<i>Expelled</i>: No Intelligence Evident

Steve Reuland's commentary on the repercussions of ID activity by erstwhile "scientists" reminds me of a student I once had who I busted for cheating. After all of the formal proceedings (which he had demanded) were finished, he "anonymously" sent me a threatening email via a University terminal that the IT people were easily able to track down. When he was called in (again) to Student Judicial Affairs, he whined that I shouldn't have taken it seriously. I responded, "That's what you wanted, wasn't it, to be taken seriously?"

ID proponents want to be taken seriously. When they attack the very basis of the science that they claim to want to be a part of, there will be conclusions made about them. They shouldn't (but apparently do) expect that this won't affect their professional careers. To use a sports metaphor, if I'm a football player who consistently claims that all of my team mates don't know what they're doing (and that I do), I'd better expect them to have a low opinion of me, especially if in the context of the game, it can be demonstrated that I'm wrong and they're right. IDiots apparently think that their activities will be ignored by fellow scientists when their competence is evaluated.

When Expelled is released and actually appears in commercial public theaters—something I doubt will happen (*see below)—Panda's Thumb regulars should be prepared to offer their services as reviewers. Or at minimum be prepared to bombard local papers with letters to the editor about the movie's pretensions, false premises, and thin gruel as a serious flick. The movie and its makers need to be "outed" in the general press, not just on Panda's Thumb and TalkOrigins.

*I no expert on film distribution but I seriously doubt that Expelled will be shown on many commercial screens. It's not the Passion of Christ with blood, thunder, violence and Christ. It's only got Ben Stein (and PZ and Eugenie) and he'll not fill many seats at our local multiplexes. Most of the distribution will be to churches and other places where it will be shown to the faithful with each church paying a non-profit rental for the night. As much as it appears to be commercial, this is not a commercial venture in my view, but one undertaken for religious zeal, the very thing with which ID says it has nothing to do! I seriously doubt its backers expect to get their money back.

People on Ben Stein's page at IMDb are already posting about what a work of genius it is.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0825401/board (I believe registration is required to view message board.)

The movie itself apparently isn't significant enough to merit an entry.

Well done

Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe? EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

Move along now. Nothing to see here. No scientist, teacher or anyone else has been harrassed by the Darwinian priesthood into submission, by voicing views that contradict with unguided evolutionism.

Man, there is a "Darwinian priesthood"! Where can I join? I bet that celibacy isn't one of the requirements.

As for "voicing views that contradict unguided evolution" that's just fine. Trying to force the government into financing the teaching of views contrary to the evidence is where the "Darwinian priesthood" draws the liine.

Move along now. Nothing to see here. No teacher, school board or anyone else has been harrassed by the creationist priesthood into submission, by voicing views that contradict with biblical creationism.

Oh, wait....

Man, there is a “Darwinian priesthood”! Where can I join? I bet that celibacy isn’t one of the requirements.

Ron,

Depends on the sex ratio and whether N is near K or not. I guess we better take a vote at the next meeting of the priesthood.

Considering the large number of children Mrs. Darwin gave birth to, Darwinian celibacy would be a shocking scandal.

Man, there is a “Darwinian priesthood”! Where can I join? I bet that celibacy isn’t one of the requirements.

Re "Remember, celibacy is not hereditary… ;-)"

Are you sure about that?

Seems to me that if somebody doesn't have any children, their descendants won't have any, either. :)

Tourettist, I checked the message at IMDb. Most of the postings are by one person. Does not seem to be much of an outcry one way or the other. But it is still early here. I guess I fear a 'Passion Of The Christ' type of marketing.

The film could always surprise us of course by avoiding the insane rhetoric and untruthful claims found in its own promotional materials, but that seems unlikely to me.

Steve Reuland’s commentary on the repercussions of ID activity by erstwhile “scientists”...

— GvlGeologist, FCD

...making them think that it was an entirely different film with a different name and a different premise.

— Steve Reuland

In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.

— Ben Stein

Posted by Mickey Bitsko on August 27, 2007 1:50 PM (e)

GvlGeologist, FCD wrote: Steve Reuland’s commentary on the repercussions of ID activity by erstwhile “scientists”…

Please look up “erstwhile” and find out what it means.

Seems to me that if somebody doesn’t have any children, their descendants won’t have any, either. :)

Now, now, nobody made you think anything. In a world with Michael More and Sacha Baron Cohen, shouldn’t scientists and defenders of science take more responsibility for their actions? Or is this all part of a counter publicity stunt–feigning not reading or understanding the “fine print”?

— QuestionAndBeSkeptical

My release says they can use "…footage and materials in and in connection with the development, production, distribution and/or exploitation of the feature length documentary tentatively entitled Crossroads…and/or any other production…."

This not having been done, it’s quite clear that they were engaged in an act of deception.

QABS: Now, now, nobody made you think anything. In a world with Michael More and Sacha Baron Cohen, shouldn’t scientists and defenders of science take more responsibility for their actions?

Being optimistic here, but it’s possible that the film itself is uncorrelated to the pre-release material.

Now, now, nobody made you think anything. In a world with Michael More and Sacha Baron Cohen, shouldn’t scientists and defenders of science take more responsibility for their actions?

"creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality."

Raven, i think that's the most beautiful thing I've ever read.

fnxtr on August 27, 2007 9:00 PM (e) “creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.” Raven, i think that’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever read.

"Science is the search for truth whereas creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality."

raven, I was going to steal this from you but suddenly I learn that I must steal it from someone else. OK, I'll do that instead.

It is a very visual, even tactile, analogy. Shan't be forgotten. Thank you.

Optimism is not the proper word for irrationally anti-inferential speculation. To reiterate a point I’ve made before, when it comes to empirical matters there is nothing so stupid as “it’s possible” – the antithesis of science.

And to further make the point, consider the probability “that the film itself is uncorrelated to the pre-release material” given [link]

Does there exist an unbiased source at all, let alone one with info about the film?

Henry

Does there exist an unbiased source at all, let alone one with info about the film?

Just to let you guys know...

this movie is going to shock American science culture as we know it.

Have you guys seen how publicized this thing is getting?

And yes, it will go to the theaters. And yes, people are going to question evolutionism. Don't deny it--a change is coming.

Darwinists need a break...

Well, Big Izz... scientific culture is no longer surprised by myth-wielding creationists, so being "shocked" isn't at all likely. The marketing you mention is mainly on Christian web sites (I've seen em!) and the movie site itself. The theaters that will show it will not be mainstream -- more probably, they'll be indie theaters or the film will be shown in churches to people already shrouded by belief in the supernatural. Those are the people to whom you refer that question evolution. They are ready to question anything non-biblical. I agree with you about change coming, but it's not going to be the kind you are hoping for.

For starters, after reading the press releases, the filmmakers did NOT lie about the topic of the film, and DID change the name of the film, apparently for marketing purposes (Crossroads is a lame name, I could have told them that.)

If you know anything about filmmaking (or care) you know that movie titles change all the time during production. So man up and don't act as if the name-changing is some great evil thing. This is why the fine print made it clear that the title- and even the purpose of the footage- could change.

Secondly, my personal philosophy of life and the possibility of the existence of my soul (and its destination) are important questions. Given the repercussions of accepting macroevolution as fact, I and every other logical person should require the burden of proof to be on the macroevolutionists before adopting nihilism. Assuming there is a God, the questions of HOW creation works has been answered very well by the scientific community, founded largely by Christians and reflecting Christian ideas in its very methodology to this day.

I simply don't find the conclusions of neo-Darwinists convincing. I can't do so and be intellectually honest. And neither can a lot of genuine scientists. That doesn't prove any religion right, but it validates religious inquiry, which is not a scientific kind of inquiry but does involve logic and overlaps with some questions of science.

A scientist doesn't need to support ID theory to dissent against Darwinism. Punctuated Equilibrium theory, for example, shreds classical Darwinism's evolution mechanism and turns evolution completely on its head. But humanists aren't concerned with this, because that alone doesn't bring comfort or validity to believers (though it should if understood.) If Christians understood the religious implications of the Big Bang Theory, they'd be happy about it, too.

I think the honest thing to say is that there are fatal "operating system" flaws in Darwinism, if you want to look at it as a way to explain the origins of species and not just adjustments to them. Yet evolution remains the best purely natural explanation for the universe as we know it, which is why it may never be wholly abandoned. I don't think it should entirely be abandoned, even if at present it's less plausible. Supernatural creation (from higher dimensions) cannot be studied at all- only the results of it. And I don't think that science should ever put a limit on even what they at least BELIEVE that they MIGHT be able to study, lest the quest for knowledge cease.

Still, if the atheist evolutionists were honest, their presentation of evolution would be less triumphant. They would say something like, "This is the best explanation we have that doesn't drag God into the picture. And we can't study or confirm God."

Hmm, Scott Russell, when you mention people "shrouded by belief in the supernatural..." do you refer to string theorists, or just Christians?

Re comment #137728, -

I lost count of the number of erroneous assertions in that spiel. Some of the sentences may have had more than one.

Henry

Really? You know, after going over a lot of message boards online featuring these kinds of debates (with a lot of the same people posting), do you notice that they're almost unreadable because everyone feels the need to bash everyone else like a High School battle rap contest?

You get a lot of comments like, "I lost count of the number of errroneous asertions in that spiel." Which is a more verbose way of saying, "I disagree strongly. I don't have the time or ability to explain why right now." Why not just say the latter? It's more respectable, and fosters intelligent conversation instead of name-calling, which doesn't lead anywhere.

Given the repercussions of accepting macroevolution as fact, I and every other logical person should require the burden of proof to be on the macroevolutionists before adopting nihilism.

Isaac,

Re "Why not just say the latter? It’s more respectable, and fosters intelligent conversation instead of name-calling, which doesn’t lead anywhere. "
Agreed. I'm not a biologist, but if you do want me to go into some detail about the parts I do understand, okay.

Re "Given the repercussions of accepting macroevolution as fact,"
Repercussions aren't relevant as to whether a hypothesis is correct or not.

Re "I and every other logical person should require the burden of proof to be on the macro-evolutionists"
Biologists have been using the theory for over a century; if it were wrong then every time they use it in their work there would be a strong likelihood of getting results inconsistent with the theory. That hasn't happened. Ergo, it is already as proven as any generalization from evidence can be, same as any other currently accepted scientific theory.

Re "before adopting nihilism"
Evolution is the theory that later organisms are descendants of earlier organisms, and how that happens. It has nothing to do with nihilism; claiming it does is a form of name-calling, which you just complained about in the other direction.

Re "Assuming there is a God,"
That isn't relevant to whether a given hypothesis is correct.

Re "the questions of HOW creation works has been answered very well by the scientific community,"
I'm not sure what that means. Science has explained the relationships among species; if you're not arguing against species being related to each other then I'm unsure what you're objecting to.

Re "founded largely by Christians and reflecting Christian ideas in its very methodology to this day."
That isn't relevant to the correctness of any hypothesis. Though I'm unsure if you were referring here to the conclusions of science or to something else.

Re "I simply don’t find the conclusions of neo-Darwinists convincing."
I'm unsure what that means - which conclusions? That later species are modified copies of earlier species? That modifications over short time frames are small? That small changes can accumulate over large numbers of generations? That differences in DNA between parent(s) and offspring are what produce and maintain the variety within a species? That decline of varieties within a species is one cause of that species changing over time? That natural selection and genetic drift are major factors in the process?

Re "I can’t do so and be intellectually honest."
Er, if one disregards a century of work by tens of thousands of experts in their field, and doing so without evidence against their conclusions, how is that "intellectually honest"?

Re "That doesn’t prove any religion right, but it validates religious inquiry,"
How? By making one feel better about what he already believes? How one feels about a conclusion is not an argument either for or against a hypothesis.

Re "A scientist doesn’t need to support ID theory to dissent against Darwinism."
The term "Darwinism" is too slippery; it's most common meaning is whatever aspect of evolution theory is unacceptable to the one calling it that. Besides which, the vast majority of scientists in biology related fields accept the core conclusions of the current theory. Heck, if they didn't, it wouldn't be the current theory. (Also if new evidence changes things it could potentially cease to be in the future, though for now that appears rather unlikely.)

Re "Punctuated Equilibrium theory, for example, shreds classical Darwinism’s evolution mechanism and turns evolution completely on its head."
No, it didn't. As I understand it, prior to P.E. most scientists thought change was spread out more or less over the existence of the species. P.E. merely asserts that change occurs in spurts, sometimes in small side populations rather than the whole species. Successful species are apt to maintain pretty much the same anatomy and chemistry for most of their duration. (Btw, this agrees with what Darwin said in one chapter of his book; it was later scientists that disregarded that chapter until P.E. came along later and reestablished it.)

Re "But humanists aren’t concerned with this, because that alone doesn’t bring comfort or validity to believers"
That isn't relevant to correctness of a theory.

Re "If Christians understood the religious implications of the Big Bang Theory, they’d be happy about it, too."
That's not relevant to the science. Plus, that depends on which Christians; as I understand it the YEC variety dislikes the Big Bang theory as well, since both contradicts the time frame that is part of their belief system.

Re "I think the honest thing to say is that there are fatal “operating system” flaws in Darwinism,"
If that were so, then why don't those familiar with these alleged flaws collect evidence for them and explain them to the tens of thousands of biologists who haven't noticed them, even while using the theory on a daily basis in their research?

Re "if you want to look at it as a way to explain the origins of species and not just adjustments to them."
The theory of evolution is both of those.

Re "Yet evolution remains the best purely natural explanation for the universe as we know it,"
What? Evolution has nothing to do with explaining the universe (or even the planet we're on); it's cosmology that addresses the history of the universe (or more specifically, the space-time that we live in).

Re "even if at present it’s less plausible."
Less plausible? What's not plausible about organisms coming from ancestors, or having some differences from their ancestors? The alternative to that is organisms that come without ancestors, and if anything is implausible that is.

Re "Supernatural creation (from higher dimensions) cannot be studied at all- only the results of it."
Agreed to the first part of that, since "supernatural creation" is too vague to be useful. Plus, the simplest meaning of "creation" is just "cause to come into being", which doesn't rule out anything in evolution theory anyway. It's only anti-evolutionists that caused the term "creation" to also mean "but not by means of evolution". IMO, that's a conflation of two concepts that should never have been so conflated.

Re "And I don’t think that science should ever put a limit on even what they at least BELIEVE that they MIGHT be able to study,"
Agree. Do you think somebody has set artificial limits of some sort? Scientists study evidence and conclusions based on that evidence; so far nobody's produced a set of evidence that shows a pattern that's easier to explain using "life was deliberately engineered that way" (I.D.), rather than "later life descended with change from earlier life" (evolution). If and when somebody comes up with evidence that does that, scientists will study it.

Re "Still, if the atheist evolutionists were honest,"
Some acceptors of evolution are atheist. Others belong to various religions. If antievolutionists were honest, they would not conflate acceptance of evolution with atheism.

Re "their presentation of evolution would be less triumphant."
Triumphant? Well, I guess people are glad when they understand things that are otherwise unexplained, and without the theory of evolution the relationships among species would not be explained. Or if you're saying that people are happy about the particular conclusions of this theory, I don't see any reason to assume that scientists like the conclusions personally. (There are some conclusions in the theory of evolution that I don't like as such, but that's not relevant to their accuracy.)

Re "They would say something like, “This is the best explanation we have that doesn’t drag God into the picture. And we can’t study or confirm God.” "
It should not be necessary to qualify "best explanation" with a reference to God, either for or against. The current theory is the best (actually pretty much the only, at this point) explanation for several patterns observable among the life forms on this planet, including nested hierarchy, good agreement of hierarchies derived from DNA, anatomy, and fossils, similarities of later species to earlier, geographical grouping of related species. (A biologist could no doubt make a much longer list than I can.) (Also, as a side note, I'm not too sure how somebody could "drag" God if s/he didn't want to go.)

Henry

You do realize that by taking such an antagonistic approach and treating those who do not believe as you do with such hostility, that you are in effect proving their point, right?

It's not very scientific, to reject other theories out of hand. It's almost a complete roll reversal, now the Inquisition has become the "Scientific" community.

Interesting.

You seem to presuppose that said hostility was unprovoked, and that the "Inquisition" is seeking to be the thought police, hauling people out of their church pews and forcing them on pain of torture to acknowledge Science as the One True Faith. You assume that the "other theories" are being "rejected out of hand" rather than entertaining the possibility that what is being rejected are ideas that had held sway during the real Inquisition, and that these ideas are being rejected today rather than having been found wanting 150 years ago. It was the very failing of those ideas then that led to Darwin's discoveries. And those very same rejected ideas have survived to this day outside of science; those who hold to those notions are jealous of the success of science and continually seek to subvert science and usurp its place, hence the hostile backlash.

JAT: You do realize that by taking such an antagonistic approach and treating those who do not believe as you do with such hostility, that you are in effect proving their point, right?

JUST A THOUGHT: You do realize that by taking such an antagonistic approach and treating those who do not believe as you do with such hostility, that you are in effect proving their point, right? It's not very scientific, to reject other theories out of hand. It's almost a complete roll reversal, now the Inquisition has become the "Scientific" community. Interesting.

You do realize that by taking such an antagonistic approach and treating those who do not believe as you do with such hostility, that you are in effect proving their point, right?

Henry, Stanton? Have you been to PZ's blolg within the past hour or so?
If not - you need to! LOL!!

I have been to Professor Myers' blog...

And I can't find the words with which to properly describe how I feel...

On the one hand, I'm utterly shocked shocked that the producers of Expelled would stoop to barring Prof Myers from the screening despite that it makes them even bigger hypocrites.

On the other hand, I feel somehow underwhelmed and apathetic over the producers' idiocy and shockingly heavyhanded censure, being unsure whether this is me being apathetic over their being lethally stupid, or whether I'm so shocked so as to become numb.

Like what's already mentioned in Prof. Myers' blog, Expelled has probably already reached the "Battlefield: Earth" level of suckastrophe.

I had no idea that a blog post could have comedic timing, but that one sure does. :-) Some of the comments are "priceless" too!!
(must sleep now. Night, night)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

Hmm!

Here it is on imdb.

If you know anything about the T4 program, then you know that Weikart and Stein are correct. Darwin is covered with innocent blood.

Darwin is covered with innocent blood.

you mean you try to paint Darwin with innocent blood, that would look far better on the cheap tuxedo's you idiots wear.

"Racial hygiene" is a horrifying extension of racism, and the pseudoscience-cum-political idea, "Social Darwinism," not from the Theory of Evolution. Ben Stein is less reliable than a kleptomaniacal used-car salesman.

Most Nazis who knew of the Theory of Evolution did not care for it, given as how it specifically implies that Ubermensch were related to the horrid Untermensch.

That, and why, if the Nazis were such staunch supporters of "Darwinism," why did they drive out many "Darwinists" from their posts, such as the Jewish paleontologist and professor, Rudolf Kaufman? Why isn't Herr Kaufman mentioned in "Expelled"?

Danny: If you know anything about the T4 program, then you know that Weikart and Stein are correct. Darwin is covered with innocent blood.

The references to Expelled in this post should be linked to the ExpelledExposed site. See e.g. comment #157 & #158 at Pharyngula.

After reading all the posts here and on a number of other blogs regarding this film I just have to ask the question, what is everyone so mad about and afraid of? I find the comments posted by the Darwinists and evolutionists full of fear and anger, why?

I happen to be one of the dopes who believe that God created the world and all who inhabit it. Why does that make you all so angry? I am fine with other people believing in evolution - it is your right. And, maybe you are right - but so what? Don't I have the right to be wrong?

What the movie is about is the silencing of only one side (which is evident even on this blog) which is the creationists.

Why is it that in school I hear about evolution all day long - which is fine, I actually find it interesting - but I am NOT ALLOWED to even MENTION God or creationism? Even if it is non-scientific and just my personal belief, so what? So are fables, mythology and Native American spirit studies, etc, etc. But that's allowed.

I guess what I really want to know (this is not ritorical I really am asking) why the fear and hatred? Really if I am that dumb and gullible in my beliefs why does it cause such an uproar?

Ben Stein is just trying to point out that whenever someone questions (or denies) evolution they are put down, called names made to shut up. I really don't get why. If evolution is so proven why do you care what anyone else believes and why do you care how many "dopes" see this film.
Why would you want to get people not to go? Wouldn't any of you like to see the film to better understand the stupid people among you?

I personally love to learn about Darwinism, witchcraft, Native Americans, Athiests (my best friend is an Athiest and comes to church with me, not because she believes any of it, but because she cares to know about me), and all religions and beliefs so I can better understand my co-humans. I don't want everyone to believe exactly what I believe - God would that world be boring!

Laurel: After reading all the posts here and on a number of other blogs regarding this film I just have to ask the question, what is everyone so mad about and afraid of? I find the comments posted by the Darwinists and evolutionists full of fear and anger, why?

I happen to be one of the dopes who believe that God created the world and all who inhabit it.

I am fine with other people believing in evolution - it is your right.

What the movie is about is the silencing of only one side (which is evident even on this blog) which is the creationists.

2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while

Why is it that in school I hear about evolution all day long - which is fine, I actually find it interesting - but I am NOT ALLOWED to even MENTION God or creationism? Even if it is non-scientific and just my personal belief, so what? So are fables, mythology and Native American spirit studies, etc, etc. But that's allowed.

Ben Stein is just trying to point out that whenever someone questions (or denies) evolution they are put down, called names made to shut up. I really don't get why. If evolution is so proven why do you care what anyone else believes and why do you care how many "dopes" see this film.

I don't want everyone to believe exactly what I believe - God would that world be boring!

Why do anti-evolutionists accuse people of hate and/or anger when those people point out the blatant lying coming from the leaders of the anti-evolution movement?

There is no silencing of the anti-science crowd; they're still spreading their propaganda all over the place; if they were silenced this argument would not be occurring.

Strangely, some people just want to have thier kids learn science when they go to science classes

Btw, evolution does not assert that God isn't responsible for everything; all evolution theory does is explain why species look related to each other (by inferring that the apparent relationships really are due to inheritance from ancestors), and why those relationships form a nested hierarchy.

In contrast to that, the word "creation", if taken literally, just means "caused to exist". That literal meaning is not contradicted by the conclusion that plants and animals have a common ancestor.

Henry

So Richard, what I believe is decietful? When did it become decietful to say "this is just my opinion?" And quite frankly, if a few creationist can turn the US into a third-rate country in biology because a few people don't believe that they came from an ape we are in bigger trouble than I thought.

Also why is it ok for Al Gore (who is also not a scientist) to make a movie (not entirely based on science either, and many of his findings were actually mistakes and not true). And have that movie shown to all school children but not the other side? There is a movie (by scientists) that dispute (scientifically) a lot of what Gore says - but again only one side (the politically correct side) is shown.

The only reason I bring that up is because it is another example of only one side getting time.

Are you saying that watching a documentary of one guy's (Ben Stien) opinion is going to "indoctrinate" everyone who sees it?

I saw Al Gore's movie 4 times (not by choice) and my daughter saw it twice (she is ten) and we were certanly not "indoctrinated" by it. I weighed what he said and see his point but don't believe (again my perogative in America) most of what he says is the cause of the earth's climate
change.

I think you guys are making a big deal out of nothing (no offence intended). It's just one guy interviewing a few people wqith an opinion counter to yours. Even if they showed it in all the schools as a counter "theory" of one person, so what?? All the intellegent, scientific people who understand things so much better than us dopes can at least see where we are coming from.

I say again; if this one film, by an actor no less, could indoctrinate and cause all the people who believe in evolution to suddenly believe in creationism WOW, then Ben Stien should get a Pulitzer Prize!

And to Henry, if I say what I believe it is propoganda?? I am spewing propoganda because I believe that I am not evolved from an ape??? That's just mean to say and sure doesn't help anyone. And maybe (just maybe) what I believe is true? Really you can't prove me wrong anymore than science has proven evolution 100% right.

And to Henry, if I say what I believe it is propoganda?? I am spewing propoganda because I believe that I am not evolved from an ape??? That’s just mean to say and sure doesn’t help anyone. And maybe (just maybe) what I believe is true? Really you can’t prove me wrong anymore than science has proven evolution 100% right.

Your comment that the movie "did far more than merely state their disagreement with current science" proves to me that you don't even know what the movie is about!

First of all, Ben Stien NEVER ONCE stated in the movie that the current science is wrong - he does not even debate that! The movie is strictly about those people who have supposedly been either ridiculed. pushed out or otherwise been stripped of their position because they questioned evolution in favor of creation.

It is quite obvcious to me that I am debating someone who has NOT EVEN SEEN THE FILM YET!!! Sheesh!

How can you make assumptions and state "facts" aboout something you know nothing about (I am speaking only of the Film Expelled here)?

As a matter of fact Ben Stein states not once, but SIX TIMES (that I counted anyway, it may even be more) in the film that evolutionists may be 100% correct!!! Did you not hear that part? His ONLY beef throughout the entire film is that the creationists are not allowed to voice their opinion (or in your words spew their propoganda).

Maybe before you assume (and you know what happens when you assume don't you?) something, you should actually see the film (or read the book or meet the person) before forming an opinion and declare your uninformed opinion as fact. Just a suggestion.

As a matter of fact Ben Stein states not once, but SIX TIMES (that I counted anyway, it may even be more) in the film that evolutionists may be 100% correct!!!

Laurel,

Given the fact that you ARE stating your opinion, I don't see how you can claim that people aren't allowed to do so.

Anyway, when the opinion being stated is contrary to the relevant evidence, then people familiar with the evidence are going to state their opinions, too. That's what those on this blog who have seen it have been doing.

If the comments from those here who have seen it are inaccurate, then you can provide a more accurate description. For instance, were any of the people mentioned in the film actually expelled from a job because of their opinions regarding evolution? (i.e., from a job that they were qualified to hold?)

Henry

Laurel: So Richard, what I believe is decietful? When did it become decietful to say "this is just my opinion?"

Richard, Henry and Bill. How about you guys first SEE the film and then we can all come back and have a friendly debate over how crazy Ben Stein is or isn't, what he is actually trying to state and what you think of the film in it's entirety (total "bull c**p", "some good points but mostly bologna", or wow, "now we are a creationist too!").

I find that we are debating something that has nothing to do with Expelled. The movie IS NOT about whether we are here because of God or Evolution (Ben states clearly that he is not even debating that because he doesn't know himself).

I saw the film again last night and brought my neighbor, who is an Atheist and evolutionist with me. I asked her to come because I really wanted her take on the film. She graciously humored me (I had to purchase the tickets and popcorn!)and in we went. When the film was over I asked her for her honest assessment (she can be brutally honest - we have had more than one "debate" about our differing beliefs -though we love each other dearly).

Her very first comment was "That's not at all what I expected." She had gone on the website before we left and thought the film was going to be an argument about the proof of creation (as do the three of you guys) or a put down of evolutionists (it is not). The second thing she said is that she understands fully where Ben is coming from (although she does not agree with much) and third, she did not feel the film personally attacked her beliefs - just that she felt that he was exaggerating his claims that all creationists are being silenced.

Also, there were 6 interviews with scientists that were supposedly either fired or stripped of their funding or told to keep their ideas to themselves when they questioned some of the science pointing towards the evolutionary theory and pointed towards (in their minds) creation by a creator. I plan on researching these men myself over the next few days.

Linda (my neighbor) said that IF it is TRUE that those men were treated the way they stated in the film (and it seems they were because they also interviewed some former co-scientists who admitted this did occur) that Ben Stein has the right to expose this practice without being silenced or ridiculed. She also stated that she was expecting Ben himself to give his opinion on the subject, but he does not. As a matter of fact Stein never actually gives his opinion on anything! He just interviews people from both sides and let's them tell their story. It's not exactly the "propaganda" film that Richard has made it out to be in his mind!

In addition, to answer you Bill about the Nazism issue you brought up - again - if you see the film Ben DOES NOT say ANYWHERE in the film that HE believes that Hitler was a Darwinist! He states that SOME CHRISTIANS (Ben is a Jew by the way) believe that and then shows why THEY feel that way. Again, your comments do not apply to the film at all.

I think if you do see the film you will all be a little embarrassed by your "assessment' of the film prior to seeing it. You will see that the evolutionists are turning this into something it is not out of ignorance and anger.

After you see the film, your assessment of it won't be a waste of every one's time. And you will actually have a leg to stand on if you hate it and still think it is "evil, deceitful propaganda."

But, I have the feeling that you guys wont see the film. That would take too much effort and thought. You will make some bogus excuse about "not being seen watching a Ben Stein movie" or that you don't want to pay $9.00 to see the film or some other lamo excuse so you can keep bashing something you know nothing about.

I will confess I probably will not see the film, at least not any time soon. I think you are splitting hairs by saying that Ben Stein does not come out and say thus-and-so in the film. I will grant that such a statement, in and of itself, is correct. However, I would refer you to the promotional material for the film, including interviews with Mr. Stein, which may give you a larger frame of reference. Regardless of what words he personally does or does not utter in the film, it seems plain that he has intentionally given the impression that he supports the message of the film in virtually all its particulars. He does not say, in the film, that he believes that Hitler was a Darwinist, but his film presents only one side of that argument when refutation of that misconception (as has been demonstrated on this very blog by, for example, text searching for "Darwin" in "Mein Kampf") is a rather trivial exercise.

I would refer you to "www.expelledexposed.com" as part of your research.

Laurel,

Okay then, I'll leave it to the others around here who have seen it to assess your take on the film's content and accuracy.

Well, that's if many of them notice additional replies on an old thread that hasn't been on the main page for months. Replying on a current thread would be more likely to get a wider range of responses.

Henry

I viewed this movie yesterday and thought it was excellent. The theater was packed with people which I was surprised to see. The audience actually stood up clapped and cheered at the end. I have only been to one other movie where people did that. It's funny how the article above exemplifies exactly what they pointed out in the movie. Suppression of open intelligent dialog through mockery, intimidation, and close mindedness. Thanks for further revealing the quality of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Definitely worth viewing

Nice try Mike, but you're about a week too late. P.Z. Myers (yes, THAT P.Z. Myers) just received this email...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/i_get_email_18.php

I wonder how many sympathetic fundies wanted to go, but with the economy in the toilet and gas at $3.50 a
gallon (thanks to their wunderkind GWB), just couldn't afford a night out at the movies?

Mike Lagosz said: I viewed this movie yesterday and thought it was excellent. The theater was packed with people which I was surprised to see. The audience actually stood up clapped and cheered at the end. I have only been to one other movie where people did that. It's funny how the article above exemplifies exactly what they pointed out in the movie. Suppression of open intelligent dialog through mockery, intimidation, and close mindedness. Thanks for further revealing the quality of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Definitely worth viewing

Mike Lagosz said: It's funny how the article above exemplifies exactly what they pointed out in the movie. Suppression of open intelligent dialog through mockery, intimidation, and close mindedness.

After reading your comments I can see that many of you are all just as narrow minded as the movie portrays. Ben Stein doesn't need to prove this point. Any one who is an educator or student knows that to question macro-evolution in college is a big no-no. Whoever wrote the comment to ban the movie from the theater and to out any press from the media is obviously prejudice. In America no one should be "outed" no matter how much you disagree, after all we allow soft porn to be shown before our children which is far more damaging. Furthermore there is more than enough evidence for intelligent design, and there are many scholars and scientists who have researched and have found evidence. There are plenty of serious scientist who hold to intelligent design. If anyone can read The Privileged Planet and not question their beliefs than we are no different than those who refused to listen to Galileo. Marco-evolution is a hypothesis and so is intelligent design, if you guys are so secure on your own beliefs, (after all, darwinianism is a belief system) then why are you so threatened?
I fear for the day when the education system no longer allows open discussion and political correctness takes over.

Robert Gianserra dithered: After reading your comments I can see that many of you are all just as narrow minded as the movie portrays. Ben Stein doesn't need to prove this point. Any one who is an educator or student knows that to question macro-evolution in college is a big no-no. Whoever wrote the comment to ban the movie from the theater and to out any press from the media is obviously prejudice. In America no one should be "outed" no matter how much you disagree, after all we allow soft porn to be shown before our children which is far more damaging. Furthermore there is more than enough evidence for intelligent design, and there are many scholars and scientists who have researched and have found evidence. There are plenty of serious scientist who hold to intelligent design. If anyone can read The Privileged Planet and not question their beliefs than we are no different than those who refused to listen to Galileo. Marco-evolution is a hypothesis and so is intelligent design, if you guys are so secure on your own beliefs, (after all, darwinianism is a belief system) then why are you so threatened? I fear for the day when the education system no longer allows open discussion and political correctness takes over.

Stanton previously asked: So, what sort of positive contribution to science did Ben Stein say Intelligent Design proponents would make if they were allowed to do whatever it is they do for Intelligent Design unmolested? What evidence did Ben Stein give to show that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were both inspired by Charles Darwin, even though the memoirs, speeches and writings of the former (as well as all of the former's aides, subordinates and servants) suggested that he never so much as touched any of Charles Darwin's writings, and that the latter rejected Evolutionary Theory in favor of the Lamarckian nonsense of his pet scientist, Trofim Lysenko? Did Ben Stein even state what Intelligent Design "theory" was about?

It is funny that you would comment about the movie so vehemently. It supports the claims Ben makes in the movie. In effect you are endorsing the movie by action.

To discredit another belief without evidence solely out of spite because it differs from your own is ... (fill in the blank - stupid, fascist, Nazism, ...). I haven't seen anything but the trailer yet, but if arrogant goons like you don't repress freedom of expression and it comes to a theater near me that would be money well spent to see it. I would spend the money just to spite those who feel their pompous blabbering and 'high school mentality,' self-accolading, pubescent, back-slapping, "hey dude we really came up with some righteous knocks against that guy" sort of attitude. Really this website is reminiscent of the high school locker room. Anyone with an opinion different from the 'norm' is chastised. I mean what does this quote prove;

fnxtr on August 27, 2007 9:00 PM (e)

“creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.”

It proves you know how to come up with colorful metaphors that could equally apply to discredit Darwinism. Quit patting each other on the back for a moment and notice how you are arrogant bastards who do not know how life began and have your own 'theories' (which you can't even agree on the specifics) and let others have their own theories.

I know if you recognize a 'God' you would have to recognize an intelligence superior to your own and that may hurt the pride a bit but ... you don't have to acknowledge it. Just let others come to their own conclusions based on the evidence.

All right, let the mocking, character assassination, and all other pathetic attempts to make dissident views go away begin.

Enjoy,
Troy

Troy Gariepy blithered: It is funny that you would comment about the movie so vehemently. It supports the claims Ben makes in the movie. In effect you are endorsing the movie by action. To discredit another belief without evidence solely out of spite because it differs from your own is ... (fill in the blank - stupid, fascist, Nazism, ...). I haven't seen anything but the trailer yet, but if arrogant goons like you don't repress freedom of expression and it comes to a theater near me that would be money well spent to see it. I would spend the money just to spite those who feel their pompous blabbering and 'high school mentality,' self-accolading, pubescent, back-slapping, "hey dude we really came up with some righteous knocks against that guy" sort of attitude. Really this website is reminiscent of the high school locker room. Anyone with an opinion different from the 'norm' is chastised. I mean what does this quote prove; fnxtr on August 27, 2007 9:00 PM (e) “creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.” It proves you know how to come up with colorful metaphors that could equally apply to discredit Darwinism. Quit patting each other on the back for a moment and notice how you are arrogant bastards who do not know how life began and have your own 'theories' (which you can't even agree on the specifics) and let others have their own theories. I know if you recognize a 'God' you would have to recognize an intelligence superior to your own and that may hurt the pride a bit but ... you don't have to acknowledge it. Just let others come to their own conclusions based on the evidence. All right, let the mocking, character assassination, and all other pathetic attempts to make dissident views go away begin. Enjoy, Troy

Stanton's question that Troy did not bother to answer: So, what sort of positive contribution to science did Ben Stein say Intelligent Design proponents would make if they were allowed to do whatever it is they do for Intelligent Design unmolested? What evidence did Ben Stein give to show that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were both inspired by Charles Darwin, even though the memoirs, speeches and writings of the former (as well as all of the former's aides, subordinates and servants) suggested that he never so much as touched any of Charles Darwin's writings, and that the latter rejected Evolutionary Theory in favor of the Lamarckian nonsense of his pet scientist, Trofim Lysenko? Did Ben Stein even state what Intelligent Design "theory" was about?

Troy Gariepy said: fnxtr said: “creationism is the attempt to cram a square block of bronze age mythology into the round hole of reality.” It proves you know how to come up with colorful metaphors that could equally apply to discredit Darwinism.

I was quoting Raven.

XI: Pay attention.

Um, no Troy, anyone who repeats same discredited, empty arguments from authority, arguments from incredulity, and phony math again and again, after being shown time after time how non-scientific these arguments are, is rightly treated like a fool.

And Ben Stein is, quite simply, a liar.

There are lots of people smarter than me; these are the people I like to learn from. There's no fear of a greater intelligence here.

Maybe there's a god, maybe there isn't, can't be proven either way. Neither scenario should have any effect science, which is based on evidence. Get a grip.