Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

MUST SEE MOVIE OPENING APRIL 18!!!

wnd.com — Ben Stein is featured in "EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED", which opens in 1000 theaters nation wide on April 18. See the documentary film that "THEY" do NOT want you to see.

Bury

moviefiend 233 days ago

51 diggs
digg it

34 Comments
Who Dugg It?

Dimensio, on 04/12/2008, -6/+5I find the excitement over a movie whose creators have used demonstrably dishonest tactics to promote an intellectually bankrupt idea puzzling.
- neverstopasking, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3Dimensio...
  
  You say that the movie's creators are "demonstrably dishonest"...Science would require that a "theory" like that be backed up by concrete evidence...So, would you be so kind as to "demonstrate" for us all the dishonesty to which you refer?
karenrob, on 04/12/2008, -3/+6It's about time that the truth about how people are being silenced for bringing up questions about the theory of evolution. There is much evidence against this theory. One of my favorite websites, which addresses these evidences, is http://christiananswers.net
- Dimensio, on 04/13/2008, -2/+5"It's about time that the truth about how people are being silenced for bringing up questions about the theory of evolution."
  
  Who, exactly, is being silenced, in what way have they been "silenced" and what questions have they asked regarding the theory of evolution?
  
  " There is much evidence against this theory. One of my favorite websites, which addresses these evidences, is http://christiananswers.net"
  
  Please reference a sample of what you believe are some of the strongest "evidences" presented at that website.
vemmamjf, on 04/15/2008, -2/+8Dimensio:
Do you know if the statistical odds of an organism appearing that can replicate DNA, entirely by chance? I would love to see the statistical probabilities of anything dealing with macro-evolution (evolution of species) stated.
- endlessnameless, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1What are your variables, Vem? Considering that we don't know what the conditions on earth were approximately 2 billion years ago, there would most likely have to be quite a few assumptions on your part. What are your assumptions? Please enlighten me.
  - whatabouthisone, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0endless: considering that we don't know what the conditions on earth were approximately 2 billion years ago (or if there even was an earth 2 billion years ago), you most likely have quite a few assumptions on your part, also. Why don't you enlighten us as to what those assumptions are, then we can compare and see whose are more likely.
    - endlessnameless, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Well, there are no assumptions as far as the existence of the earth approximately 2 billion years ago. It's actually over 4 billion years old. This is confirmed through various methods, including radiometric dating of Precambrian rocks on earth, the moon, and meteorites, as well as helioseismic studies of the sun (which confirms the age of the entire solar system and is consistent with radiometric data). I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here. I asked Vem what her variables and assumptions were with regards to her statistical calculations predicting the odds of an organism appearing. I didn't do any statistical calculations, and I wasn't making any assumptions, only asking Vem to explain the basis of her oddsmaking. If you can explain the calculations, then please do. If you don't know what we're talking about here, then I don't know why you'd want to interject.
endlessnameless, on 04/16/2008, -3/+0This makes perfect sense. The arguments against evolution include Hitler's warped views of "social Darwinism", which was also quite popular in the US at the time. Hmm...scientific debates usually center around the "science" on a particular issue, not the misunderstandings of people who aren't actually scientists (such as Hitler). I'm a geologist, so I'll leave the evolution debate to the biologists. I've seen many creationists make complete fools of themselves trying to reconcile their 7-day creation beliefs with the geologic record, so I have an idea of what this movie holds in store. I'd actually like to see if they take the ID discussion to its next logical step, which is some speculation on the "designer". Such as, why did this being "design" killers like cancer, and other wonderful things? Why did they do such a lousy job "designing" Ray Charles' eyes?...or my grandma's cardiovascular system? That would at least make it entertaining. I feel sorry for people without scientific training who get misled by the junk put out by the ID movement. The talk about "statistical odds of an organism appearing..." is rubbish. If you assume that all life on earth just "appeared", then the odds are 1 in 1. If you assume a bunch of other things, you can make the odds as long or as short as you want. These calculations are meaningless. Their logic is circular and poorly reasoned. I know that Ben Stein is not stupid. I also know that he isn't a scientist. I know that some people would think I'm being elitist, but I wouldn't burst into a meeting of neurosurgeons and start telling them how to better do their jobs because of some movie I saw. We spend our lives utilizing the scientific method and reading peer-reviewed literature. I've seen new theories come along that were backed up with scientific data. I've never seen a scientist "expelled" for holding to a particular theory, as long as it was backed up with scientifically-reproducible data and had endured a peer-review. Until there is evidence of a "designer", scientists cannot take this leap. A statistics-based approach to rule out life spontaneously "appearing" is not sufficient grounds to disregard the entire theory of evolution. I've asked many biologists how life on earth began. You know what they all said? "I don't know" was the most common response. That's what we know about how life began. We don't know. If you want to "believe" in a designer, that's great, but, sorry, it's not science. Without evidence of a designer, the default position would be that life spontaneously arose. In time, this may be resolved. I hope I live to see it. Maybe if the "designer" knew what he or she or it was doing, I would. As it stands, the design life of their "creation", me, is only around 100 years, give or take. As a scientist, I've concluded that the designer sucks.
- lemonade, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0I think you're on target, although I'm more optimistic in my "beliefs" in that I think we have not yet discovered all the science that is relevant to the questions we are asking. The riddle of life. So, I wish someone would do a movie on those people that are actually seeking answers, those who seek knowledge of we are and why we are here using the best science we have, and for once give some credit to the fact that most of these people believe in God as well, and understand that we humans can only perceive so much. Knowing God by observing reality is not a contradiction.
  - endlessnameless, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0Thanks for the response, Lemonade. I agree that it's far to premature to throw up our hands and say, "well, this all must have been 'designed'". In my own field of study, geologists didn't even understand the origins of mountains until the 1960's. It was only then that the Theory of Plate Tectonics was developed. It's a good thing that they all didn't throw up their hands in the 1950's and say, "these here hills were obviously designed, I mean, do you realize what the probablilty of a mountain just 'appearing' is?" These probability calculations are complete rubbish. You can calculate the probability of rolling a '7' with two dice. You can calculate the probability of randomly picking winning lottery numbers. Probability calculations of the sort that ID'ers are constantly citing (very few, if any, really understand them, they just cite them blindly) are not useful in any real way.
- neverstopasking, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0Endlessnameless....you say "I feel sorry for people without scientific training who get misled by the junk put out by the ID movement". On behalf of the misled masses: Thank you for your pity! Clearly you are a superior organism that will outlive us all!
  - endlessnameless, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0I don't know why you would think that I'm better than you. I'm a scientist, and this is my element. I'm just talking about things that most people don't understand. It sounds like you didn't understand my post either. Well, you're welcome for the pity. I still feel sorry for you.
    - neverstopasking, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0"I'm a scientist, and this is my element. I'm just talking about things that most people don't understand.".........Are you freaking kidding me? Your are being facetious, right? Endless, I don't think you're better than me...YOU DO!
      Endless, do you ever cook? Has someone ever given you a recipe to try? Did you ever try adding something a little different to an already established recipe and find out that it could be better?
      Just because you're a scientist and not a credentialed chef doesn't mean that you can't challenge what a chef does and try to make it better. Maybe no one ever taught you that. Think about it...it's a rather liberating concept!
      In like manner, the fact that I don't have "Bachelor of Science" or some other similar title behind my name doesn't preclude me from using my brain (God-given or evolved, you decide) to think about possible alternatives to learned concepts.
      And, finally...until you can absolutely prove the origin of life, then you cannot entirely disprove other theories as you are trying so hard to do with ID theory...THAT'S SCIENCE! Afterall, ID is certainly atleast as feasable as believing that life began "on the backs of crystals"...you might want to watch the movie!
    - endlessnameless, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0It's not much of a rebuttal to tell me that I think I'm better than you when I said no such thing. Your chef analogy is a bit flawed. What exactly is an "established" recipe? I think my neurosurgeon analogy is more on target. We're not talking about a recipe that someone threw together in their kitchen. These are peer reviewed theories based on observable natural phenomena. Also, I'm not trying to disprove ID. That was done most effectively in the Pennsylvania school board trial. You obviously didn't read or understand my post. The origin of life is unknown. To speculate that life began on the backs of crystals is about as useful as stating that all life was designed. There is no evidence for either assertion.
- bjhindman, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Endlessnameless...
  
  The point of Ben Stein's movie was that the scientific community has no room for ideas other than Darwinism. Where's the freedom in that? Surely you can't tell me there are no holes in Darwin's theory?
  - endlessnameless, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0The Theory of Evolution has advanced quite a bit since Darwin's Origin of Species was published in the 19th Century. (Sorry, but there's no such thing as Darwinism, any more than the study of physics would be called Newtonism or Einsteinism) There are many things that we don't know about the natural world around us. There are many aspects of evolution that have yet to be discovered. Speculation on whether life on earth was "designed" is a subject for philosophy, not science. If you can't understand that, then I'm not sure what else to tell you. I'm sure that you've looked into ID, maybe you should check out some of the evidence for evolution (and don't tell me, "I learned about evo in high school"). I've looked critically at both sides. I'm not a biologist, so I've not been "indoctrinated" into evolution. I looked at the evidence for both sides and found the ID argument sadly lacking.
    - neverstopasking, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0Once again we see endlessnameless respond just as we would expect atheistic believer of eveolution to repond...with non-answers to real questions.
      
      You see, endless...bjhindman asked you two specific questions and you didn't respond to either one of them. Maybe the problem is that scientists spend so much of their time with their noses buried in books that they have failed to learn the basic social concepts of effective communication....namely listening to a statement or question and responding accordingly. Defenders of "Darwinism" (YES, there is such thing...maybe you should read one of the hundreds of text books or journals that refer to it as such) never actually "hear" what the other side is saying. Sure, their eyes are open and they appear to be coherent, but they never actually address our concerns when we voice them. Endless...you have proven this point with your previous non-response to bjhindman's questions.
      
      Maybe you could make believers out of a few more of us if you actually provided reposnses to our questions and didn't tap-dance around them. Let's give you one more chance:
      
      "...the scientific community has no room for ideas other than Darwinism. Where's the freedom in that?"
      
      "Surely you can't tell me there are no holes in Darwin's theory?"
      
      And here's one of Ben's questions from the movie..."If ID is wrong, what IS the origin of life?"
      
      There you have it, endless...your opportunity to show that you truely are an evolved human being that has learned basic social communication skills such as a two-way conversation...something that the movie, and you, demonstrate doesn't currently exist.
      
      Happy evolving!
    - endlessnameless, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0Once again neverstopasking rudely criticizes my response when she didn't fully understand what I wrote. I stated that there are many things about the natural world that are unknown at this point. Roughly translated for you, that would be, yes there are "holes" in the theory of evolution. Also, since you are an amateur scientist, please direct me to a recently published reputable journal or advanced text that refers to the theory of evolution as Darwinism. Happy hunting!
eroscott, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Jill Stanek wrote: " That Hitler and Nazism drew from Darwinism is irrefutable." Producer Mark Mathis said: "Hitler said genocide of Jews was doing good, cleansing the world of 'useless eaters' and strengthening formation of an 'Aryan' race of super-humans." Evolution is survival of the fittest regardless of how stress is applied--either by nature or by men who are driven by illogical ideas and ideals. Hitler and the Nazis are dead. They didn't survive. The Jews did and are stronger than ever. (Okay, neo-Nazis exist, but they are a weak sub-species not likely to survive in the long run of the evolving human drama.) One last thing: Do you think that Hitler knew that the word "Iran", as in the nation, is a derivation of the word "Aryan"? Not many blonde-haired, blue-eyes Iranians, are there?
isitherapy, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4The idea of "fairness" in a fallen world creates much angst for people and this is understandable. Human nature seems to "weep" for the Ray Charles eyes as if they make Him less of a person. This is the thought of so many of those seemingly captured in the ivory towers of academia. When we come down to earth and listen to the struggles of our fellow men who have been broken and have hereditary faults and limited talents, we might grasp the idea that God has a plan that might be beyond our understanding on purpose.
Why does man have to have all the answers in regard to design right now? I ask for a softening of the hearts of believers and non-believers alike, to listen and love, vs. compare notes and intellectually spar. This is not life's purpose. I grieve for those whose only ambition is to prove the non-existence of a being who only wants one thing: a love relationship with each one of us.
peace to all.
- endlessnameless, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0I never said that Ray Charles eyes made him less of a person. I just said that the "designer" did a lousy job when he made them. I'm sure if you asked Ray when he was alive if he would like to be able to see, he would likely have said, "yes." It wouldn't have made him "better", it's just nice to be able to see.
  - neverstopasking, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0But, endless, you don't need to say that he is less of a person...your belief in Darwinian science dictates that for you. Evolution teaches that there are organisms that are physically and mentally superior to others and that these are the organisms that will ultimately survive the test of time. Under the tenets of evolution Ray Charles is considered to be flawed and weak...yes, "less of a person." Those of us with a broader perception and greater value of human life realize that Ray Charles, while deficient in one area, was immensely talented in others. We also realize that the "Designer," in His infinite wisdom, gave Ray exactly what he needed to be who he needed to be. Yep, that's right...it was part of the design...not accidental...not a mistake! And, yes, that's true for each and every ailment, deformity, and condition that man faces during his life. Why? Why would a loving "Designer" allow us to feel pain, frustration, and disappointment? Because He understands that in order for progress and growth to take place, resistance is required...The body builder must add weights to the barbell if he expects to increase his strength. Does it feel good? No. Muscles tear and have to heal...pain ensues, but the end result is a stronger muscle. Likewise, as we overcome the challenges that we face in life we become wiser, more intelligent. Our "Designer" understands this. I bet Ray Charles did too!
    - endlessnameless, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0Wow, if you could only hear yourself! You accuse me of thinking that Ray Charles is less of a person because he can't see, then you talk about your own superiority due to your belief in a higher power. Hypocrisy in action? Evolution doesn't even address the value of a person's character. That is Social Darwinism. That is a flawed ideology, not a science. Please try to respond to what I actually write and not project your inferiority complex onto me. Ray Charles was a great man. You don't read so well, so let me repeat, being able to see wouldn't have made him "better". You are very rude and not very good at civil discourse. You say rude things about scientists (jealousy?), mischaracterize my comments, create straw men, and proceed to knock them over...all the while patting yourself on the back, no doubt. What research have you done into the Theory of Evolution? Any? Please enlighten me.
Mesaskidz, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0In the beginning Darwinism was an uphill battle and religion was the accepted principle, now it seems the pendulum is swinging back the other way. Maybe this'll lead to a middle ground somewhere. Maybe it'll just be one extreme swinging back to the other.
- endlessnameless, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1There is no such thing as Darwinism. I said this in a post above, but it bears repeating. If you believe that Newton's First Law of Physics explains inertia, then are you a Newtonist? Should we call electricians "Faradayists"? This is getting silly. It's called evolution. It's a complex theory that has been developed and refined for over 100 years. I'm a hydrogeologist. Should I be called a "Darcyist" after the scientist who originally characterized groundwater movement?
  - neverstopasking, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0Endless...this is just childish!
    - endlessnameless, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0What is childish about correcting a common misconception? Do you refer to Newton's laws of physics as Newtonism? Darwin postulated the idea. It has advanced well beyond what he originally hypothesized. It is called evolution. If you want to call it something else, that's fine, but it's not very constructive. I may decide to start calling the moon "Venus". That doesn't really help anyone understand what I'm talking about. Why would you insist on referring to something incorrectly? That seems childish to me.
faithinchrist, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2hello everyone,

I am glad to find everyone doing well. I saw the movie "expelled" today and i found it to be informative. The film was about the suppression of any mention of intelligent design. The fact is we are created beings and there is evidence of God in His creation, such as archealogical findings that coincide with scripture. God's ways often are a mystery and it is at those times we must trust Him and He doesn't make mistakes. We either trust Him and carry on or become angry with Him and turn away from Him. Charles Darwin did have some christrian faith, at least, that died after the death of his daughter Annie. I do believe that Darwins science does have valid points and has something to offer, but his theory is not the absolute authority in truth. My being a christian does not empower me to make anyone believe as I do. I can only share my faith in Jesus Christ and trust the Holy Spirit of God to do the work. I do not want anyone to take my word for it, seek it for yourself. Jesus tells us if we open the door when He knocks that He will come in and sup (dine) with us. If we knock the door will be opened and if we seek, we shall find. There should be no suppressing anyone for anything, everyone should be willing to explore the possibilities at least. My faith in Jesus is not based on idea, whim, or any outside influence. Jesus Christ has revealed Himself to me in such a way that I cannot deny Him. It is not a religion, it is a relationship. I thank Ben Stein for his courage and passion and I share in his burden. Ben Stein, you are in my prayers.
- bloweandabove, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Very well spoken, J. I live in a small town in Alaska and the movie is not here yet. By what I read, it will be well worth viewing. Thanks for your uplifting comments. I stand with you because Jesus has revealed Himself to me also, B.
Christinewjc, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1I am going to see this movie today and will blog about it later. http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-br ...

The controversy over this film began quite a while ago and has now been whirled into a frenzy! Note the date of the posting at the LifeEthics.org blogpost - October of 2007!

There are many "big science" supporters who have posted comments. We see, once again, that many continue to use the typical, rabid, and condescending rhetoric they have become famous for!

Thankfully, there are level headed scientists who do not pander to the leftist elites, their a priori commitment to materialism-only explanations, or their constant criticisms.

I particularly liked the latest one:

"Anonymous said...
I have been a scientist for over 40 years and scientists routinely teach untestable theories in the classroom. For example, string theory is untestable, but it is routinely discussed in scientific circles and in the classroom. The only difference between string theory and intelligent design is that it doesn't involve the possible existence of a creator (i.e., God). Most scientists are happy to teach/discuss fringe, untestable theories as long as God is removed from the equation. As a believer in God, I am not opposed to teaching evolution as long as an honest debate of its many weaknesses and untestable aspects is allowed. The truth is, scientists who question the validity macro-evolution do so at their own peril, because the scientific community is so close-minded. Expelled simply exposes this fact in a humorous way. In my opinion, there is a desperate need for exposing modern scientific education for what it really is: indoctrination and brain-washing of people to disbelieve in the existence God. Three cheers for Ben Stein and his new movie.

By the way, for you hardcore evolutionists, questioning the validity of macro-evolutionary theory does not invalidate or jeopardize the medical advances being achieved by using the finer aspects of evolutionary theory to better understand the living things. Hence, there is absolutely nothing inherently sinister or wrong about questioning the more questionable aspects of evolutionary theory. Such a debate is needed and would be healthy for the scientific community.

4/20/2008 7:26 AM "

Just viewing the trailers about this movie has encouraged me! It's about time a movie like this was made. It exposes exactly what Phillip E. Johnson wrote about in "First Things" -

"People who define science as the search for materialistic explanations will find it useful to assume that such explanations always exist. To suppose that a philosophical preference can validate a cherished theory is to define 'science' as a way of supporting prejudice. Yet that is exactly what the Darwinists seem to be doing when their evidence is evaluated by critics who are willing to question materialism."

Many scientists and philosophers think that a dedication to materialism is the defining characteristic of science. If design in biology is real, then the designer also might be real, and scientific materialists contemplate this possibility (if at all) with outright panic. The concept that the universe is the product of a rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe, including our minds, is ultimately based in the mindless movements of matter.

Thank you Ben Stein!!
- zx10man, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Uh, what she said... so much more eloquently than can I. Thank you Christinewjc!
halonut558, on 04/20/2008, -2/+2Buried for: this documentary not even deserving of mention
iamafatguy, on 04/20/2008, -2/+2This "review" contains about as much accuracy as the movie itself. What a load of bollocks.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

MUST SEE MOVIE OPENING APRIL 18!!!

Login or register to add a comment