digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at movies.nytimes.com

NYT calls EXPELLED a "sleazy documentary"

movies.nytimes.com — Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed called "One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time" by New York Times movie reviewer JEANNETTE CATSOULIS.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • xaeon, on 04/20/2008, -21/+100If it comes out in the UK, I'm not quite sure whether I want to see to believe it, or just not bother going to save myself the embarrassment of shouting counter-arguments at the screen.
    • punkcat, on 04/20/2008, -16/+153dont pay to see it, you will only encourage the behavior
      • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -3/+57And validate it by giving it attention/money. That's all these controversial film makers hope for; that it creates enough of a stir to get it to the headlines and thus, more curious people in the box office.
        • brycelb, on 04/21/2008, -2/+6Exactly like the Micheal Moore films.
          • pauldy, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2The irony of course is that the NYT times loves Micheal Moores crap.
      • talonstriker, on 04/20/2008, -10/+93yeah, if you're going to see it for the comedy, pirate it.
      • flashback99, on 04/20/2008, -10/+51This movie is basically what happens if you don't study in school, believe in god and hence become so simultaneously retarded and arrogant that you metaphorically vomit over intelligent people with your creationist *****, giving a rat's ass to truth.
        • MikeSD34, on 04/20/2008, -8/+29You can study in school and still believe in god, you just realize that it's faith, and not science. You also end up realizing the bible isn't a book of truths, it's a book of stories. Stories to guide you in your decisions in life, stories with morals, but stories none the less.
          • diggn_it, on 04/20/2008, -7/+10And then one day in world history class you suddenly realize that it makes very little sense to base your life around stories you know are fictional, and so you become an atheist. Or at least that's what happened to me.
          • barfooz, on 04/20/2008, -3/+8@diggn_it: You don't base your life around stories, you base your life around the ethics and morals that they exemplify. Stories, whether fictional or true, can impart useful morals, e.g., "treat others how you would want to be treated", etc.
          • pauldy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Barfooz, in addition at least from the promo material it doesn't seem like the film discusses the teachings of any given religion its purpose according to Ben Stein was to bring to light that intelligent design is still a possibility that many vehemently deny in their own version of a religious dogma based on a godless creation and anchored less in facts and more in their own personal convictions. Truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
          • corfe83, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3"Ben Stein was to bring to light that intelligent design is still a possibility"

            ID does not belong in a scientific discussion because it's neither testable nor falsifiable. Furthermore, it's extremely unlikely, given the lack of evidence. This is likely why ID proponents resort to propaganda movies and speaking to uneducated masses, rather than trying to debate their points in a real avenue of scientific discussion, like in one of the thousands of research journals out there, in any of the major countries of the world.
          • bosssmiley, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Dugg for knowing how to use religion.
        • klselzer, on 04/20/2008, -2/+2If you're suggesting Ben Stein didn't do his studies or is retarded, you obviously weren't a viewer of Comedy Central's 'Win Ben Stein's Money'.
      • mllawso, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3If you must, pay for a different movie, then sneak in to Expelled.
    • Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -13/+105Don't pay, torrent it.
      • rootneg2, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2links?

        i've been waiting for non-fake to show up on piratebay; no luck so far...
      • kinghajj, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2rlslog.net is your friend.
    • amatyarakshasa, on 04/20/2008, -8/+68Don't waste two hours of your life on this crap. Don't even watch it for free.
      • phronko, on 04/20/2008, -2/+2Yeah. It's really not worth it. Even by paying for it with your time and attention, it's more payment than they deserve. You wouldn't bother to see someone blab about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn for 2 hours, and this is no more legitimate, so why bother?
        Ok well maybe you would bother seeing an FSM documentary, but that's different. :)
      • pedo, on 04/20/2008, -0/+10although i see where you're coming from, i believe it's important to know your enemy and so i will probably see it.
        • RobotBuddha, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Same here. It doesn't sound like it brings anything new to the table, but the fact that I have an emotional reaction of "not wanting" to see it makes me think I need to. Creationism itself is a good example of what happens when someone refuses to listen to refutations of what they feel is common sense.
    • whatsrequired, on 04/20/2008, -4/+34No matter what you do, don't give the fools your money. See it to be able to win an argument (living less than two hours from the everloving creation museum, I think I fall into that category) but definitely don't let your cash encourage this junk science.
      • jackalsclaw, on 04/20/2008, -4/+12children should be banned for that place cause it could damage their minds, it it's a science museum it's not protected under freedom of religion. Also i wonder if science can sue it for slander?
        • phronko, on 04/20/2008, -1/+6They shouldn't be banned any more than they should be banned from a real science museum. Just make sure they can obtain all the information relevant for making up their own minds. Then they'll hopefully be able to see through the ***** on their own, making a much more powerful statement than censorship ever could.
    • SquigglyP, on 04/20/2008, -3/+38"Godwin's Law: The Movie"

      It should have been a musical.
      • drgmdp, on 04/20/2008, -1/+6i'd love to play hitler's character, appearing from nowhere with a big smile each time someone says my name
        • tech42er, on 04/20/2008, -3/+3You know who else smiled every time someone said his name?

          /too much fark
    • richardiscool, on 04/20/2008, -4/+4I really doubt it'll be released here.
    • rootneg2, on 04/20/2008, -2/+7Might be fun to sneak in to the movie (ahh, the good old wave-the-used-ticket-stub-for-that-other-movie-you-saw-yesterday "I was just getting drinks" trick...). But yeah, definitely don't pay to see it.
      • jackalsclaw, on 04/20/2008, -2/+12i would be cool to have a group of scientists and comedians make a commentary tract for the movie that points out all the bull *****.
        • RobotBuddha, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2That's a fantastic idea! I'm sure the actual rifftrax people wouldn't be interested, but I wonder if the people at the non-prophets might be. If I recall, they saw it at a theater where the entire audience was getting drunk and yelling out jokes during it.
      • sexypeon, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5Damn, my theater is way more stricter on the rules then that.
        • jackalsclaw, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2most theater employees don't care about ***** unless the boss is watching or could find out later. so long as your not obvious sneaking form one movie to another is easy.
        • constantquest, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2The theater I saw it at had only about 10 people in it and besides myself and my sister, they were total creationist tools.
    • quaxon, on 04/20/2008, -12/+3http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4143588/Expelled-No.In ...
      • Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -0/+9It's a fake.
        • rootneg2, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2damn. I had just gotten like halfway through downloading it.

          *sigh*
    • bonhoeffer, on 04/20/2008, -3/+2"Counter arguments" like "That's f&$#ing stupid!" You're right, that would be embarrassing.
  • iticu, on 04/20/2008, -30/+365Wait, that documentary wasn't a joke?
    Oh god.
    • CDoug03, on 04/20/2008, -37/+10Blasphemy! You are going straight to hell. All of you.
      • Coven, on 04/20/2008, -1/+41you forgot the "/sarcasm"
        • ichbeineinrcg, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3I don't think he needed it. The hellbound:heavenbound ratio at Digg is at least 10:1.
          • Fordi, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Being an atheist married to a nice jewish girl (who has a jewish mother and a baptist father), I'm likely, firmly seated with her on the bullet train to hell.

            That's all right. More interesting people on this train.
      • Wesside, on 04/20/2008, -4/+16Probably, but that's my choice not yours
      • joewo, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Save me a seat CDoug03...you are pretty funny!!! Asbestos jacket anyone??? anyone???? Beuller?
    • pintomp3, on 04/20/2008, -4/+73Oh science.
    • ilikesboobs, on 04/20/2008, -2/+26Oh Oodles O' Noodles
    • gernblansted, on 04/20/2008, -6/+57The sad thing is Ben Stein is smart enough to know better, which means Ben Stein is consciously attempting to manipulate his audience using propaganda techniques used heavily by the very source (Nazis) that he holds up as being a reason to expunge the theory of Evolution from oneself. From basic logical fallacies to making associations between unrelated subjects to using partial quotes to turn the quote on its head (a lie of omission), he's ironically working straight from Goebbel's playbook.

      What does that say about Ben Stein? Does he just like 'HIS' money that much that he'll earn it that way?
      • flashback99, on 04/20/2008, -3/+36Its says Ben Stein is a gigantic *****.
      • senatorpjt, on 04/20/2008, -17/+3I could accept it if I thought Ben Stein was using the ridiculousness of creationism on purpose and actually making a criticism of Michael Moore-style documentaries.
      • BevansDesign, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1I was thinking that too. Ben Stein is far too smart for this sort of thing. So either he's deliberately misleading people (but for what purpose, I wonder) or he has been lobotomized.
        • chaosium, on 04/20/2008, -2/+7Smart and evil are not mutually exclusive.
      • chaosium, on 04/20/2008, -1/+12"Ben Stein is consciously attempting to manipulate his audience using propaganda techniques"

        He was a political speechwriter for Nixon, it's not like this is new for him.
      • tyywebb, on 04/20/2008, -1/+8Ben Stein simply has good memorization skills which make it seem like he has knowledge when in reality he lacks the ability to construct those facts into a coherent world view.
      • jwoelmer2, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2and aren't you creating a fallacy by equating him with the Nazis, since you only say stuff without supporting it with quotes from the actual movie?
        • chaosium, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3If there was a place to grab the movie from without supporting these assholes financially I would be glad to provide direct quotes from my own experience.

          Instead, I will have to rely upon others who have watched the movie.
          • ssn697, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2The movie is so *****, I haven't even found anyone streaming it online. I saw a pre-release screening. Ugh is all I can say. so much bitching...
      • hansk, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1you just invoked 34
    • hassanchop13, on 04/20/2008, -4/+5the goggles, they do nothing!
    • xptoast, on 04/21/2008, -6/+3It is funny that within seconds the mind of anyone that hates creationism automaticaly thinks its a hoax as the scientists trying to out all of the proofs given by the scientists that are finding actual proofs to having an intelligent design. However it should not take a scientist to realize that we cannot be made of just a mistake. To me it is downright insane to think we are made accidentally from some compounds and temperature changes and such. Do you realize how insane that is? If you really believe in the kind of chances you would need then you will be playing the loto more than this lifetime to win.
      • xeomage, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6You know, that's not a bad strawman, but I'm afraid we've heard it before. Got anything new?
        • xptoast, on 04/21/2008, -4/+2It's nice to have instant proof of exactly what I have said. Thanks as well as the other people that have dugg me down so far because you all prove that you do not wish anything to possibly fight against your "proofs". I thought science was supposed to take into account all the factors not just the ones wanted. Don't they call that a theory with a skew?

          Oh well. I won my fight as you cannot let yourself fail so that means I instantly win this battle. Great isn't it.
          • chaosium, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3"I thought science was supposed to take into account all the factors not just the ones wanted."

            No, it takes into account all the valid factors, wanted or not. That's why Creationism is ignored in favor of evolutionary theory, and why creationists can't get any grants. There's no science there.
          • xptoast, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1gah...you are so incredibly ignorant *facepalm*
  • gcman94, on 04/20/2008, -65/+34sleazy, New York Times, Brilliant!
    • rezist, on 04/20/2008, -16/+41Do you read the Times? Have you ever read a copy, or did you simply see a few posts where other diggers (who also haven't read it) criticize a periodical that is highly respected all over the world?
      • floorman56, on 04/20/2008, -66/+8Yes I have ...it is a leftest paper if I ever saw one. .....Of course they trashed the movie
        • pintomp3, on 04/20/2008, -8/+39they sure were leftist when they helped spread lies to promote the iraq war. people like judith miller and bill krystol sure are leftist.
          • Laughsatyou, on 04/20/2008, -5/+3you would be correct, they are leftists and they lie.
        • olbap, on 04/20/2008, -10/+56Anyone who says the NYT is "liberal" is nothing but a tool for divisive right wing journalists. Anyone who regularly reads will know that there is a mix of liberal and conservative viewpoints.
          • tech42er, on 04/20/2008, -0/+10Fairly true. People who aren't NYers don't realize that the NYT is well-respected and the NYPost is a ***** tabloid; they think the Times is leftist and the Post is center-right. They are wrong.
          • constantquest, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1For the record, The NYP and FOX news both gave it ***** reviews too.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 04/20/2008, -2/+17I don't think you have ever seen one then.
        • Divals, on 04/20/2008, -5/+21Reality is biased toward the left.
          • constantquest, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2No, it's "reality has a well known LIBERAL bias."


            NOT the same thing.
        • flashback99, on 04/20/2008, -12/+5It's difficult not to trash a steaming pile of *****.
        • gcman94, on 04/20/2008, -20/+2I have read it and standby my comment.
      • MoClippa, on 04/20/2008, -5/+15First of all, the amount of people that read a newspaper does not necessarily indicate the quality of its coverage.
        And floorman, the New York Times is far from a leftist paper, you should read the various studies conducted on its content, it is actually closer to the center right. As Robert Fisk pointed out, one can be led to sometimes think the New York Times and LA Times should change their names to "official sources say".
    • WKUHilltopper, on 04/20/2008, -29/+3Sleazy? LOL! Pot, meet Kettle.....
      • logpony, on 04/20/2008, -23/+1LOL! A movie review which is basically an opinion page giving a bad review to a Lord-Privy-Seal documentary? LOL LOL LOL the NYT is leftist garbage LOL!
        • BetterOffEd, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Are you laughing out loud? I was just wondering...

          .
          • logpony, on 04/20/2008, -8/+0Why the hell did I get so many buries? Too many LOL's I suppose?
    • rhodydog, on 04/20/2008, -15/+5And you're a right-wing fascist, so? I would check out the NYT, it's not quite as left-wing as you think it it, of course all things are relative, you probably thing Hitler was too left wing.
      • logpony, on 04/20/2008, -4/+13Dude. Godwin's Law. You're ***** ruining everything for everyone. Don't sling around "fascist" or "Hitler" just because it's easy. *****.
    • GhostyBoy, on 04/20/2008, -6/+2The article was good, but I didn't like his use of "conspiracy theory". The author is smart, he doesn't need nonsensical buzzwords to make his point.
      • chaosium, on 04/20/2008, -2/+5"I didn't like his use of "conspiracy theory" "

        It is a THEORY proposed by creationists that there is a CONSPIRACY of scientists who think that believing in JESUS is antithetical to science and that they're being persecuted for their religious beliefs rather than their anti-science bent. Plenty of evolutionary biologists are Christian.
    • gcman94, on 04/20/2008, -4/+4Wow lots of NYT lovers here didn't mean to hurt anyones feelings!
  • zaptoman, on 04/20/2008, -175/+35lol. And the NYT became and actual authority on such things when?
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/20/2008, -13/+140When they graduated from high-school.
    • fmaxwell, on 04/20/2008, -37/+17Many years ago. They have a long history of insightful science articles and movie reviews. {sarcasm}Besides, God chose to let them publish that and who are you to question His wisdom?{/sarcasm}
    • DarkLance, on 04/20/2008, -9/+42Well, let's see, they ARE a news source... I think that qualifies them
      • zaptoman, on 04/20/2008, -25/+6News? The NYT stopped reporting NEWS a LONG time ago.
        • lostarchitect, on 04/20/2008, -4/+5i find it strange that people on the right always think objective news is leftist, whereas people on the left tend to accept objective news even when it disagrees with their views. Why the problem there? Is it an education issue? Very strange.
          • chaosium, on 04/20/2008, -2/+3Of course it's an education and indoctrination issue. Basic logical thought has been shut down in favor of emotional pleadings.
          • RobotBuddha, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2People on the left, by definition, can't accept anything that conflicts with their ideology. No issues are black and white, one or the other. The second one defines himself by siding with an answer before the question was even asked he's lost a good deal of his ability to make rational decisions. In science news, it's never hard to know which side of the political spectrum will deny the evidence of a study because it conflicts with their beliefs. Both the left and the right can be counted on to do so when evidence hits any of their pet issues.
          • lostarchitect, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I don't think you know what "by definition" means.
          • keymanjim2, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1This is your fist time on the internet, isn't it?
      • tech42er, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1Not all news sources are created equal. You think the Tallahassee Daily is on the same level as the Christian Science Monitor?
        • LordoftheFly, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1I really wouldn't know. I assume that it would be a toss-up though.
    • ziffel, on 04/20/2008, -2/+44How is expressing an opinion equivalent to declaring oneself an authority?
      • zaptoman, on 04/20/2008, -23/+4Since an appeal to false authority (see the title of this thread) was made.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 04/20/2008, -3/+20That's not an appeal to authority. It's not even an argument.

          It's the factual statement that NYT called expelled a sleazy documentary.
          • zaptoman, on 04/20/2008, -19/+6That would be true if the ENTIRE purpose of the thread wasn't to get people to say "Oh, NYT says it! It must be true!"
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/20/2008, -3/+15No it's true because it's not an argument.

            You don't know what an appeal to authority is.
          • forgiste, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1that's not the ***** purpose of this thread. This thread is to spread what the NYT said. That doesn't mean they want everyone to blindly accept it as truth. *****.
          • coheedcollapse, on 04/20/2008, -2/+5Is it any better than I knew Expelled was going to be a stupid documentary that was more about making up facts and pretending that Christians are being persecuted BEFORE I read the review?

            It's sort of like that creationist museum. Anyone with a brain knows it's utter ***** before they even open it to the public.
    • LittleDas, on 04/20/2008, -9/+31The NYT is widely regarded as one of the three best papers in the world, the New York Times *is* an authority.
      • zaptoman, on 04/20/2008, -34/+4Ha. The NYT is better known as a sham across the entire world. Has been for years.
        • logpony, on 04/20/2008, -3/+20...says the man who thinks evolution is a flight of fancy.
          • zaptoman, on 04/20/2008, -22/+4Grow something to think with and I'll believe it isn't.
        • logpony, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3I... don't know to go with that one. My brain? Because, yeah, there are specific brain structures certain cognitive scientists think are evolutionarily chosen. Or, failing that, the more generalist cognitive scientists believe we have genetic code which encode for brain structures which make learning infinitely less taxing.
      • tech42er, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1Just out of curiosity, what are the other 2? I'd say CSM has to be in top 5. WSJ's probably in the top 10.
        • ichbeineinrcg, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2London Times, perhaps. I think the LA Times used to have a much better reputation, but it's fallen down hard. Chicago Tribune, maybe?
    • homercles337, on 04/20/2008, -2/+10Youre such a dim wit that im surprised you didnt drop the oft refuted "libural medjia" comment.
    • theatheist, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1it is not a matter of when, it is a matter of why. and because they are a world wide news agency, and you are a delusional
    • solistus, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4And Ben Stein became "and" actual authority on anything when?
      • keymanjim2, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1About the same time as moore. And he's considered a god among the libtards.
        • Squidwalk, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Not that I like Moore, but Stein became a pundit over the past few months. Moore's been a pundit for years now. Doesn't mean anyone should watch their movies. They should go back to comedy doing what they do best. Getting laughed at.
  • DIGGINPHYSICS, on 04/20/2008, -20/+81Don't Waste Your Time, it was pathetic.
    • DangerMouse9, on 04/20/2008, -5/+17what was? The "movie" or the article?
      • DIGGINPHYSICS, on 04/20/2008, -1/+49the movie, the article was spot on
    • mikehrp, on 04/20/2008, -20/+4"In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself." The same could be written about the article. Not much info on the actual movie given at all.
      • nullifidian0, on 04/20/2008, -1/+51. They fudged "facts" to make it appear that their claims have some kind of truthiness to them.
        2. They omitted facts that would otherwise put the lie to their propaganda.
        3. They refused to define evolution as it's understood by the best people to do so, i.e. biologists, and attacked a strawman.

        That says plenty about this movie.
        • rigorious, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1"In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself." The same could be written about that comment. Not much info on the actual movie given at all.
  • Jio666, on 04/20/2008, -108/+6Front page at 27 diggs, 1 comment.

    Things from the science section seem to go up at quite a low number of diggs. This is probably a good thing, since the science section of upcoming probably doesn't get much traffic.
    • D14BL0, on 04/20/2008, -3/+66PLEASE LEARN HOW THE DIGG ALGORITHM WORKS BEFORE POSTING ABOUT IT.
      • optamystic, on 04/20/2008, -41/+7Caps lock? Really? Please learn basic internet etiquette before posting at all.
        • fmaxwell, on 04/20/2008, -3/+35Are you so Internet-ignorant that you don't understand that he was yelling at the parent poster?
        • Phasmorphage, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6BUT IT'S CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
      • Jio666, on 04/20/2008, -31/+1I understand how the digg algorithm works. Clearly alot of top or new users voted for this. I'm just saying catagory could also be a reason here.

        Obviosly this is from a while back but i was going by this: http://www.seopedia.org/tips-tricks/social-media/t ...
    • CheeseburgerBro, on 04/20/2008, -3/+31It's on the front page because Yahweh willed it so.

      ...Duh.
      • jwoelmer2, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1Yahweh is too old, try maybe "Jesus" or "God"
        • zeebo, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Jesus and God are too old, try 'Bob' or 'FSM'
    • Harabeck, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1The rate the diggs come in matters too.
      • Jio666, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1I know, but i saw the article at about 12 diggs yesterday, the diggs didn't seem to be coming in very quickly, which probably means that lots of high ranking diggers dugg it. I was just suggesting that maybe the category an article is in has some influence over it's algorithm rating, if i was wrong that's fine. I wasn't even saying the algorithm was incorrect to promote this, i was just commenting on something that seemed surprising.

        Well at least I got a new personal best for lowest rated comment.
  • D14BL0, on 04/20/2008, -110/+20Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
    • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -39/+7Why is everyone digging this comment down? I thought it was very appropriate.
      • carpespasm, on 04/20/2008, -1/+20Not everyone else is digging this comment down, just more people disagree with it than agree it.
      • SoulDrift404, on 04/20/2008, -2/+17I'm digging it down because the NY Times isn't always wrong, and it's certainly not always "sleazy." You probably think they gave away national security secrets, as a good Republican is ordered to think. I don't.
    • ozydingo, on 04/20/2008, -2/+17Please elaborate.
      • EvilTurkey, on 04/20/2008, -3/+16I think he's calling the New York Times sleazy.
        • D14BL0, on 04/20/2008, -22/+5Bingo.
        • ozydingo, on 04/20/2008, -1/+14Point taken--now, please elaborate :-)
          • chaosium, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5Please don't, it could only lessen the IQ of the rest to hear such drivel.
    • D14BL0, on 04/20/2008, -34/+8Looks like nobody caught this one.

      I'm talking about NYT calling somebody else "sleazy".
      • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -4/+21oh. I thought you were referring to close-minded creationists calling evolutionists close-minded. I retract my orginal reply.
      • SoulDrift404, on 04/20/2008, -1/+10I did. And i've digged down twice because of it.
        • Laughsatyou, on 04/20/2008, -4/+1quit whinning about it, do you base your self worth on the number of diggs up or down you get?
        • LordoftheFly, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3Probably not, but I judge /your/ worth thusly. :)
    • javip, on 04/20/2008, -3/+21we 'caught it'
      it just doesn't make sense
    • darkamster07, on 04/20/2008, -1/+18pot, meet lungs
    • Vet4Peace, on 04/20/2008, -1/+11Face, meet palm...
  • More4, on 04/20/2008, -20/+183dugg for the parental guidance warning: "“Expelled” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic."
  • chrgrose, on 04/20/2008, -27/+238Its a documentary in that it documents the ridiculous logic of its producers. Should be rated R for retarded.
    • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -19/+2Thank you for the the GTA reference (I use it all the time)
    • Plastic3D, on 04/20/2008, -0/+10B.S. should be rated R for Retarded... he also claims to understand the economy, and is a Bush supporter? Recently he's been claiming that Obama doesn't understand the economy. What Irony!!!

      He lost all credibility with me during his news commentaries of the 2004 elections.

      • Laughsatyou, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4I don't think any of the candidates understand the economy.
        • ichbeineinrcg, on 04/20/2008, -2/+2...except Ron Paul.

          I believe this comment will get 500 diggs.
        • dannydyer1000, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1@ichbeineinrcg:
          i believe 1) you are wrong or 2) missing a sarcasm tag.
          either way, you lose

          good day sir
      • opkaos, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Is that the best you can come up with. What did you call the unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims made in Al Gore's Docu-Fantasy? So he supports George Bush, big deal. You guys always want to connect someone with a differing opinion with Bush, as if that makes a point invalid. Ben Stein has more knowledge about the economy than most democrats. And Obama doesn't have a clue about much of anything! You evolutionists are afraid of intelligent design because it might prove you and your idea of a godless utopia as being wrong!
    • 6minuteabs, on 04/20/2008, -10/+0I'm sure it is a ***** film and we have ourselves to blame, following in the proud tradition of the so-called documentaries of Michael Moore that many of us have wasted money on. I don't recall this level of condescending review on digg when any of his pieces of ***** came out.
  • CheeseburgerBro, on 04/20/2008, -19/+107I've evolved past the point of caring what sort of kludge-brained reprobate would consider this documentary tirade an example of valid argument.

    I don't argue with dogs for eating their own faeces, thus I would not engage someone who takes this film seriously.
    • reddikilowatt, on 04/20/2008, -10/+70The problem is, those reprobates vote, write protest letters that keep television dumb, make Wal-Mart the cultural mecca for the country, and reproduce at a higher rate than you.
      • javip, on 04/20/2008, -1/+24that sounds like a very severe problem..
        a very depressing problem..
        • carpespasm, on 04/20/2008, -1/+21though one we can mitigate through learning. Some people just wish to remain ignorant of facts which do not benefit their currently held notions.
          • javip, on 04/20/2008, -1/+6but the problem remains a very grave and severe one.. because how do we 'teach' these people??
          • dualityim, on 04/20/2008, -10/+4You don't. Society has always been organized with an elite at the top dominating the mindless masses. That's the only way society makes any progress.

            Ironically, this is the precise structure that the internet seeks to disrupt, and digg is a prime example of the counter-elite movement. And just look at the fine journalistic quality of digg submissions!
          • PolymathicMan, on 04/20/2008, -3/+1yay socialism!
      • nullifidian0, on 04/20/2008, -0/+12Watching Idiocracy is like peering into a metaphorical crystal ball.

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
        • SquigglyP, on 04/20/2008, -1/+8yeah, the only thing they got wrong was how long it would take. They seem to give humans more credit than they're due.
        • PolymathicMan, on 04/20/2008, -4/+1Oh, and you're just an intellectual god among men, with your conformist remarks on an internet discussion!
    • aMammoth, on 04/20/2008, -11/+1Its feces, not faeces.
    • empiric, on 04/20/2008, -14/+0I don't know... seems like you're being a little harsh on dogs, especially given you'll be dying like one.
      • srondizzle, on 04/20/2008, -4/+8Aren't christians lovable???

        Your completely hateful and unwarranted threats make baby jesus cry.
        • empiric, on 04/20/2008, -11/+0Inevitable facts are "threats"? Seems you have a problem with reality, not me.
          • nullifidian0, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6"Facts". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
          • Forsakenmantra, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Dugg! And I want to digg you more because I just watched that movie last night.
          • srondizzle, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Wrong, actually. Telling someone that they're going to die a horrific death because of their belief system isn't a fact. I kind of half-hope something does happen to the original poster because your comment above will AT LEAST earn you an extremely uncomfortable meeting with police.

            But, really...continue your ignorant judgments of other people. I know that's exactly how the church has taught you to act, so I guess you can't entirely be blamed for the fact that you're a ***** retard.
      • SquigglyP, on 04/20/2008, -0/+10isn't there some soldier's funeral you're supposed to be shouting obscenities at?
        • empiric, on 04/20/2008, -8/+1Irrational analogy.
        • PolymathicMan, on 04/20/2008, -2/+2Yeah, because all Christians are affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church.
          • SquigglyP, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2it just sounds like Mr. "you're gonna die like a dog" is affiliated with them.
    • GhostyBoy, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3Comment of the day for numerous reasons.
    • awinn233, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I was under the impression that only populations could evolve, and not individuals. You should be congratulated on your achievement.
    • co79, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0Feces?
  • somespecial, on 04/20/2008, -40/+5Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed...
    • Hilsee, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1Is that what your parents said to you when they found out you didn't believe in Santa Claus?
  • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -28/+222Basically, Ben Stein is calling out folks who believe in evolution and calling them close-minded, because they are unwilling to consider intelligent design as a plausible scientific theory. Really? They're the close minded ones? Because I thought the theory of evolution was founded by an open-minded gentelman who thought outside the "God created man in 7 days" box. This truly is a pot calling the kettle black moment.
    • awizzle22, on 04/20/2008, -73/+4I hope he was thinking outside of that box, cause man was made in one day and the World + heavens in 7. I also love how u call believers close minded, when that argument of "whose more close minded" has been going on for awhile and u have added no insight on the subject. So i think this is obviously a pot calling the kettle black moment. lol lame.
      • bsmang, on 04/20/2008, -4/+29Let us watch and see how many agree with you, shall we? I just changed your digg count from 0 to -1. (At 10:42am NY time on 4/20.)
        • awizzle22, on 04/20/2008, -29/+5I just changed your digg count from +1 to +2, do u think if i clicked up or down that it means anything? (9:59 4/20 Midwest time) blah blah
          • bsmang, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Sorry, there was nothing I could do, you made the comment.
        • Kyan, on 04/20/2008, -0/+11Haha - "Midwest time" and "NY time". I found that very amusing.
        • 6minuteabs, on 04/20/2008, -9/+2If the wisdom of this crowd always won out, Ron Paul would be president and 9/11 was an inside job. You better shop for another way to test your argument.
          • bsmang, on 04/20/2008, -1/+5True, lol. It doesn't always win out, no, but even Digg can't be right ALL the time. I admit it failed with its terrible RP infatuation, but I don't think the 9/11 nuts were ever a majority here. Calling the result on awizzle was cake though. Digg knows better than Genesis, even if RP doesn't.
      • olddirtycr, on 04/20/2008, -0/+9Wait.. What?
      • xenuxenuts, on 04/20/2008, -4/+28Show me the evidence, then I'll consider your position. But remember, the bible is not evidence, any more than Greek mythology is evidence for the existence of Zeus.
      • ninepointfive, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2bwahahaha! thanks for the comedy routine.
      • cipher121, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1I agree. Back to -37.
    • bsmang, on 04/20/2008, -7/+18A pot calling the kettle black? NOOOO. More like a pot calling the sun black.
    • issachar, on 04/20/2008, -3/+29That's the joy of calling somewhat close-minded. Anyone can do it. You don't agree with me? You're close-minded! Rather than ask "Who is most open-minded?" perhaps, one should ask "Who is correct?". I don't care how "open-minded" you are. If you think grilled cheese sandwhiches have feelings your opinion is rather worthless.
      • enri, on 04/20/2008, -0/+16Awe... now you've gone and hurt the sandwich's feelings.
      • coheedcollapse, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3I'm sick of being persecuted because I believe that grilled cheese sandwiches are not only delicious, but emotionally deep. I might make a documentary about the subject in the future.
      • grillcheese, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4grilled cheese sandwiches ftw
    • ahawks, on 04/20/2008, -3/+21He also claimed "darwinism" lead to the holocaust. Cuz you know, anti-semitism didn't exist before 1850.
      • Edrick, on 04/20/2008, -1/+13What's even more bemusing is not *just* that it existed before 1850, but it had existed for centuries, fueled by...you guessed it, religious dogma!
      • MaceSoul, on 04/21/2008, -5/+1Take a moment to bask in your stupidity because it had nothing to do with anti-semitism. If you weren't getting baked during history class you'd know the Nazi's went after the weak in addition to jews. It was Darwinism, the sick and the weak were to be culled.
        • Edrick, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4It takes a certain kind of naivety to claim the holocaust had nothing to do with anti-semitism.
          • MaceSoul, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Try a re-read. I didn't say that at all.
          • Edrick, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1..."It was Darwinism, the sick and the weak were to be culled."
            So elaborate, was it part Social Darwinism, part anti-semitism, or just Social Darwinism? You're being vague.
    • Vet4Peace, on 04/20/2008, -7/+5Basically, Ben Stein is calling out folks who believe in A ROUND EARTH and calling them close-minded, because they are unwilling to consider A FLAT EARTH as a plausible scientific theory. Really? They're the close minded ones? Because I thought the theory of ROUND-EARTHISM was founded by an open-minded gentelman who thought outside the "God created A FLAT EARTH" box. This truly is a box calling the ball square moment.
      Fixed that for ya
      • o3rat, on 04/20/2008, -4/+1wow, that analogy sucks. One can actually sail around the Earth or see the Earth from space....
      • MaceSoul, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Hey, I know you, you're the one who invented TimeCube.com aren't you?
    • ggnictee, on 04/20/2008, -8/+6(note: I don't mean this to sound as condescending as it came out, but you know how typing things always sounds. Anyway I agree with you so i'm sorry this sounds like i'm an ass)
      Actually: Darwin believed in 7 day creation. He just thought everything started changing after that. (which is silly and Most Christians believe in evolution (the 4 billion year Earth kind) ...because it's real. It's actually just a few vocal wakos who are swayed by power hungry jerks.)
      ANYWAY
      Also very interesting: Ben Stein is an atheist. So either he believes this nonsense or they paid him a lot of money.
      • nullifidian0, on 04/20/2008, -0/+7"Also very interesting: Ben Stein is an atheist. So either he believes this nonsense or they paid him a lot of money."

        Citation needed.

        However, in lieu of your claim, here are a few quotes from Stein himself:

        "I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish."
        "I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution, and I don't like it being shoved down my throat."
        http://www.benstein.com/121805xmas.html

        "1. I am unbelievably lucky: ... h. Above all, to have learned to love and worship a God of love and understanding."
        "5. There is no medication on this earth as potent in curing my ills as the simple prayer, "Thy will be done.""
        "6. There have probably been about 15 billion people on this earth since the dawn of man, and I am among the most fortunate few hundred thousand, and all of that is an unearned gift of God."
        http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=78 ...

        "We will never be who we can be and who we must be if we take worship of God out of our lives."
        http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12076

        You appear to be spectacularly wrong in your assessment of Stein as an atheist.
    • PolymathicMan, on 04/20/2008, -7/+1Hey dude! Darwin didn't "found" the theory of evolution! Next time check your facts before conforming to all your other digg friends.
    • MaceSoul, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you have to believe God had nothing to do with it.
    • Enjia, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1false: ben himself said "i believe in a god who created everything"
  • somespecial, on 04/20/2008, -44/+7No wonder our economy is going down. Don't buy anything! Every company sucks.
    • SoulDrift404, on 04/20/2008, -1/+7Wait, don't you conservatives complain when movies are too liberal--and then boycott them??
    • darkamster07, on 04/20/2008, -2/+2looks like your starting to get it. i mean economists tell us to spend less, and then when we do they complain that WE are crumbling the economy. maybe people wouldent have a negative attitude if corporations and companies all just did fair ***** business. maybe if we throttle thier income (oh noes our precious money) they might learn that they can't exist without us, so they had better do thier best to please us
  • had3l, on 04/20/2008, -4/+35Those comments in the bottom of the page are just too stupid to be true
    • Kyan, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Joke's on you then, isn't it?

      (I know, that's rather depressing. Sigh.)
    • Locke23, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2I read them and came running back to digg.. knowing here I'd find some intelligent comments at least
      sure, sometimes someone slips and says something dumb, but thanks to that articles comments, I realized I'd been taking digg for granted.
      • PolymathicMan, on 04/20/2008, -4/+2Oh no, opposing viewpoints! Run back to Digg!
        • mllawso, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Oh no! The crushing realization that a vocal minority of stupid people are ruling our lives!
  • Kabloink, on 04/20/2008, -11/+77I am glad to see some major media source being truthful about the film. The conservative papers here in Texas will most likely describe it as the greatest movie since the Passion of Christ.
    • carpespasm, on 04/20/2008, -0/+17being better than a 3 hour snuff flick still doesn't leave it that great.
      • PolymathicMan, on 04/20/2008, -3/+5Or how about a dramatization of one of the great stories in world literature? I'm not Christian, but all this bible-bashing is just tiring. The bible is an influential piece of literature. Think about what you type before you spew out the same old garbage we see every day on digg.
        • ichbeineinrcg, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2You can bash the movie without bashing Christians. Mel Gibson took one of the great moments in humanity and turned it into a snuff film, like carpespasm said. The buckets of blood during the scourging would have been more appropriate in a Friday the 13th movie.
    • RawCoyote, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4Yes, and Ben Stein knows those conservatives will line up at the theaters and buy lots of DVDs. Marketing genius! His bank account will swell nicely from all those schmucks hard earned dollars.
    • 10GunSalute, on 04/20/2008, -3/+5Actually, all the reviews I've read are overwhelmingly negative. And I'm sure the stupid-ass Christians will blame it all on "the liberal media"
      • ggnictee, on 04/20/2008, -0/+11but only the stupid-ass ones. The smart ones know there is no liberal media bias. Just like Wikipedia isn't liberally biased. Those are Fox's invisible conspiracies. So really you probably should have said "those dumb asses who watch Fox will blame" and yes I know a great many of them are Christian, but it is an unfortunate fact of life that no one is immune from being human.
    • kylejn, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Nah, the conservative papers here in Texas will complain that Stein didn't take it far enough against those "close-minded Darwinists," or some nonsense like that.
    • pakruse, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0I was interested in your comment, so I tried to find a review in the paper I got this morning (Houston Chronicle). None. Checked the chron.com website too - no review there, either. They did review Zombie Strippers, though. My guess is that I'd see Zombie Strippers before I would ever see Expelled, as well. Far more believable.

      For what it's worth, the Houston Chronicle gave "Passion" an "F," so bets are that any review of Expelled would be unfavorable. I was kind of hoping to find a review, if only to read it for the lulz.
  • moomeep, on 04/20/2008, -16/+158sleazy yes. documentary no.
    • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -4/+8I know! And I'm kind of upset at Ben Stein. I thought he was above all this. I always assume that he had a "to each his own" mentality. I can't stand when celebrities get on their political/religious high horse, and I really didn't expect it of him.
      • MacEnvy, on 04/20/2008, -1/+16He was a politico before he was a celebrity. He was a speech writer and adviser to Nixon.
        • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -1/+5hmm, didn't know that. Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't alive in the Nixon era, and by the time I was able to recognize him, he was only a celebrity in my eyes.
        • moomeep, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3i didn't know the guy at all... till he started spouting nonsense. still have to see the movie... and i will, but i won't pay. i'm a "knowledge should be free for all" kinda guy, so you won't be seeing me pay for christian fundie crap. and that's what it is. creationists/ID'ers don't have a case. one can only hope they never get to power... :( science FTW!! religion is a personal thing. some ppl need to realize that...
    • MaceSoul, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1He does have a "to each his own" mentality, but obviously (judging from the comments here) lots of other people don't.
  • Ghostalker, on 04/20/2008, -18/+167And people wonder why America's kids aren't cutting it compared to the rest of the world. It's as if their parents are spoon-feeding them retardedness with a heaping desert of failure.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/20/2008, -2/+33Dessert*
      • carpespasm, on 04/20/2008, -1/+21no, they are definitely burried in the sands of the Desert of Failure.
      • jerryterhorst, on 04/20/2008, -0/+8desert of failure sounds way cooler.
    • Bonobo, on 04/20/2008, -15/+3Digg has little faith in our country, while i agree that theres A LOT of terrible things that are wrong, it's not helping by having 100% of all America related articles telling us our country is going to *****.
      • bwdd, on 04/20/2008, -2/+5We're not the leaders, we shouldn't have to fix anything.
        We voted, and they burned our slip, we don't have a say.
        That's why this country is going down the *****.
        • Bonobo, on 04/20/2008, -3/+2I know that, I said that right off the back, thats well said on digg and I completely agree. Did I say in my comment that I was confused about why things are heading for the worse? Make a reply that logically REPLIES to what I have said.
        • LordoftheFly, on 04/20/2008, -3/+2I didn't know monkeys could type.
    • solid12345, on 04/20/2008, -3/+7Actually the lack of structure and discipline is why our children are failing. Just the other day I was at the movie theater and a bunch of little jerks poured their leftover popcorn, candy, and pop all over the floor on purpose and just left. Many kids today have no morals and no respect, I hardly think debates about evolution & creationism have anything to do with that.
    • Daedalus17, on 04/20/2008, -10/+5The funny thing about your comment is that private religious schools in America regularly score higher in science and math than kids in public school.
      • rficwizard, on 04/20/2008, -2/+10As do private secular schools. It is not because of religion, it is because they are private. BTW, before you jump to conclusions, I went to private religious schools from grade 6 - grade 12.
    • bonhoeffer, on 04/20/2008, -5/+4Ironic that you should make that comment in a country that has taught evolution as science for 80 years.
    • jiltjouster, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3if only the lack of sound evolutionary theory would solve America's education problems. If you are looking for a silver bullet - think bigger. This is a small issue with lots of noise.
  • haxmire, on 04/20/2008, -10/+64This movie was complete crap. There was no evidence supported by the ID's and it was nothing but a bashing of science and non believers. The whole movie was BS. I would explain why but I am sure something else will pop up on digg explaining it. I tried to get my money back but I couldn't.
    • ozydingo, on 04/20/2008, -1/+26Do it south park style (a la "Passion of the Jew"). Go to Ben Stein's house and demand your money back for the movie. I wouldn't be surprised if what follows matches the episode to every detail.
      • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -1/+8Going to see a controversial movie for the sake of seeing a controversial movie. It's how those film makers get money!
      • olbap, on 04/20/2008, -0/+11Here's hoping Matt and Trey deliver!!!!
      • 180andback, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2This will be just like when we got our money back for Baseketball.
    • mikerand, on 04/20/2008, -8/+0If interested in what Christians think about the move, and it's controversy, check out: http://www.thinkingchristian.net
      You may also be interested in this: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/expel ...
    • bonhoeffer, on 04/20/2008, -2/+0You would explain why, if only you had seen the movie.
    • gmiley, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1As much as I am sure that the movie was indeed crap, I also don't really care for the line "I would explain why but...", that's just lazy. :(
  • omnithought, on 04/20/2008, -6/+45Stay tuned for the anti-NYT comments which completely ignore the actual content of the article and the dishonesty of the movie, soon to be followed by vast threads "debating" evolution.

    Or...we could just skip the ***** and simply say "Regardless of the source of this information, yeah, that movie pretty much blows."
  • offcenter, on 04/20/2008, -107/+14There's nothing sleazy about the film. They were careful with drawing Darwinism and Nazism together too closely, and they explicitly state that in the film. As for Dawkins appearing in "cleverly edited slices" -- I guess that means the "cleverly edited slice" where he read from his book. Or where Eugenie Scott blows of the Sternberg incident as "yeah, they sure got a lot of mileage out of it." Doubtless she wouldn't mind being treated in the same manner Sternberg was?

    Demoting and firing people for ideological reasons is _bad_ -- and bad karma, too.

    Buried as FUD.
    • Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -2/+45He didn't work there, and was leaving anyway.
      Buried as FUD.
    • Jio666, on 04/20/2008, -2/+37The Sternberg Incident is put straight here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth ...
    • nylrym, on 04/20/2008, -4/+39Wrong! If I work at a holocaust memorial, and I espoused antisemitic views (see what I did there Ben?), I should be fired. If a scientist (working as a scientist) posits theories based on ideology instead of good science, he should be fired. Religious freedom would not excuse a geologist for saying the Earth is flat either.
      Buried as inaccurate.
    • SquigglyP, on 04/20/2008, -4/+13You want us to teach your religion to our kids in school... fine...

      But as an exchange I demand that your pastor should teach evolution in church as an alternative to creationism.

      fair is fair.
      • talonstriker, on 04/20/2008, -0/+12eh we'd be getting the short end of the stick there. Young minds are impressionable, while preaching to 30 year olds is like yelling at rocks.
      • NuclearFalcon, on 04/20/2008, -3/+1If you have seen the film, then this comment just seems funny and coincidental.
        • SquigglyP, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1i haven't seen the film. Why does it seem coincidental (i was going for funny... didn't realize i'd be hitting targets i wasn't aiming for...)
    • offcenter, on 04/20/2008, -3/+1Sorry guys, your equivocations only drive the point home further: using a term like "sleazy" to describe a garden-variety polemic only proves that the producers have gotten in your heads.

      On the Sternberg case:

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
  • methos75, on 04/20/2008, -5/+13I'll watch it once its released on DVD, I am a keen believer in Evolution and I do tons of research on the whole Evolution versus Creation debate, so I'll add this to my collection of Books and movies. For anyone interested in a good Doc covering the Evolutionary side of this debate, I recommend Flock of Dodo's, excellent and very indepth film.
    • Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -4/+21No you're not a believer of evolution, you accept the theory of evolution. You can't believe in a theory.
      • CurlyMike139125, on 04/20/2008, -19/+2God is a theory. Lots of people believe in some kind of god.
        • Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -2/+26God is not a scientific theory.
        • JoeVet, on 04/20/2008, -1/+5God is fantasy until some shred of evidence to the contrary is submitted.
      • pintomp3, on 04/20/2008, -5/+4so you don't believe in gravity?
        • Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -4/+7Gravity is a fact, whether I accept gravity being caused by a bending of spacetime is another matter.
          • Kyan, on 04/20/2008, -4/+8AFAIK, gravity is still a theory.
          • lydecker, on 04/20/2008, -0/+9Gravity is both a fact (we observe it), and a theory (as we describe how it works).

            That's why there is gravity, and the theory of gravity. That's why there is evolution, and the theory of evolution.
          • Neiby, on 04/20/2008, -1/+7Gravity is a fact. And remember that gravity is not the same thing as the theory of gravity. One is a "thing", the other explains what we observe about that thing.
    • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -1/+7Hmm, I will consider your suggestion. My problem with this evolution vs. creation debate is that it does not take into context those who are theistic evolutionists. They believe that a higher power began the process of evolution. That one can believe in a god, and still support the theory of evolution. I think that was the basic premise behind "inherit the wind". That science and religion can live together.
      • methos75, on 04/20/2008, -1/+5In Flock of Dodo's this is addressed, but like they point out, we are just too few in number and most of the time because of the idiocy of the YEC side, we side with the straight evolutionist side instead of being neutral.
    • carpespasm, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5I think it's semantics over whether you believe in something or accept it as likely to be fact. Also to curlymike, god is a hypothesis. Like creationism/ID, it can't be accepted as a theory without proof. Many people do believe in it though.
    • Yage2006, on 04/20/2008, -0/+7Well make sure you torrent it dont rent or buy it. Dont wanna help feed the monster
    • TecK415, on 04/20/2008, -3/+2This should not be a debate. To actually debate something both sides need concrete evidence. Not "because god blah blah blah-insert psychotic creationist rambling-blahblahasudhas."
    • novemberdream07, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1just torrent it
    • hitokiri808, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the Flock of Dodo's recommendation, I'm downloading it now. If its good, I'll force my parents to watch it. They told me they watched it the other day, and started arguing with them about how shady of a movie it was.
  • MoneyShot, on 04/20/2008, -11/+112Wow. Ben Stein? Well, add another name to my "famous douche bags to immediately dismiss" list. Probably right between Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise.
    • baconz, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3I think you're rating him too highly. I had to look up who he was after all the digg publicity this guy has been getting. Apparently he was a nobody, and now...
      • PlasmaWhore, on 04/20/2008, -2/+4A nobody? He was in Feris Bueller AND Wonder Years!
    • homercles337, on 04/20/2008, -2/+7Why do so many attention whores come from the rightwing nuts of america?
      • tekrat, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Can't all the same arguments be leveled against Micheal Moore?
        • pauldy, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1They could and are probably more accurate when dealing with Moore but his work is all anti US propaganda so its acceptable.
    • roamzero, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3I guess Michael Moore must have a soft place in your heart.
      • bagelmaster, on 04/20/2008, -2/+3Michael Moore has some of the right ideas, but usually goes too far, and is annoying as ***** to listen to. Also, the whole "Bush is friends with Bin Laden" thing screams nu tjob. He can never really recover from that....
  • oblivionatm, on 04/20/2008, -14/+2Cat soul is? That is a ridiculous name...
  • somespecial, on 04/20/2008, -46/+9This review was written the same day the NYT income fell 10%. Haahh
  • clak, on 04/20/2008, -93/+10You guys who don't believe in God, just want an excuse so that you can engage in your anything goes lifestyles. That's the only reason you believe in evolution.
    • Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -6/+68No, the reason I accept evolutionary theory is that it has overwhelming evidence supporting it. It has nothing to do with my lifestyle - which you also know nothing about.
      Comparing my lifestyle, a quiet respectable one - I don't smoke or drink, I have a loving partner and I don't break the law - to a Christian or Muslim, blowing stuff up, preaching lies and ruining America.
    • manningbowl135, on 04/20/2008, -2/+51What. the. hell. are. you. talking. about?
      Atheists believe in evolution (some atheists) b/c it has more scientific basis than any other creation theories.
      BTW what "anything goes" lifestyle?
      • galore, on 04/20/2008, -1/+35It's code for "people enjoying sex".
        • ozkr, on 04/20/2008, -1/+9I think it's more along the lines of "people not ashamed of their own physiology".
    • ghall, on 04/20/2008, -2/+23Um....WTF?
    • methos75, on 04/20/2008, -5/+21That isn't true, I believe in Evolution but I am a Christain, I just believe that Evolution was guided by God and I don't buy into the whole YEC BS that god did everything in 7 days. There are many who believe in Evolution but still believe in God, Take Stephen Gould for instance, most important Evolutionist of our day but even he did not dismiss that there was a God and quite explictly stated that he had never seen anything in the fossil record that disproved God existed and once stated that he hoped athiest knew something he didn't because if not they were going to do some serious regretting one day.
      • Zarokima, on 04/20/2008, -2/+21While I respect your less irrational beliefs, I must point out that there is also nothing in the fossil record that disproves unicorns, Quetzocatol, Poseidon, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
        • methos75, on 04/20/2008, -10/+2Thats true and I do not dispute that, but for the record the Fossil do show that Quetzalcoatl exsisted, it was the waorld's largest flying animal. Look it up.
        • methos75, on 04/20/2008, -6/+2Quetzacoatl was also a type of Ppterosaur called a Azhdarchidae, its latin name is Quetzalcoatlus northropi and it was the largest animal ever to take flight. As to unicorns, do I have faith they exist, sure I do to a degree. I have faith that somebody thousands of years ago found some strange fossils, could not explain them, and the Unicorn was born. Is that faith as strong and as personal to me as my believe in God, no it isn't. And how are his comments devasting, there just another in a long string of idiocy promoted by athiest who are shoved to far up their own asses to realize that all the things they hate about Religion, like it promoting intolerance, close mindness, and irrational thought are the very things they are wallowing in themselves. They say I am irrational for believing God exist. I ask then, where is the proof God does not exist? This is what I find so impossibly stupid about athiest, they love to attack others for having faith in things that can be proven, yet they themselves are harboring a faith in something that cannot be proven. Just like any other religion which they love to attack, athiestism is in itself nothing more than a faith based way of thinking. Athiest have faith they are correct and that there is no god, but they hold no special knowledge that proves there is not one, all that holds them together is faith there is not. If Faith in something that cannot proven to exist is a weakness, then faith in something that cannot be proven to not exist is also an weakness is it not? You have to look at both sides of the issues here, and once you do, you see that its a razor blade only that seperates the athiest from the religious in their faith in what is real.
          • datdamonfoo, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2You still don't quite understand. Quetzacoatl was an Aztec god first. The dinosaur was named after this god. It's like me calling my dog "God" and stating that I found proof that God exists and showed a picture of my dog. It's not the same.
      • americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -5/+3Thank you! Props to the Theistic evolutionists!
      • ziffel, on 04/20/2008, -1/+12If God is guiding evolution, then he's a frickin' idiot.
        • rficwizard, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1Really? It seems to have turned out pretty well so far. Do you have any respect for the wonderful range of organisms that live on Earth? Or are you judging evolution by the lowest quartile (in terms of rationality) of a species that has arbitrarily decided that it is the pinnacle of evolution?
        • y0smokey, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1He is doing in a ***** job, meaning that he let us evolve, destroy tons of other species, and destroy the planet. So if he is guiding it he is doing a ***** job.

          I agree that he is a frickin' idiot if he is "guiding" evolution. Go walk in a Walmart and look around you....he is guiding the ***** retarded bus.
    • Inverno, on 04/20/2008, -2/+23If by "any goes" you mean "hard work, love for my family, and a passion for logic" yeah, you got me pegged. Most people accept evolution because it makes more sense than the alternative.
      • Inverno, on 04/20/2008, -0/+11I missed the edit window. "anything goes"
    • jwanderson, on 04/20/2008, -2/+20Some of us choose to live our lives through reason instead of faith, most of this group does not believe in God because evidence and reason like eachother.
    • Zarokima, on 04/20/2008, -5/+26You guys who believe in God just want an excuse to not take the time to think things through rationally. The only reason you believe, is because the scientific theory of evolution (scientific theory = "we know that it definitely happens, but not exactly how it happens") is too complicated for you to understand.
      • pauldy, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1Broad brush there. If it helps you to think of people who believe in the idea of creationism as being as legitimate as evolotion are simple minded people clinging to religion to help them get through the drudgery that is their life then so be it, they probably feel similar about your clinging to a dogma that we all come from a chaotic event where mud meets lightning and life spontaneously emerges with no purpose or meaning whatsoever.

        I think both are equally absurd and there are a lot of logically thinking individuals who simply look with full understanding at the complexity of the various systems in play around us and cannot imagine them simply being a random event. When pondering this among other topics such as what gives you consciousness there is nothing scientific that explains any of this so looking for answers in the metaphysical is not as absurd as being closed off to the possibility it.
    • rdvade, on 04/20/2008, -3/+21So you believe in god because you are scared of what will happen to you if you don't (or rather what will happen if you break the 'rules')?
      I don't believe in god, the reasoning is pretty simple, there isn't any evidence to support it.
    • pintomp3, on 04/20/2008, -0/+16right. that's also the reason i believe the earth is round and the earth goes around the sun.
    • indypunx, on 04/20/2008, -2/+22I work 80+ hours a week 7 days a week trying to fight disease, I dont smoke or drink, and have a loving relationship with the same woman for 7 years. I dont think any reasonable person would call my life immoral and I also went to 13 years of catholic school and have studied the bible inside and out. There is no question evolution is true and it does not have anything to do with believing in God. Get out there and read some science books and educate yourself and you will realize you are fighting a battle for nothing. Evolution is not an enemy of religion.
      • datdamonfoo, on 04/20/2008, -7/+2Except several mainstream religions state that we humans were put onto this Earth in the same form as we are now. So did we descend from a primate ancestor or not?
        • pauldy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3The idea is that the creation itself could be in the form of evolution and the bounds of time itself may simply be a conceptual experience of the human psyche. If this is true when then there might be a whole lot more to the phrase and god created man. It could equate to what we see as evidence of an entire process that we look to scientifically as evolution.
    • Clydesdale, on 04/20/2008, -1/+12That is one of the stupidest comments I've seen yet. Who the F are you judge my 'anything goes lifestyle'? And WTF IS such a lifestyle? Mine is pretty dull. At least I'm not wasting my time on my knees in supplication to an imaginary creature that, according to believers, can create the the entire, mind bogglingly immense universe with everything it contains, but is somehow concerned with if the infinitesimal specks of life on an equally infinitesimal speck of a planet, eat shell fish, or masturbate, or ***** a goat for that matter. Tell me, how much to you concern yourself with the doings of dust mites? Tell you what, if god DOES concern himself about such things he's a f-ing moron and needs to be fired.

      While I consider myself an agnostic, I certainly don't believe in god as portrayed by any religion on this planet simply because it's an obvious load of tripe, anyone with half a brain can see that. Primitive belief systems that have outlived their usefulness to the species. Time to put fairy tails away before it's too late, if it's not too late already.
    • ziffel, on 04/20/2008, -0/+7"That is one of the stupidest comments I've seen yet."

      It's called a 'troll'
    • methos75, on 04/20/2008, -16/+4Alright Clak made a stupid comment, but some of yours are no better really. You say I am irrational for believing God exist. I ask then, where is the proof God does not exist? This is what I find so impossibly stupid about athiest, they love to attack others for having faith in things that cannot be proven, yet they themselves are harboring a faith in something that cannot be proven. Just like any other religion which they love to attack, athiestism is in itself nothing more than a faith based way of thinking. Athiest have faith they are correct and that there is no god, but they hold no special knowledge that proves there is not one, all that holds them together is faith there is not.

      If Faith in something that cannot proven to exist is irrational , then faith in something that cannot be proven to not exist is also irrational is it not? You have to look at both sides of the issues here with clear eyes, open mindness, and some tolerance, and once you do, you see that its only razor blade that seperates the athiest from the religious in their faith in what is real. It also becomes quite clear that athiest must come to the realize that all the things they hate about Religion, like it promoting intolerance, close mindness, and irrational thought are the very things they are wallowing in themselves.
      • nullifidian0, on 04/20/2008, -0/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28lo ...
      • ninepointfive, on 04/20/2008, -0/+8ohhh burned by nullifidian0!

        how does it feel?
      • Inverno, on 04/20/2008, -0/+9Okay, so by your logic God exists because no one can prove he doesn't? How've you been on digg and avoided learning of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? He blesses us all with complex carbohydrates. I'm not telling you not to believe in God. I'm just saying don't tell me that your belief is rational.

        I don't have faith that I'm right, I don't have faith that you're wrong. I don't have faith. If someone can demonstrate a thought I accept it. No one has ever presented a falsifiable claim for divinity that was not falsified.
        • familynight, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2damn it, you said that much better than my way too long-winded reply below. i need to remember to reload the page before posting. well, you and nullifidian0.
      • familynight, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4others have stated these arguments far better than i can, but i'll give it a go.
        you seem a bit confused about atheism. atheism is not a religion. atheism is not a belief system. everyone would be atheist if we all had no imagination. belief in the existence of something requires evidence. atheism requires no evidence because it is a term for a lack of belief. this is where rhetorical devices like the flying spaghetti monster come into play. the argument that people are making with the fsm is that the most ridiculous idea that they can come up with has the same amount of proof, i.e. none, backing it as any belief in god, whereas atheism requires no proof, so it is the proper conclusion based on the world around us.
        perhaps, it's this idea of evidence that bothers you. sometimes, religious people use the idea that evidence of god is all around us in nature, in books, in a baby's smile, but this argument contains a logical fallacy. it requires the assumption of the conclusion, i.e. the existence of god, rather than attempting to prove the conclusion. it's a non sequitur, like saying proof of flying saucers is in a baby's tears.
        finally, our inability to explain something about nature does not prove the existence of the supernatural. if you look back at history, people have failed to explain many things, assumed a conclusion based on faith alone and been proven wrong by later study. you ask a question in the beginning of your second paragraph that applies to this idea, or rather that this idea can be applied to. the answer is that faith has nothing to do with it. is the lack of belief in something that has no proof irrational? absolutely not. is it irrational to lack belief in an intelligent flying spaghetti monster that loves pirates? of course not, that's the idea. there seems to be some assumption that chains of logic can be reversed, but that's just not true. you surely can't reverse even a very simple chain of logic, like evidence-argument-conclusion. the conclusion can't explain the evidence.
        i don't hate religion. in fact, i majored in religious history and there are many wonderful expressions of faith and belief in the world. they add much to society and culture. i would go so far as to say that it is an insult to faith to put atheism on the same plane. faith is just an entirely different ballpark. kierkegaard's fear and trembling makes an excellent argument in that faith is based on an acknowledged belief in the irrational. it is very difficult and has nothing to do with reason.
        the difference is not a razor blade. it's the grand canyon.
        it's not a razor blade. it's the grand canyon.
      • hmcook87, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1sorry mate, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. it is not up to the rest of us to disprove everything your wild imagination comes up with. we cant disprove the existence of fairies, santa claus, zeus, allah, the flying spaghetti monster, or god. but that is certainly not a good case for believing in any of them.
    • SquigglyP, on 04/20/2008, -0/+17Evolution is fact. That's why I "believe" it. Do some research on your own FROM SCIENTIFIC SOURCES, not whatever religious website you have set as your home page, and you'll find the hundreds of experiments that have been taken to prove various aspect of the 'theory'.

      But if you really want to play these games, fine. Hi. i'm Squiggly. I'm the son of God reborn on earth.

      Prove me wrong.
    • mille716, on 04/20/2008, -0/+8Who are you taling to, the pope? You do know that the last two popes believe in evolution right? Are they anti-religious, anything-goes personalities?

      "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” - Pope Benedict *****'n-XVI

      You lose.
    • drgreengenes, on 04/20/2008, -0/+8And I thought I accepted evolution because of the mounds of evidence and facts. thanks for clearing that up clak. Im going back to smoking crack, banging hookers, and stealing from children now.
      • methos75, on 04/20/2008, -3/+0I believe in evolution, I also believe in God. That isn't the issue, the issue is bashing those who belief for petty reeasons.
        • mille716, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Read clak's original comment again. He makes a connection between lack of belief to immorality to evolution. I agree bashing belief is wrong in a general sense but clak set the issue between immoral behavior and evolution. It is the issue in this thread.
    • JoeVet, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4You guys who believe in God, just want an excuse so that you can justify dominating over others. That's the only reason you believe in god.
    • mchugh22, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2My anything goes lifestyle has nothing to do with my religion.
    • Zlorp, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2evolution has nothing to do with religion. only really really ignorant dumb ***** like you think evolution in anyway contradicts religion
  • somespecial, on 04/20/2008, -46/+5It's just a MOVIE!
    • carpespasm, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6It's more a matter of the ignorance to the subject that it discusses that most people have to the point that a film like this would hold sway with a large number of people in the US. It's not the celluloid that matters, it's the story it makes.
    • MisteryMeat, on 04/20/2008, -0/+18It's just propaganda.
      • issachar, on 04/20/2008, -6/+1Well exactly. And it's incredibly obvious propaganda too. Somewhat like "Bowling for Columbine". And I suspect that Ben Stein's is as useful a source of information as Moore.
        • rficwizard, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1I don't know why this is being buried; I think it is a great analogy. They both say or imply things that aren't true, on purpose, to advance society's belief in their personal (adopted) agenda. Do some people actually think that Moore's work is objective and full and irrefutable facts? That would be pretty silly.
        • pakruse, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1@rficwizard
          The problem is that Ben Stein's agenda is not only more offensive to most of us than Moore's, it's more dangerous.
          Take "Sicko" - if we believe everything that was stated and it's all incorrect, then what? We reform a health care system that people on both sides recognize is broken? Hardly a threat to our society or lifestyle. Much of his work is spent slagging politicians, and you'll have to excuse me if I don't shed any tears over anything that's said against them.
          Stein, on the other hand, is a much more dangerous threat. This movie represents not only the anti-evolutionary biology thought that has pervaded the uneducated portions of this country for 150 years, it represents the anti-scientific and anti-intellectual leanings of a large number of Americans, and it will only worsen that divide. There's a reason that so many of the great scientists today in Biology are working in other countries, and this is going to add fuel to the fire.
          In my mind at least, allowing science to be taught and advanced unimpeded is a far more pressing issue than preventing a few politicians from being slandered. Moore may be a propagandist as well, but the issues he raises are less threatening to our future as a country.
    • nullifidian0, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4It's just a schlockumentary.
    • mille716, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6...a *****, ***** movie.
    • Vet4Peace, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6It's a well-funded assault on science and reason, a gigantic mischaracterization of history, and a pack of damned lies. It is not "just a movie."
  • DangerMouse9, on 04/20/2008, -15/+64Jeebus came to me last night and said if I didn't see and promote this movie he'd make me kill one of my eight kids, and then blow my trailer away with my devil wife. She's the devil because she drives by a science research center on her way to work at Burger Emporium. I don't want to kill little Brandine, so go see this movie.
    • Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -1/+8First post I laughed at, thanks for that.
    • hayzeus, on 04/20/2008, -0/+14Dude, we've all been there.
      • Kyan, on 04/20/2008, -0/+19You've been to Burger Emporium, too?
        • yoshman, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2You *have* to try their "Triple Paddy Heart Clogger". Get it with extra bacon and ranch! It's delish!
  • relic180, on 04/20/2008, -9/+21If anybody cares, here's a couple sites you can vote the movie down at...
    ...without registering:
    http://movies.go.com/readerreviews/movie?name=expe ...

    ...after registering:
    http://www.fandango.com/expelled:nointelligenceall ...
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intell ...

    If anybody knows a few more sites you can vote it down at without registering, please post links.
    • relic180, on 04/20/2008, -1/+9Honestly, is there ANY ***** way to post links on digg without getting them cut off?? Very irritating...
      • carpespasm, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2tinurl is the only thing i'm aware of.
      • anachronaut, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1The only time my links ever get cut off is if I hit the "edit" link after making my post -- that is 100% guaranteed to truncate long URLs.

        As long as you don't edit your post, though (the extra line breaks you see immediately after making a post will fix themselves -- they don't need to be edited out to fix the formatting), then you should be fine. And if you DO need to edit, just make sure you re-enter your URLs while you're editing and they will be fine after you re-submit. It's that very first time you click the "edit" link that is screwing everything up -- once you're past that, you're OK.

        The "new" Digg comment system is beyond pathetic since you have to use workarounds to avoid trivial issues like that, and have had to do so for months now. ***** fix it already, idiots.
      • tekrat, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1TapURL.com works to.
    • minox, on 04/20/2008, -25/+2Wow, you're a fascist.
      • SoulDrift404, on 04/20/2008, -1/+12Wow, your'e a total moron.
      • talonstriker,