'No Intelligence Allowed' deserves to be expelled

Droning funnyman Ben Stein monkeys around with evolution with the new documentary, ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,'' a cynical attempt to sucker Christian conservatives into thinking they're losing the ...

[DCee]

So this reviewer is looking for actual proof of creation? He's knows it's all theory and speculation right? That includes evolution.

[John Birch]

The reaction to this movie is as predictable as a Macintosh computer lover's reaction to a less than stellar comment about anything Apple--fanatic defense. What is important to remember is Stein is a comedian, unlike Michael Moore, who is a self-professed documentarian. I will not engage in the discussion of evolution vs. creation, but will comment only that nobody has ever had any scientific explanation of how it all started, either way. At least not yet---not even in theory.

[Lynn]

Typical media response. Didn't expect anything different. It is unfortunate but I am sure people will consider the source of the review and see the movie for themselves and give their own opinion. I am sure if Michael Moore or Al Gore would have gotten a much more positive review if they did the SAME EXACT type of film touting Evolution (or global warming - another theory full of holes) http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/...

[The Dude]

>>>"So this reviewer is looking for actual proof of creation? He's knows it's all theory and speculation right? That includes evolution."

Yes, evolution is an accepted scientific theory. Just like gravity. Anyone wanna tell me the um, "scientific" theory of Creation?(I never get an answer to this one)

>>>"I will not engage in the discussion of evolution vs. creation, but will comment only that nobody has ever had any scientific explanation of how it all started, either way. At least not yet---not even in theory."

That's because all there is so far is a hypothesis. This is called abiogenesis - which evolution does not need to rely on. No-one knows for certain how life started, but in science it's okay to say: "We don't know - yet." But they'll do their best to find out.

>>>" I am sure if Michael Moore or Al Gore would have gotten a much more positive review if they did the SAME EXACT type of film touting Evolution (or global warming - another theory full of holes)"

Well, global warming has little to do with this, so would you like to expand on this "evolution being full of holes" stuff? Perhaps you could present your concerns here, and then perhaps you could present a scientific alternative which explains things better.

[Lynn]

The Dude wrote:

>>>"So this reviewer is looking for actual proof of creation? He's knows it's all theory and speculation right? That includes evolution."
Yes, evolution is an accepted scientific theory. Just like gravity. Anyone wanna tell me the um, "scientific" theory of Creation?(I never get an answer to this one)
>>>"I will not engage in the discussion of evolution vs. creation, but will comment only that nobody has ever had any scientific explanation of how it all started, either way. At least not yet---not even in theory."
That's because all there is so far is a hypothesis. This is called abiogenesis - which evolution does not need to rely on. No-one knows for certain how life started, but in science it's okay to say: "We don't know - yet." But they'll do their best to find out.
>>>" I am sure if Michael Moore or Al Gore would have gotten a much more positive review if they did the SAME EXACT type of film touting Evolution (or global warming - another theory full of holes)"
Well, global warming has little to do with this, so would you like to expand on this "evolution being full of holes" stuff? Perhaps you could present your concerns here, and then perhaps you could present a scientific alternative which explains things better.

Just one article describing holes in the evolutionary theory; http://www.icr.org/article/2822%20/

[ceart99]

Intelligent Design simply has no place in school curriculum. It's proponents tout it as an alternative to evolution that should be given equal representation. Unfortunately not all alternatives are created equal.

Evolution is a process that is backed up by decades of evidence, that has been used to predict the types of creatures that could be expected to be found to fill in holes (creatures that fossil evidence has since been found for), and that is still seen to occur in the modern world (viruses that mutate to withstand vaccines).

Intelligent Design is a young discipline that is as yet untested and unproven. If its proponents want it to be included in science curriculum, they need to back up its claims with scientific studies and documentation, not just produce propaganda films that appeal to peoples emotions. If they can do that, it will be added to the science curriculum, just as evolution has been. Unfortunately it does not appear that they are capable of doing so.

[Truth]

Reading Moore's reviews over the past few years, it's no surprise that he tries to push the media's secularist views. This guy has promoted stuff by Michael Moore, promoted the Cider House Rules, while knocking Expelled and another wonderful film---Bella.

If anything reflects anything of God, family values, or intelligent design, Moore and his lackeys in the liberal, elitist, secularist media will knock it.

I saw Expelled. Great film and filled with the truth of what is going on in society today. Of how the left, the ACLU and its ilk are trying to push forth their atheistic, secularistic agenda and silence all talk of religion, moral values or any kind of spiritual discussion.

Freedom of speech for those people only entails what they espouse. They are intolerant hypocrites....and this reviewer is one of them.

[The Dude]

>>>"Just one article describing holes in the evolutionary theory"

From 'ICR'? Duane Gish? Did you know he was a YEC (Young Earth Creationist)? Which means he not only objects to evolution, but astrophysics, geology, history... oh, and I see in the article he seems more intent on disputing the Big Bang rather than evolution. He also uses the ridiculous thermodynamics "argument". Unfortunately it's all old stuff which has been debunked over and over for 40 years. His only alternative he proposes is "Goddidit". Which he provides no evidence for other than the Bible. Circular reasoning.

Maybe God did do it. But He used evolution. Unfortunately, no-one has given us a way to test for the existence of God as of yet. Hence, it is unscientific. Even if God does exist, it does not contradict evolution, since NOTHING is beyond His power, is it not?

[ceart99]

Lynn wrote:

<quoted text> Just one article describing holes in the evolutionary theory; http://www.icr.org/article/2822%20/

This article does not even discuss evolution, evolution explains how one form of life can change into others, it does not explain the origin of life itself. It definitely does not address the origin of the universe.

[Duh]

Ohhh noo. Here we go again. I'm really not interested in the debate, I'll just point out that the review reads a lot like Dawkins' books... very angry tirades. At what are you so angry?

[TerryL]

Duh wrote:

Ohhh noo. Here we go again. I'm really not interested in the debate, I'll just point out that the review reads a lot like Dawkins' books... very angry tirades. At what are you so angry?

We are angry at all those people who try to push their scientifically unsupported religious views onto the under-educated public as scientifically valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution. They offer absolutely nothing to support their claims but conjecture based on their chosen interpretation of their version of a religious text. There is no evidence, no research, no tests! Absolutely nothing but a uncontrollable desire to have their particular brand of religion be accepted as science without any of the requirements of actually being science.

[Chad]

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>
We are angry at all those people who try to push their scientifically unsupported religious views onto the under-educated public as scientifically valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution. They offer absolutely nothing to support their claims but conjecture based on their chosen interpretation of their version of a religious text. There is no evidence, no research, no tests! Absolutely nothing but a uncontrollable desire to have their particular brand of religion be accepted as science without any of the requirements of actually being science.

I agree with you 100 percent!

[captain lightning]

Conservatives fascinate me. They will gleefully dismiss concepts that have been peer-reviewed, modeled and tested for decades, calling them mere "theories."

Yet they are eager to embrace concepts that have no scientific validity, can't be tested, and can't be proven.

They'll attempt to dress up their notions by claiming they are "scientific," and then have hissy-fits (with concurrent claims of discrimination, cover-ups, and persecution)when their pseudo-science isn't wholeheartedly accepted by the educational system.

If you make room in a public school curriculum for "intelligent design," you had better make room also for teaching that the world is flat. There's no scientific basis for that claim, but some people still believe it.

[Me too]

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>
We are angry at all those people who try to push their scientifically unsupported religious views onto the under-educated public as scientifically valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution. They offer absolutely nothing to support their claims but conjecture based on their chosen interpretation of their version of a religious text. There is no evidence, no research, no tests! Absolutely nothing but a uncontrollable desire to have their particular brand of religion be accepted as science without any of the requirements of actually being science.

Very well said. I believe in God and I believe God (and Jesus) would want us to have science and explore the depths of our universe.

Anyone who says they are religious and doesn't feel that way is a hack.

[Rob V]

If anyone posting here has actually SEEN the movie, then you'll realize Stein's main argument is that ID proponents are not even given a CHANCE to give any evidence. If you're a scientist, even mentioning the term ID gets you laughed out of your job.(And then some people will say, "they're not real scientists anyway if they think that way.") Most of the people Stein interviews were fired or threatened with firing because all they said was, "Hey, maybe we should at least investigate this possiblity." Apparently, this is unacceptable. Why is science unwilling to go down that road? Stein thinks it atheism. Maybe he's wrong, but he backed up his hypothesis with interviews with many atheistic scientists. He didn't even trick them - he just turned on the cameras and let them talk. I say let ID at least get a chance to make a case.

[TerryL]

Chad wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you 100 percent!

Thanks. The sad fact is that the majority of the posters that fall into the ID/Creationist camp don't want to bother themselves with verifying anything they're being spoon fed by the proponents of ID/Creationism. If they spent 1/2 of the time researching the ID/Creationist claims made as they do posting on these boards they might actually become somewhat familiar with what they are ranting against instead of just parroting ID/Creationist talking points that have been thoroughly refuted every time they are brought up. Hell, even the initiators of the ID movement don't use most of the "augments" brought up by the religious on these boards anymore.

[TerryL]

Rob V wrote:

If anyone posting here has actually SEEN the movie, then you'll realize Stein's main argument is that ID proponents are not even given a CHANCE to give any evidence. If you're a scientist, even mentioning the term ID gets you laughed out of your job.(And then some people will say, "they're not real scientists anyway if they think that way.") Most of the people Stein interviews were fired or threatened with firing because all they said was, "Hey, maybe we should at least investigate this possiblity." Apparently, this is unacceptable. Why is science unwilling to go down that road? Stein thinks it atheism. Maybe he's wrong, but he backed up his hypothesis with interviews with many atheistic scientists. He didn't even trick them - he just turned on the cameras and let them talk. I say let ID at least get a chance to make a case.

Actually they have had the chance and failed miserably to present ANY evidence for their idea. See Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District.

[OsFan]

No one is correct.

There is no reality.

We don't really exist.

Life is a myth and fraud.

Therefore we really had no beginning.

There, feel better?

[ceart99]

Rob V wrote:

If anyone posting here has actually SEEN the movie, then you'll realize Stein's main argument is that ID proponents are not even given a CHANCE to give any evidence. If you're a scientist, even mentioning the term ID gets you laughed out of your job.(And then some people will say, "they're not real scientists anyway if they think that way.") Most of the people Stein interviews were fired or threatened with firing because all they said was, "Hey, maybe we should at least investigate this possiblity." Apparently, this is unacceptable. Why is science unwilling to go down that road? Stein thinks it atheism. Maybe he's wrong, but he backed up his hypothesis with interviews with many atheistic scientists. He didn't even trick them - he just turned on the cameras and let them talk. I say let ID at least get a chance to make a case.

Actually, there are large organizations with much funding that support ID. If they want to investigate and provide evidence supporting their claims, they have the means. They instead choose to use their time and effort on things such as this movie that rely on emotions rather than science to support their claim.

Also, despite the claims of the movie, many of the examples they give of people losing their jobs for supporting ID have been proven false. While the people lost their positions, some left of their own choice, others were dismissed for reasons having nothing t do with ID. At least officially.... even I will admit that "official" reasons aren't always the true reasons. However, if they were fired for their beliefs, that is discrimination and they would have a court case.... why not take up their claims there instead of in a movie?

Finally, the "atheistic scientists" were tricked. They were given the impression that this movie was to be a movie supporting evolution and were told a completely different title for the movie. Then the editors chose choice quotes supporting their positions and used them out of context.

Now, Ben Stein and the producers have every right to make this movie, and anyone who is interested should definitely go to see it. They should be aware that, much as with Michael Moore, the facts presented may not be completely accurate.

By the way, I don't approve of Moore's use of these tactics either.

[Joe]

Geez, looks like this guy is not bias at all and up for hearing both sides of the argument. Mr. Moore, where is "YOUR" data? What does it matter who was asking the Evolutionist the questions? What does it matter whether or not It was actually Ben Stein there asking or someone else? Would it have changed the answers? Maybe the evolutionary theory was made to look ridiculous because that's what it is, a fairy tale for adults only rather than the princess kissing the frog and it becoming a man, the credit goes to millions of years and blind chance or coincidence. And maybe you should read Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" and then you will see the close relationship to Darwinism that he held so esteem when he thought he would "help evolution run it's course" by killing millions of Jews (Elderly and Young - those not fit to work) Your in denial my friend. And you said those who were interviewed were "disgruntled, under-credentialed academics dismissed from lesser colleges" You are clearly not in touch with reality as Richard Dawkins is one of the leading evolutionist of our times. A graduate from Oxford, though some of his credentials are questionable. In any event, how about being a little more open minded? It seems like you went a great deal out of your way for this review and shunning the movie along with discrediting the producers - is there something you are worried about? Maybe being morally accountable to a Holy and Righteous God? Just a thought.

Joe