Expelled: The Movie
By Tim on Oct 3, 2007 in MOVIES
I just came across this interesting movie which will be released in February 2008. It’s hard to tell what exactly the findings of the film will be, but I’m pretty sure it’ll make quite the splash since Ben Stine is so well known…he’s taking on the view that evolution hasn’t defeated intelligent design as decidedly as so many teach.
In the movie, Stein, who is also a lawyer, economist, former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator, is stunned by what he discovers – an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma. Even worse, say publicists for the feature film, “along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers, chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection.”
A NY Times article is out saying that the head atheists in the film didn’t know the film was going to be speaking against them, it sounds like the producers told them what they wanted to hear to get them to sit down for an interview. I wish they would have had more integrity if this is the case…anyway, it sounds like the movie has a chance to open back up Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Here’s the NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html
Tim | Oct 5, 2007 | Reply
Hi your message is amazing.
I like your blog..
See ya
Be a Good Daughter | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply
ID is creationism in a new suit. It always has been theres not really any difference at all, just one has been cleverly disguised to get around separation of church and state. We all know that ID isn’t science and the dover case proves that.
Judge Jone E. Jones III ( A conservative appointed by President Bush, who has gone on record as believing that “intelligent design” should be taught with evolution in the classroom before the trial)
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al. Ruling In a U.S. federal court
“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child” (page 24)
“A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.” (page 26)
“The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism” (page 31)
“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (page 43)
“Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.” (footnote 7 on page 46)
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.” (page 64)
“[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.” (pages 86–87)
“ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.” (page 89)
“Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.” (page 132)
Full ruling here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf
It should be clear that this movie is nothing more than a political stunt before the presidential runoff, it will be displayed to a public that cares more about postering and emotional appeal then it does about cold logical deduction. It will undoubtedly raise many people to the voting booths and thats the point.
It’s also old news its been know that most of the scientific community is majority atheistic, do you presume an atheist not to view your paradigm as “a fairytale”? That would be the only weird thing in my mind, that we should expect them in an interview to say anything different. Does it bother me, not at all science is naturalism + the scientific method in a nutshell, an atheist isn’t going to muck up the theological world through naturalism theres a reason why theology is faith based, theology is not science and science is not theology, a person that wants both in the same field wants to have their cake and eat it to, and for the field to tell them your “expelled” seems more like a personal problem not the fields.
sam | Nov 4, 2007 | Reply
Hmmm…hey sam (re: 11/4 post) - how about addressing the fact that there is no evidence for macro-evolution, in addition to Ben Stein’s point, that the establishment by “pushing” Darwinism stifles creativity and promotes persecution? all possible ideas for the origin of life should be discussed and relevant, yet students, teachers, scientists etc. have been badgered and “expelled” for daring to suggest an alternative to macro-evolution. I find it interesting that those who reject ID do so primarily because of the connection they see it has with religion. Not very scientific, if you asked me, to believe in something with no proof. For more on how nature points to ID you might want to check out Lee Strobel’s book “Case for a Creator.” take care and Merry Christmas,
suzeq | Dec 20, 2007 | Reply
“how about addressing the fact that there is no evidence for macro-evolution”
One does not waste much time addressing such a lie. But I’m sure that the “talk.origins” website does address it.
“that the establishment by “pushing” Darwinism stifles creativity and promotes persecution”
Another lie. They have millions of dollars to build a Creationism “Museum” or make a movie and they have no research program because “God did it somehow, sometime, somewhere” is not science.
“all possible ideas for the origin of life”
Of course evolution is about how life evolved after its origin. You are so clueless.
“those who reject ID do so primarily because of the connection they see it has with religion”
Well, ID creationism certainly doesn’t have anything to do with science. That seems like a very good reason for a scientist to reject it. And “God did it” certainly seems to have everything to do with religion.
“you might want to check out Lee Strobel’s book”
From a review:
“To make his case Mr. Strobel restricts his panel of experts to those individuals that hold the same beliefs that he does.”
So, the choir supports the preacher (actually a journalist with no scientific credentials). Who’s surprised?
onein6billion | Dec 27, 2007 | Reply
They offer to “bribe” schools to bring their kids:
http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php
But hurry to register - there’s a limited amount of bribe money. Last come - not served.
onein6billion | Jan 16, 2008 | Reply
“Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.”
P.J. O’Rourke (1947- )
onein6billion | Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
One question remains: What will happen to the credibility of Ben Stein’s intelligent designer when (not if) science discovers the NATURAL processes behind abiogenesis?
This movie just reinforces the belief that the Christian god is just another god-of-the-gaps.
The movies’s main argument relies on the fact that natural processes behind abiogenesis fall in CURRENT gaps of our scientific knowledge. I submit to you here that it is only a matter of time before science fills those gaps and do to Ben Stein’s Intelligent Design what Darwin’s theories did to Young Earth Creationism.
Restube
Adrien | Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
The only problem is that filling in the gaps with facts to support the facts that are already questionable. Unfortunately the evolution theory which is a F.A.R.C.E. will be pushed down our throats until the end of time. At that time the truth will be revealed.
kmoff | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
View One:
Hydrogen plus time equals the complexity of the human brain.
View two:
God plus His Word (Decree) equals the complexity of the human brain.
Victor | Feb 22, 2008 | Reply
“Hydrogen plus time equals the complexity of the human brain.”
That is an interesting scientific hypothesis.
“God plus His Word (Decree) equals the complexity of the human brain.”
That is religious nonsense.
onein6billion | Feb 23, 2008 | Reply
Oh joy!
Finally, a movie to thoroughly blur the line between reality and generations of overactive imaginations.
I hate it when those darn scientists, with their… facts, and… you know, predictably repeatable experiments impose their “theories” on our kids when we already brainwas… uh… taught our kids everything they need to know about science. You see, we already have the answers. We got ‘em from a double-millennia old book, written by bronze-age, racist, sexist men, who, knowing nothing about physics, biology or cosmology, but going solely on the divine inspiration of their imaginary friend, somehow managed to pin down the intricate details of the universe, life, and it’s creation in a fabulous trinket of literary mastery we call “Genesis”!
I am sure that the alleged “expulsions” had nothing to do with the fact that these pseudo-scientists had become lax in their responsibilities at work and in the scientific community. Let’s see what those accused of directly expelling these “scientists” have to say… Um…. Yeah, we are not going to get that side of the story from this turd of a film.
Hooray for everyone who purchases a ticket to this film. We shall be the champions of ignorance. We will spread it throughout the land and into our schools.
-sD-
Dr. Scotty Delicious, DFPA.
Scotty Delicious | Mar 21, 2008 | Reply
I was watching a debate on YouTube about Creationism verses Evolution, and couldn’t believe the atheist was serious about that something can be created out of nothing. I think we would get a good laugh if someone said they could create energy out of nothing, but in Christianity that would be considered witchcraft unless it was God who was doing it. The atheist thought by not having someone actually create something out of nothing, rather it happened by chance, he calls that science. I call that defying the laws of physics which makes it a supernatural event.
THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Defines energy as a mass which cannot be created out of nothing, and can be changed from one form to another but the total amount remains the same.
Michael | Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
“serious about that something can be created out of nothing”
The scientific evidence that this universe was created in a Big Bang about 14 billion years ago is quite conclusive. You can choose ignorance, but …
“THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS”
is called a scientific “law” because there has not been any scientific evidence that this “law” is violated in scientific experiments here on this Earth. But it’s still “just a theory”. Maybe it was wrong just one time a long time ago. But not recently.
This has little to do with the obvious “fact” of evolution over the last few billion years here on this little blue marble.
onein6billion | Apr 2, 2008 | Reply
No, the big bang is not conclusive considering, it had no been proven where it came from to accomplish it’s random chance explosion. Just like many believed the CELL was simple for many years. Evolution was wrong about that, as it turns out DNA is pretty complex. And it’s like an engine, if you take one spark plug out, it ceases to function, making adaptation on it’s own impossible.
Michael | Apr 4, 2008 | Reply
There are insurmountable failures of evolutionary science called Abiogenesis. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to “violate the very objectivity of science itself.” While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it. Great article here: http://www.eternalpath.com/creationism.html
Steven | Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
I hear this all the time, ID is not testable, yet evolutionist spend all day and night trying to prove it
wrong. How is that. Next of all here’s a little science for you. The basic law of probability by Dr. Borel
concludes that any event with one chance in 10 to the 50th power would not happen while, experts such
as Sir Fred Hoyle concluded that abiogenesis has a one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power of happening.
That’s not an opinion. If life is so easy to create then by all means contact the “origin of life foundation”
and collect that million dollar reward along with a Nobel prize I’m sure.
Deacon | Apr 10, 2008 | Reply
Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
Superstition and religion is for the gullible.
Be educated, not delusional.
FactsOnly | Apr 11, 2008 | Reply
You are absolutely right, Deacon. Just type in Creationist blogs and one would figure that your going to get pro-Creationist blogs, but it’s not the case, as one notices the countless atheist blogs who try so hard to disprove creationism or intelligent design. As atheist PZ Meyers (who is in the movie Expelled) has put it, he’s afraid of creationism activism which is his motivation for a lot of his blogs. Atheists try to block the building from being built which was helped by Ken Ham a well-known creationist. This museum was finished at another location which turned out better for them. PZ Meyers also promotes intimidation by using humiliation and punishment (firing) for certain teachers to make them an example for those who might skew of the evolutionist path.
I wonder what the chance of creating something (the big bang) out of nothing would be…I believe it’s impossible odds. It’s also supernatural. Only a creator (God) could create something out of nothing.
Michael | Apr 12, 2008 | Reply
“The basic law of probability by Dr. Borel concludes that any event with one chance in 10 to the 50th power would not happen while, experts such as Sir Fred Hoyle concluded that abiogenesis has a one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power of happening. That’s not an opinion.”
Well, it certainly doesn’t seem to have the backing of a deity. So perhaps it’s just an opinion. And, of course, it’s a completely irrelevant opinion by people who are not biologists. So your argument from authority is an abject failure.
“who try so hard to disprove creationism or intelligent design”
There’s no need to try to disprove something that has not the slightest shred of evidence to back it up.
onein6billion | Apr 12, 2008 | Reply
O.K. so it all started when a super-dense ball of matter exploded in a big bang…where did this ball come from? And why is it ok for Michael More to do a gotcha interview, but not Ben?
rog | Apr 14, 2008 | Reply
Evolution is fact. I can prove it within 1 week. But Darwin’s paper was about the origin of species. This is the part of Darwinism that has never, ever been proven.
rog | Apr 14, 2008 | Reply
OK….Man says to God ” I can create life and picks up some dirt to create life.” God says “first, make your own dirt.”
Now tell me just how that first complex eye was formed with all the right pieces in the right place at the right time??
I say you have a God and his name is CHANCE.
What tha??? | Apr 15, 2008 | Reply
“O.K. so it all started when a super-dense ball of matter exploded in a big bang…where did this ball come from?”
Irrelevant. The universe exists. Life exists. Therefore evolution is possible.
“And why is it ok for Michael Moore to do a gotcha interview, but not Ben?”
I do not condone either. But Ben wishes to claim that the “truth” is being “suppressed”. Then he stoops to trying to trick people into saying something that can be used against them. I assume that he suspected that if he told them the real theme of the movie, they would have declined the interviews that he is using to try to make them look foolish.
Expelled exposed: http://www.expelledexposed.com/
onein6billion | Apr 16, 2008 | Reply
Life exists, and you say, therefore evolution is possible…Ok let’s go with that one…
Molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules which make up DNA, and RNA. Right? You know what that is, don’t ya? Most likely you have some idea what it is. You also might know what Primeval soup is, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life first came from…DNA and RNA combination are needed to form life. However, water is a hostile place for these two elements. You see, through observational science we know that DNA, and RNA both dissolve in water. So how could it be possible for DNA and RNA to combine with each other by chance in order to create life in a place where they can’t exist?
Also, DNA and RNA do not combine with each other in any sort of temp setting. In fact, observational science has shown us, there must be mechanisms of a “living cell” in place or a biochemist in a lab in order to combine the two. Thus, this evidence points to a Creator not random chance.
Michael | Apr 17, 2008 | Reply
I am very excited about this movie. All the stuff I’ve read makes it sound like it’s gonna be great. Long overdue in my opinion. Although Ben Stein doesn’t have a problem with people who believe that God created the earth, but that there were millions of years involved also . . . trying to make portions of Darwin’s theory fit in with the Bible and supposed “Science.” There are many scientists and lots of evidence that shows the biblical account of creation is much more accurate than Darwin’s theory. No one has ever been able to prove one instance of something evolving. There have been many mutations, but nothing has actually evolved into another species! Every skull they have found over the years that supposedly proves a link between man and ape, has been proven a fraud. My sister got me interested in this issue about 10 years ago as she was home schooling and I have subscribed to a scientific creation publication ever since. It’s amazing how much evidence is out there against evolution. Darwin’s theory is just that, a theory. Yet the education system, the scientific community and the media refer and talk about it as fact. It makes me very angry. I am excited about anyone who is brave enough to stand up, especially in the media, and refute it and I hope everyone will see it and start to question what they are taught in the public school system. If you really want to know the truth, check out some creation scientists work in organizations like Answers in Genesis.
SGibson | Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
I am going to see this movie tonight with my son. I want him to see both sides of the issue. It is the critical thinking strategy we try to instill in our children. I am a creationist and a school teacher. I know that I would be “expelled” if I taught ID in the classroom. Not because of the lack of evidence but because of the academic bias. I have not seen the movie yet, but from the trailer it looks like it centers on “academic bias”. This is a hot debate.
Daryle | Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
The movie was sold out. I bought two tickets for tomorrow.
Daryle | Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
ok lets get this straight.. ben does not say that anyone has to share his beliefs .. he does say that since both trains of thought are viewed as unproven theory that the door should be open to discuss the pros and cons and research on both sides…it is the darwinists who blackball and suppress even the discussion or mention of the term INTELLIGENT DESIGN. what are they afraid of???? light wants to be seen and does not want to hide itself. darkness on the other hand, does the opposite.
bill | Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Has anyone had the peculiar problem of accessing the expelledthemovie website today? I have been unseccessful to access it and if I do, I am unable to navigate in it. I tried Richard Dawkins’ website and how strange that it should pop up in less than a second…
Clay Randal | Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
I’m so glad that no matter what anyone says, God’s proof is all I need. Man’s proof has waffled . . . God’s never has, isn’t now, and never will!!! I’m thrilled Ben Stein came out with this one. A bit of a shaking up never causes a problem, as long as you have strong roots!!! The other sides roots always seem to die off.
NomiAnn | Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
I heard the movie “Expelled” is getting pretty good reviews from people who have seen the whole production. Since the movie has caused such a stir, I noticed the atheists are trying to form their own list of teachers who are getting “expelled” for favoring evolution…The blogger owner says it’s not a private/public school issue. But as she puts it; “state officials and instructors at public institutions who have been forced beyond all reason to comply with a medievalist ideology.”
On her list she has a Wheaton College, a Protestant liberal-arts college in Illinois removing someone who they deem was not teaching creationism properly, but teaching evolution as fact. If this has to do with state paid teachers then why was Wheaton College included? Her response was not logical and a desperate attempt to try and match “Expelled” the movie’s focus on academic freedom. Generally all government schools teach evolution so it’s hard to believe government schools are firing teachers for favoring evolution.
I agree, Daryle, if you taught there ID, and just mentioned the possibility of a creator, alongside teaching about evolution, it would mark the end of your teaching career there. You might show science that indicate a young earth for example, or our solar system. But you would be looked upon by the “academic bias” as teaching religion. Rather than teaching science confirms a certain religious belief in this case Christianity.
As science grows so does the holes in evolution…
Michael | Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
My wife and I went to see the movie over the weekend. It was interesting, though I don’t usually like to pay to see documentaries.
I’m not doing a movie review here, but I’ll just say that the way that many media outlets have been attacking Ben Stein and the producers of the movie, it actually adds to the movie’s credibility since the movie is exactly about how evolutionists control academia and even the popular media and make every effort to squelch any competing idea about live’s origins.
As a scientist, the most frustrating thing about this debate is that the media never pays attention to the particulars of the debate. They simply mudsling and try to attribute bad motives to people who hold the view that they don’t agree with.
When are we going to get around to talking about the arguments for ID versus the arguments for evolution?
One part in the movie that was particularly funny to me is Richard Dawkin’s admission that life shows design, but that life was probably brought here by space aliens. I remember hearing that the first day of Microbiology my sophomore year in college. OK so, space aliens have a place in science the class, but God doesn’t?
ajc | Apr 21, 2008 | Reply
What are Evolutionists so afraid of when IDers disagree with them? Are they THAT insecure about being challenged? I mean, how absolutely right have the Evolutionists been over time?
If (and I’m coming down to that level)… If God exists, isn’t searching deeply into His creation real science? To assume God doesn’t exist doesn’t sound scientific then. It sounds as though the Evolutionists are saying that any explanation outside of God is scientific.
By the way, there is NO such thing as separation of church and state. If (and I’m coming down to that level again), If God exists - He owns the state anyway - so the government better get it’s act together.
In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now, He commands everyone everywhere to reform. For He has set a day in which He will judge this world in righteousness by the man He has appointed: Jesus - and God gave proof of that by raising Jesus from the dead.
SteveC | Apr 21, 2008 | Reply
do scientists who advocate evolution deny apparitions or ghosts? Science does. Science denies the start of life because scientists cannot create life from elements. They cannot create a one celled life form. Okay if there was a big bang maybe it created the stew of life, certainly not all the life forms we have today, but thinking about the formation from sea creature to man. Pygmies must be a lower life form of European men. They are still in transition. To create a better world, wouldn’t it be better to make hybrids of men to make the perfect race. That would be the way to go to fight disease and suffering. We are who we are because of evolution, not through choice or upbringing. Evolution promotes survival of the fittest. War is natural selection. America is the natural order of things. America is king of the jungle and where we impose our will is evolution not tyranny. How has man survived? Not by being docile. I’, surprized we didn’t develop fangs. Dinasaurs with large sharp teeth were meat eaters. We should not be eating meat. We don’t have the teeth for it. AHHH, but our brain has evolved to make for the deficiency, thus the knife.
ddave | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
I’ll tell you, Steve
Evolutionists especially the militant ones have two agendas, one is to make money from the government and the other is to remove Christianity or religion in general from society. If you ever seen PZ Meyers (one of the atheists in Expelled) blog, you know what I mean. He’s has his own atheist activism going on. His main goal is to undermine religion by using to the government so it disappears. Now creation activism isn’t trying to remove the beliefs of atheists from the public domain.
Here is a review from a skeptic of the movie which turned out pretty good…
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2008/04/18/ben_stein_vs_sputtering_atheists
Michael | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
There is another piece of extremely important evidence that people are overlooking and that is the NDE experience, the Near Death Experience. How do the Darwinist people that believe in evolution explain how athiest Doctors are watching Dead people get up in the morgue or off the opperating table 4 or 5 hours after being dead? There are 14 million people that have been dead for hours or even days and in the presence of doctors and have documented cases in hospital records of being dead and simply getting up off the slab at the morgue. Chances are that you know someone that has experienced this. You just cant casually explain away people being dead and getting up. Even if you dont believe what they tell you they saw and heard and did, the fact remains, they were dead for hours or even days and got up long after the doctors stopped working on them and gave up.
I have expereinced this myself and know it to be true. I commited suicide, I met God personally, I wrote a book about it as best I could. I took a pound of Rat poison and God personally put my back here. As far as I am concerned there is no debate, people just dont have all the facts and refuse to see all the evidence. So after all the facts are in and people do realize that God exists then we need to start asking the really hard questions like why would God allow such a twisted and evil world exist where innocence is trampled on a daily basis?
http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=33786
You can find my book at this link, its called Life After Suicide and it details all the things that happened to me…
Life After Suicide | Apr 23, 2008 | Reply
Where has onein6billion been lately. Some people who believe in the cave men, act like them. Most are to arrogant to read the Bible they scoff at. So you are left arguing with the same mindset as a cave man. Throw a cell phone at that cave man. It won’t do any thing for him. He won’t recognize a need. He won’t know how to turn it on or operate it. He must first discover its uses, develope a need, read the directions for operation. Then stand back and watch his eyes open. Like your toyota when it brakes, take it to toyota. No one know as much as they who built it. Read yer Bible. its the handbook if ya want 100k mile guarantee.
Dale | Apr 23, 2008 | Reply
Life after suicide,
thanks for the site, i’m just learning more of the NDE’s these past months and could be one of the greatest argument for the existence of God. Gary Habermas major on this issue as well. You know, i heard arguments from atheist that when someone experience near death the brain releases chemical of some sort to produce these things. I’m sure you know that NDE’rs usually see their body when they experience the phenomena. We couldn’t imagine the physical brain seeing things going around outside the body. So it can only mean a living concious spirit exist apart from the shell.
Dave,
I saw the movie yesterday. It’s quite exciting. I saw the same familiar faces and names of both sides. A lot of reviews understandbly give it a bad rating. It’s good to turn the table once in a while on the brainwashed populace. The movie does potray the arrogance of the evolutionary establishment aginst any dissent in their ranks. The only science i saw these darwinist consistently use is the science of mudslinging. They are good at it. I have no respect for scientists who suppose to know better. The ugly human nature is just rearing its ugly head. One of my favorite part are those scientist/individuals who are unaware that they are parroting Leninist/Marxist of long ago who wants to get rid of religion from the society. They think such naive idea is good for us when in fact such rubbish has been tested before in a disastrous way. It led to the death of millions in every atheistc countries this past century. These darwinian nitwits never learn their lesson
jie4Him | Apr 23, 2008 | Reply
“Where has onein6billion been lately?” I suspect he ran out of things to say. Many of the atheist blogs have slowed down at a considerable rate about commenting on the movie. One of the reasons was to try and sway people before the movie was released. Now they are now basically waiting for it to go away…lol…No doubt onein6billion motivation comes from is those types of blogs.
Michael | Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
“So how could it be possible…”
You have changed the subject again from evolution to abiogenesis.
“check out some creation scientists work in organizations like Answers in Genesis.”
ROTFLOL
“I want him to see both sides of the issue.”
After seeing one side by watching Expelled, go read the other side by looking at Expelled Exposed.
“God’s proof is all I need.”
If you try to teach this in a 9th grade public high school biology class, you could lose a $1 million lawsuit like the Dover school board did.
“it actually adds to the movie’s credibility”
ROTFLOL Those who are “persecuted” think is adds to their credibility when their silliness is exposed. Well, Bozo the Clown really was a clown and Ben Stein is too.
“When are we going to get around to talking about the arguments for ID versus the arguments for evolution?”
Ten or fifteen years ago. Where were you? Behe published in 1996. There are no scientific “arguments” for ID or creationism. There are failed arguments against evolution.
“there is NO such thing as separation of church and state.”
ROTFLOL. You guys are hilarious. It’s clear that you needed Huckleberry to appoint all nine Supreme Court justices. Then he could have imposed a theocracy and your statement would be accurate.
“Here is a review from a skeptic of the movie”
ROTFLOL A skeptic of evolution he is not. A quote from his review: “Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God?” The little fact that this has nothing to do with “evolution” seems to have escaped him. And the obvious reply “So what?” seems to have escaped both of them. Evolution if obvious regardless of how the universe was created. And “intelligent design”, whatever that is, is not science.
“There are 14 million people that have been dead for hours or even days and in the presence of doctors”
Darn. A mere ROTFLOL seems quite inadequate at this point.
“I committed suicide, I met God personally” Oh dear - revealed truth by anecdote.
“Where has onein6billion been lately?”
Wasting my time commenting on other stupid blogs. And going to a public hearing where the ICR was smacked down by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board when they asked permission to have a Master’s educational program in “Science Education”. But the Board agreed “that’s not science” and told them no. ICR said they did not want to train teachers for public high schools - they only want to train teachers for private Christian schools. Well, it seems unfair not to let them claim that a degree in nonsense is appropriate for such a venue. ICR threatened to sue on the basis of “freedom of speech”. They want a new definition of “science” that would include their creation nonsense. Hilarious.
“I suspect he ran out of things to say.”
I never had anything to say except that you guys are hilarious in your ignorance.
“waiting for it to go away”
Any day now. The actually $3 million for the first weekend was 1/4 or so of their hoped-for goal.
onein6billion | Apr 25, 2008 | Reply
Oh there is my young buddy…lol…Private schools have the freedom, they also have the authority to teach whatever they want. Government schools in the US are one of the worst in the world. But why is that so? I disagree with the board in Texas, intelligent design is a conclusion on the finding of what we have learned whether it be the laws of physics, or the objects in the Universe or tiny things such as DNA.
Evolutionists have changed the basic concept of science, it doesn’t approach it’s research objectively, but rather subjectively which is why some call atheistism a religion. Nobody would be considered an atheist if one doesn’t believe in evolution.
Do you know why your spending so much time trying to fight creationism? I think you realize it’s growing in strength and that is what you are afraid of…Requesting a degree for a young Universe type science was unheard of when I went to school. Now I was taught exclusively evolution, and I don’t buy your side of the argument one bit in fact just seeing an evolutionist write in response with no evidence to support what they are saying. I think it’s a little more than Evolution vs Creationism. I think atheist activism has to do with trying to remove religion from the public domain and the creationism debate by trying to control the government schools is only one aspect of it.
Michael | Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
“Do you know why you’re spending so much time trying to fight creationism?”
I’m wealthy beyond my dreams, retired, and I have completed 450+ hours of volunteer work involving preparing free tax returns for about 1000 low income taxpayers. So I can afford a little time trying to combat ignorance. I know that you are hopeless, but you never can tell if someone trying to read this nonsense might not yet be hopelessly lost to science.
“remove religion from the public domain”
If you believe Star Trek, they pretty much succeeded by the 24th century. Considering that “religion” has been around for thousands of years, that’s pretty ambitious. “Wishful thinking” has so much attraction for mere mortals. Time will tell.
“trying to control the government schools”
The evolution of the First Amendment “separation of church and state” is interesting. I’m glad that this evolution allowed a judge to rule that creationism cannot be taught in a public high school science classroom. Now we will see if the creationists will try to use “freedom of speech” to claim that they should be able to call their nonsense “science”. So this is about “control” of a non-government “higher education” school. But they chose to come to Texas from California with the hope that they could get away with this nonsense. Time will tell.
And the California lawsuit that California state universities could not “discriminate” against students coming from Christian high schools has had one ruling in the state’s favor. The Christian schools “taught what they wanted”, but the state system said it was not good enough. But there will be a trial. Time will tell.
And the intern that was fired from Wood’s Hole because he admitted that he did not accept evolution has sued for $500,000. So there will be an interesting trial. Time will tell.
onein6billion | Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
The most scientific evolutionary answer to the questiom “where did life come from” is….. I DONT KNOW!!!
The most scientific evolutionary answer on the question ‘How did Life Originate Is…. thru ALIENS AND CRYSTALS!!!
hahahah!!!
That movie is a bomb
i also feel like awarding Richard Dawkins the most theologically sound person of the decade
jie4Him | Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
John Derbyshire at National Review Online:
Title: A Blood Libel on Our Civilization
This movie “is an appeal to barbarism.”
And you wonder why scientists are angry.
onein6billion | Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
“Evolutionists have changed the basic concept of science”
You are, of course, an idiot.
onein6billion | Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
“It’s good to turn the table once in a while on the brainwashed populace.”
Carry on, oh brainwashed one.
onein6billion | Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
“So it can only mean a living conscious spirit exist apart from the shell.”
You are, of course, an uniformed idiot.
onein6billion | Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
Chuck Colson broke it down tpretty well below.
So, Tim, Dude….., I don’t know where the NY Times got their facts but think they should check their source – imagine that….lol.
“Don’t Believe Everything You Hear
If you have heard of the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opening April 18, chances are you have heard all kinds of distortions and myths about it. So let me set the record straight about some of the most common myths.
Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.
Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interviews.
Myth #2: The film is anti-science.
Wrong again. Many distinguished scientists were interviewed for this film and given the chance to express their views. Just like their Darwinist counterparts, the advocates of intelligent design and their supporters who are interviewed are there to talk about science, not to dismiss it. These are people like Cambridge physicist John Polkinghorne; Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox; journalist Pamela Winnick, who has received hate mail for covering the issue; and biologist Caroline Crocker, who was fired from George Mason University for discussing intelligent design in the classroom. Some of them are religious believers; some are not. But what they share is a commitment to science and the unfettered pursuit of truth. Expelled is not anti-science; it is anti-censorship.
Myth #3: Ben Stein, the actor and writer who hosts the movie, has lost his mind.
Bringing up this very issue in a conference call, Stein quipped that he probably has, “but it was a long time ago . . . probably sometime around 1958.” Well, I have known Stein well for years, and he is as bright as a button and anything but out of his mind. On a serious note, Stein and his film’s producers explained that the mud that people are flinging at him is just one small example of what happens to people who question Darwinian orthodoxy. The original idea for Expelled, said co-producer and software engineer Walt Ruloff, came to him when he was working on a project with a group of biotechnologists and learned “that there was a whole series of questions that could not be asked.”
The prevailing ideology among many scientists—it turned out—he concluded, was keep your mouth shut, take the research money, and publish only the data that fits with “the party line.” The issue that concerns Ruloff and the others behind Expelled is whether the scientific establishment in this country is going to allow genuine “freedom of inquiry,” or simply shut up—and slander—those who do not toe the line.
Given all this, Ben Stein states, “As long as the cause is right, I’m happy to be in an uphill struggle.”
Myth #4: Popular author and atheist Richard Dawkins tells Ben Stein in this film that there could have been a designer of life on earth, but it would have had to have been “a higher intelligence” that had itself evolved “to a very high level . . . and seeded some form of life on this planet.”
Well, actually . . . that one is not a myth. He really did say it—striking admission, though it is.
So, I urge you to go see Expelled when it opens at a theater near you. Believe me, in this case the truth really is stranger—and more compelling—than any fiction the film’s detractors could possibly dream up.”
David M | Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
In the movie it claims that even evolutionary scientists, when amongst themselves, will even to admit to inconsistencies or inaccuracies in evolution, it has no base, it makes no sense, and it is not practical. The same is true with the big bang theory, and explosion has never, can never, and will never create order and organization. Saying the big bang theory created this earth so perfectly and everything just happened to work so perfectly that even if our earth’s axis were to tilt even a single degree we’d burn or freeze to death, is totally crazy. It is just like saying a tornado in a scrap yard will create a jet fighter, the odds are the same. The Bible is so clear and consistent there is no way it could be from anyone other than from God himself, and someday, everyone will know it.
Christisking | Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
I also find it funny, that Richard Dawkins can believe that “alien seeding” is plausible, but not creation. I also enjoyed his stuttering and nervousness at the end of the movie. I don’t suppose it could have been because he has no facts to back up his garbage?
Christisking | Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
onein6billion
Do you believe in the hypothesis of “adaptation”? In others words do you actually believe by random chance, animals for example adapt to an environment?
Michael | Apr 29, 2008 | Reply
Ouch!! i’m an idiot. i struck a nerve. poor you, i see you need to review what i posted days ago. Then enjoy and be my guest . All your response are nonsensical anyway. I can’t go down to your level =)
jie4Him | Apr 29, 2008 | Reply
These psuedo scientist like pz myers and dawkins can’t stop whinning about being misquoted in the film. Well if ben ask them the same question again they would say the same answer as well. I bet they can never get pass thru those nasty ALIENS and Crystal fetishes by any chance
jie4Him | Apr 29, 2008 | Reply
I found this interview in the science blogs…I found it interesting…
* Switek] Finally, as someone who works with the “bones of contention” and the fossil record, what do you think about the current controversy surrounding evolution in the United States? How can we do a better job of communicating science to the public?
[Bakker] We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science. What’s the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?
Militant Creationism?
No way. It’s the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.
These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you’re not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.”
Dr. Robert Bakker considered to be a well-known paleontologist…
Michael | Apr 29, 2008 | Reply
You cant stop wild dogs from barking, mike. The more vocal they are the more easy to see the non-scientific subjective opinions of these evilutionist. They are, after all a bunch of atheistic-religionist with an axe to grind. They can be nasty as they wanna be. The suppose nuetrality of “learned” academia is over. Get used to these wackos. They feel the heat because their twisted woldview is being challenge. Just like the popes and priest of the dark ages they have to wear their garb (science) to look Holy (scientific) and then start throwing dirt. This is what you get from people who believes that E.T. and Rocks produces life = )
jie4Him | Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for the advice. It’s not an “axe to grind” per say even though the appearance of their being rude at times suggests that. But the militant atheists do have an a agenda, and part of that agenda is to remove religion from the public domain. The bullying and taunting in which some do on the issue is a sad commentary on their conduct…It’s not acceptable conduct regardless on who can stop such bad behavior.
It’s like the scientist who produced a math problem which indicated the Earth was at the center of the Universe, for 1,000 years, it was accepted as science. And if you challenged such a belief about the math problem, you were scorned. This so-called discovery didn’t come from Christianity. The Bible certainly doesn’t say the Earth was physically at the center of the Universe.
Michael | May 3, 2008 | Reply
“Do you believe in the hypothesis of “adaptation”?”
Yes - given a proper evolutionary definition. See en dot wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
“In others words do you actually believe by random chance, animals for example adapt to an environment?”
Your sentence seems to be a “strawman” mis-characterization of the actual evolutionary concept. Be sure to add the necessary “natural selection” to your so-called “random chance”. Beware of the false Lamarck theory of adaptation. “Animals” cannot “adapt” unless they can go to the store and buy coats or air-conditioners or food or water. But animal/plant species can adapt over time. Or else they go extinct. So if there are any currently living plants or animals, they have adapted.
onein6billion | May 3, 2008 | Reply
Hey there,
So, you believe in The Oxford Dictionary of Science defines adaptation as “Something you have to get used to in the environment. Any change in the structure or functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to its environment is known as adaptation.”
And the other form of adaption: “Adaptations are traits that have been selected by natural selection. The underlying genetic basis for the adaptive trait did not arise as a consequence of the environment; the genetic variant pre-existed and was subsequently selected because it provided the bearer of that variant some advantage.” wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
Darwin believed that a horse’s neck being stretched would eventually cause it’s off spring to have a longer neck. However, there is no connection between your reproductive cells and your neck cells. In other words, there is no wire there to transmit a message to alter those reproductive cells. Evolutionists are shying away from that concept and now say, it’s by mutation through trial and error of changes in DNA rather than happening as a result of experiencing outside elements or picking without thinking which traits should stay and which traits should go(subsequently selected because it provided the bearer of that variant some advantage….wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation).
If you loose your leg, and your wife looses her leg, and you two have a baby, your baby will still have two legs…The hypothesis of adaptation by experience is dead.
Michael | May 4, 2008 | Reply
“Darwin believed” blah blah blah
What Darwin actually believed 150+ years ago is irrelevant.
“it’s by mutation through trial and error of changes in DNA”
Yes. Evolution is mainly RM+NS.
“The hypothesis of adaptation by experience is dead.”
Agreed. That’s why I said: “Beware of the false Lamarck theory of adaptation.”
onein6billion | May 4, 2008 | Reply
“What Darwin actually believed 150+ years ago is irrelevant.” Not really as the founder of evolution, he is very important to that field.
Random mutations on a regular basis destroy information. This is why the medical field are actually trying to reduce or limit mutation. Science has had a very difficult task and extensive network for detecting information creating mutations. In other words, they have their eyes open all the time looking for such mutations. The ones generally described as “beneficial” do not create information but rather destroyed it.
Let me give an example, chromosomal mutations for resisting antibiotics. The mutations of the bacterium has not advanced in fact it’s just the oppose, it digresses genetically and is defective. The mutant strain is replaced by a better bacteria as son as the medication is removed. In reality adaption must add information not loose it. However, existing information can be fined tuned to a limited degree. Some of this fine tuning involves the cells “rheostats”. Mutations can adjust to activity of a enzyme, either up or down. We can use the rheostats to dim a light for example, but this is not actually creating new data. It’s basically being fine tuned what is already there.
Michael | May 7, 2008 | Reply
“he is very important to that field”
Riiiight. He understood how DNA could mutate to allow natural selection to work. No, but he just knew that there had to be such a mechanism. So what? There has been 150 years of progress since then you know.
“Random mutations on a regular basis destroy information.”
Most mutations are “neutral”. Some might increase “fitness”, some might decrease “fitness”. Only creationist stooges use the word “information”.
“The ones generally described as “beneficial” do not create information but rather destroyed it.”
“It’s basically being fine tuned what is already there.”
Yes, you are an idiot.
onein6billion | May 12, 2008 | Reply
Real idiots are the ones who can’t see intelligence behind specified complexity. I can see ur wordings..”There had to be such” ,”Some might increase blah blah”. Evolutionary faith based mantras who duped kids to believing it’s a fact. Waked up dumbo
collar | May 22, 2008 | Reply
“specified complexity”
As if there actually was a definition for that. LOL
“who duped kids”
Like religious indoctrination at the age of six?
“it’s a fact”
It is, of course, a “scientific fact” like gravity, electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics.
onein6billion | May 28, 2008 | Reply
HA! convince urself to death that it’s a fact. YES U BET, like an indoctrination but actually more like a religious wack jobs. Evolution leaps and wallops like a blind faith. You only need to admit that it is. Rich in guesses without a sliver of empirical support. Gee bro, life for you is really a product of dumb luck not intelligence right? as if that make sense. Lack of common sense is definitely ur trademark
LOL
No wonder evolutionist like Gould and Patterson wont go that far and many scientists (not creationist) has reserve the best criticism against the THEORY. Oh my!
collar | May 28, 2008 | Reply
“Lack of common sense is definitely ur trademark”
Well, 99.9% of all scientists involved with biological research have confidence that the theory of evolution is the right explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. So I seem to have a lot of authoritative company.
Expelled, the silly movie without any real intelligence in its making has come and gone and the only trace its left so far is the creationist state of Louisiana and its creationist governor have passed a silly “you can teach the controversy” bill. As if the high school teachers actually tried to teach evolution to their student in the first place.
And Ben Stein was informed that he was a victim of an improper partial quote of Darwin and he was surprised that the complete quote had a meaning opposite to the partial quote that he used in his silly movie.
onein6billion | Jul 1, 2008 | Reply
99.9 scientists believed in global cooling, and now you see where that went…lol….”“What Darwin actually believed 150+ years ago is irrelevant.” Steve Glould is progressing that way too…As new discoveries are being found…
Glould once said in regards to his metaphor of “replaying life’s tape” “that none would ever occur a second time.” He stated there are so many improbable pathways which makes it impossible he claims. But research from the National Institutes of Health found DNA replication machinery that were identical from archea and eukaryotes which did not share a common evolutionary origin according to evolutionary scientists…
This my friend totally refutes the Gloud hypothesis of “can’t happen a second time”…It’s logical to assess that intelligent design is involved with the origin not an unthinking process, for a Creator who would be able to make the same designs leaving a mark on his handy work. A living cell has machinery that resembles not just complexities, but a man-made machinery only it’s more advanced. Think about it, the bacterial flagellum has a bushing, it also a universal joint, propeller, drive shaft, stator, and rotor. The resemblance to a human motor, is a mark of an intelligent designer (God) not an unthinking process by chance.
One evolutionist stated to me, it’s normal for evolution theories to be wrong because “we don’t know a lot of things yet”….I say the more discoveries are made, the worst off evolution is and the stronger case for Creationism…
Michael | Jul 3, 2008 | Reply