors, nurses, and others who may affect my well-being. I don't want to see them water down their science programs just to keep a few people happy.

If these scientists want to keep what they think is pseudo-science or junk-science out of the science classrooms, I would call that integrity; not the shutting off of debate.

As for the movie's freedom of speech argument, it seems rather silly when I've read that the film appears in more than 1,000 movie houses. If that isn't freedom of expression, I don't know what is.

In other websites I have seen the movie's main theme (intolerance towards having ID in the science classroom) described as a manufactroversy which is a new word that combines "manufactured controversy" into one word. The "controversy" seems "manufactured" in order to get ID into the classroom as almost all ID adherants believe that the Creator (or God)is the Intelligent Designer.

I see it as trying to get God in through the back door of the little red school house. I don't think it is going to happen soon. Let's face it; scientists are smart.

javascript, says:

kps... It doesn't sound like you're seeing the film will alter your opinion on the subject matter much. You sound pretty sure of what to expect already... Simply by hearsay. I'm betting there's little chance you'll allow anything to persuade your hard core stand on the issue...

I have a few questions for you though. How does injecting an atheistic world view into the science classroom, make you feel better about our future doctors, nurses and others who will "effect your well-being." Why don't you consider teaching evolution with an Atheistic agenda "watered down?" By their own admission, 3 of the leading professors in the Film credit their Darwinian Evolution education for their "religious de-conversions." How does that fall under the category of science? What does that have to do with anything even remotely involving the sciences? Why are you and others so threatened by the concept of ID that is only an alternate "theory" regarding life's origin, but you don't seem the least bit concerned with professors of our universities who describe in detail their visions for a religion-free society and promote their non-scientific views quite publicly? Not only do they publicly admit their agenda, they ruthlessly set out to destroy religion by tainting the minds of our youth via their blog sites, books, interviews and youTube videos... Positioning Atheism as cool and modern, contrasted by their view of religion or ID as a joke and outdated, uneducated nonsense. These people are using any means possible to spread their Atheistic propaganda under the "guise" of SCIENCE. Ruthlessly attacking anyone who dares to stand up to them. Labeling all who disagree with them as "insane, stupid or ignorant." You call that science? You think that's "smart?"

joshua, says:

Rick, I thought you might say that. I am guessing you are a not a church goer but are a thoroughly decent chap who is living a very fulfilling and meaningful life.

But you did say that science was the only 'real realm of knowledge', which suggests to me that either you are living in a very contradictory worldview or you are using the word 'know' in a very narrow sense.

And you dont actually 'know' much of what science tells you, you just believe and trust those who tell you it is so.

One of the problems - I am guessing - that the film highlights is that atheism, which is a belief system, dominates science so that what truth is allowed is filtered by those beliefs.

This is not the world we want to live in. We want to hear both sides of the argument.

Darwin himself was not an atheist but a lapsed believer. I am fairly sure he would have little time for Dawkins et al if he were alive today.

Here is the famous quote from Darwin's autobiography - the source I think of Alvin Plantinga's 'Darwin's Doubt'.

"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man, with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into the future, as the result of blind chance. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a first cause, having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man, I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as a I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species’, and it is since that time that it has, gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the thought-- Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been fully developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusion."

joshua, says:

I repent again.

Here is Plantinga's source

Darwin expressed this doubt in a letter to William Graham, July 3rd, 1881, when he wrote: "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

And C.S. Lewis: "If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat."

And my apologies for a total of three quotes on the thread - not good form I know.

xdavidwattsx, says:

Please don't feed the trolls. Let this thing die...please. I'm begging. Do it for baby jebus.

joshua, says:

Very funny, David, thank you.

For those of us still tempted by more, how about 'The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief' by Francis Collins, head of the human genome project?

javascript, says:

Excellent points Josua... And the quotes strongly support your perspective so no one can accuse you of not having a source.

C.S. Lewis is a favorite author of mine. I'd love to see the likes of Dawkins debate with Mr. Lewis. Wouldn't that have been entertaining?

javascript, says:

xdavidwattsx... I'm not sure what your problem is but the numbers of posts on this blog are miniscule in comparison to thousands of blogs currently debating this very same subject on the net. Check out the Expelled web site blog catalogue where many of the topics went into the thousands of posts... Are we keeping you from a pressing engagement or something? Are you being forced to read what the "trolls" are saying?

joshua, says:

Susan, I think I am missing the religious ambience of the US - some things you say seem very foreign to me.

For instance no one would dream of teaching ID in a biology class here, yet we have a lot of religious inclusiveness, eg celebrating Divali, particularly in primary schools.

It seems obvious to me that our children are descended from monkeys, little perishers.

But I didnt think that was the main thrust of the film - wish I could see it.

xdavidwattsx, says:

java -

My problem is that yr a hack, CS Lewis is a hack and this site is for hyperlocal media, not debating Expelled or creationism. I don't care what other blogs are doing. PegasusNews isn't other blogs.

Thing is, you're not local and you don't respond or have interest in other local events. You just care about furthering some BS agenda. That essentially makes you a troll. You were amusing the first 25 or 50 posts but now it's just beyond obnoxious.

Me thinks you should start a book club or something and stop annoying us who actually live here and care about local events.

joshua, says:

Wow, David, as parochial as you can get.

The theme of this thread is the film Expelled and this is the world wide web - if this is only for local people then we aliens should not be allowed to register - hey, maybe they will throw me of!

CS Lewis was a brilliant man, a wonderful writer and great thinker.

I like reading Javascript's comments - he pulls no punches and is most informative.

xdavidwattsx, says:

Avery Johnson just got Expelled. How does Ron Washington still have a job but Avery Johnson doesn't?

javascript, says:

Well... that all seems pretty clear.

My apologies for entering the "secret club." I had an initial interest because I was in Dallas for the premiere screening of Expelled. I was invited by a friend involved with the local event. That's where I first saw John and his female partner sitting in on the press conference. I leaned over to my friend that day and said: "I can tell from that guys attitude walking in that he's already decided how he will review this film." And I was correct. Not uncommon. Most of us have preconceived notions about things that skew our perspectives. But none the less, it's clear I have more than worn out my welcome here... Clearly this thread only welcomes one perspective. Somewhat clarifying the point of the Expelled movie.

Thanks to Joshua for welcoming another perspective, to Andrew for helping me adjust my temperament and to Rick who while we differ completely in our views, didn't make me feel like an "annoying, obnoxious, troll."

God bless you Dallas! Ciao.

Billusa99, says:

Frist.

joshua, says:

Marvelous.

I joined the thread because of the initial review, javascript's vigorous and enlightening comments and the tone of the staff which I found balanced and, well, kind.

joshua, says:

Rick, you are such a nice guy!

You might say you don't believe in anything but of course you do - your music, your friends, family, you believe in them, you trust them. I suspect you 'know' your guitar better than you know any 'science'.

And no man is an island. You are clearly comfortable with your beliefs and your circumstances, which is great, but we are all responsible for the world we live in, the neighbour who lives on our street and the people starving around the globe.

Happily the US is the greatest benefactor in the world, you help more people than everyone else put together. You are a highly responsible nation.

Slightly off topic. Oops.

Duff, says:

When I was just entering the fourth grade I raised my hand and asked a question. I don't remember what the question was, but I'll never forget the response. The teacher looked at me and snapped, 'that's a stupid question.' It probably had been a stupid question...I was eight years old. I suppose it was a day later that my father received a personal call from my teacher apologizing profusely for snapping at me. The reason for his apology is obvious--you don't educate the ignorant by telling them they are asking stupid questions.

I usually become bored quickly when anyone pitches a weak conspiracy theory at me. I somehow doubt that 'science' is governed by an underground force of Nazi's. I am annoyed, and even deeply troubled that my fellow Christians feel compelled to act like scientists because they went to a 3-day seminar on creationism (or a 90 minute film). Pretending to be an expert when you are not trivializes important issues and it's obviously counter-productive.

I enjoyed the review and I hope this is not too stupid of a question, but could someone explain the fundamental misunderstanding of the empirical nature of science that this film is based on? I have not seen the film but I would like to have the answer in mind when I do watch it.

joshua, says:

Duff, an excellent question and John's answer is very helpful.

I agree with your sentiments too. As a zoologist I find most people's understanding of science is weak, including those in the creationist camp.

Richard Dawkins talks about science as if it were something it is not and that is not helpful and that he is the Professor of Public Understanding of Science is deeply ironic.

Let us know what you think of the film when you see it.

Kay, says:

I can't believe I read this whole thing... (except for scrolling past all those troll posts written long after they "left")

Duff, says:

John, Joshua, Rick,

Thanks for responding. I will watch the movie as soon as I get the chance and make a brief post of my thoughts. Take care.

  Duff

nan, says:

Hello,

How do you think fossils are formed? Not by a slow process. We can observe scientifically today when an animal dies, it is consumed by other animals and insects. The evolutionists today seem to forget that the very fossils they claim are proof of transitional forms over millions of years, are truly just proof of a quick catastrophic event that preserved the carcass. All a fossil proves is that an animal lived and died, not transformation from one species to another species on a macro scale.

I think the scientist don't realize that they are propagating their own religion. Their faith in themselves!