Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ben Stein shows us a world where Academia’s freedom of inquiry might not be so free. This should be a concern for anyone and everyone. This undermines the concept that we will be teaching facts and truth in our universities. However, if you watch how this documentary is formatted you will find that this documentary is overly biased, delving into spectrums of propaganda! Let me explain. Stein sets about proving his premise by interviewing scientists that have been rejected by the establishment. Scientists who have allegedly had their lives ruined because of their belief in something called “Intelligent Design.” Science isn’t here to persecute people’s beliefs and this concept would probably outrage anyone… that is until you realize the lengths he goes to paint science as the root of this evil.

So, we have Stein interviewing scientists that have had their qualifications ruined by the establishment, wouldn’t you think Stein should interview people working in the scientific community at the time about this issue? If this persecution of dissidents was happening I would think he’d go and talk to people still working in the field and cite his examples for scrutiny. This never happens. Either Stein is a just a terrible host for a documentary and should stick to the game shows, or he has an agenda. Stein does interview PZ Myers, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, and the mighty Richard Dawkins for his grand finale, but he never once asks them about the people that were fired or denied tenure. He only sticks to questions concerning how life began.

He doesn’t even really talk to them about why Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community versus why evolution is taught. He never asks these questions. Michael Ruse, who isn’t even credited during his interview (more sloppy documentary work), proposes a possible life beginning scenario involving crystals. This results in Stein asking him again how it’s possible… after Ruse just told him and results in what can be interpreted as a rude response from Ruse. This style of filming to show scientists as unwilling to entertain the idea of Intelligent Design pushes the viewer to see science as intolerable.

From The Web
Join The Conversation
  • mu

    The bald faced dishonesty and lying of the religious never ceases to amaze me.

    • BPanda

      Waste of time. Pretends to be investigative journalism but is ultimately creationist propaganda from a ‘pro-life activist’ who wrote speeches for Nixon and so famously got the whole subprime mortgage thing so wrong . Only one warped point of view … his own.

      • Casey

        Shutup stupid.

        • ThinkForOnce

          What are you, 12?

  • Pie

    Wow, what a complete crock of garbage. This is such bold faced lying and twisting of the truth it’s sickening.

  • rhondda

    Thank you very much for putting this movie on line. If Darwinian science is so true, why have they not proven it, instead of just declaring it and attacking anyone who dares to ask a question? I do think it is because it is a failing idea. I am glad I decided to watch this as I fell for the Darwinian propaganda and have done alot of reading.

    • Michael

      A failing idea? You should tell that to the scientist making the vaccine that’ll protect you from next year’s newly evolved flu virus, or the scientists that are trying to prevent doctors from abusing antibiotics in order to halt the evolution of resistant bacteria, or to the conservationists trying to protect wildlife by applying evolutionary theory, or to the scientists creating more efficient biofuels by applying evolutionary theory.

      After you do this, then we will have something to talk about. Well, assuming they haven’t tossed you through the intellectual shredder. Which they will if your “reading” consists of Answers in Genesis. Evolutionary theory is about as “proven” as the heliocentric theory of the solar system or the theory of relativity. We don’t use the word “proven” in science because there always could be—key phrase—something that comes along to shatter what we know all together or force us to modify certain theories. There comes a time, however, when you have to step back and admit that it’s unlikely to happen and the theory you have, like the once heavily disputed heliocentric theory, is correct. Maybe we’ll someday find a star orbiting a planet, in which case there’ll be rigorous studies to explain why that scenario happened and will require us to modify the established theory, but until then we safe claiming that planets orbit stars and not the other way around.

      As for evolution, we know many of the Earth’s life forms evolved from simple beginnings. Something could—again, key word—come along disproving, sure, it but don’t hold your breathe. It’s more likely, but perhaps may never happen, that we could discover that DNA originated elsewhere, hitched a ride to Earth somehow and life, having a suitable home, evolved into the many beautiful life forms we know today.

      • Shawn

        @Michael

        “A failing idea? You should tell that to the scientist making the vaccine that’ll protect you from next year’s newly evolved flu virus, or the scientists that are trying to prevent doctors from abusing antibiotics in order to halt the evolution of resistant bacteria”

        I accept evolution and am by no means an ID proponent, but a key aspect is understanding your enemy and you unfortunately have failed to do so by raising the criticism you did in the opening statement of your reply.

        Scientists making new vaccines because the flu virus has evolved since last year is also accepted by Intelligent Design theorists as well. This is a change within “kind” and is also known as what they accept “micro evolution”. That is observable small variation within the confines of however they define “kind”. The same goes for your bacteria argument.

        All you have done is make yourself look like a fool and ask the IDer’s questions to which they have ready and easily defensible answers. You need to point to things that conflict with their theory not to things that their theory already agrees with.

        • Paul

          The term Evolution refers to a collection of facts, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains those facts.
          Evolution and the theory of evolution are at least as factually based as any area of modern science.

          To suggest that evolution is not true is to disregard swathes of established science and more evidence than any one person could consume. Evidence for evolution comes from the sciences of Chemistry, Physics, Medicine and underpins almost all of modern biology.

          Evolution is as much a fact as gravity, atomic theory, the laws of thermodynamics and other very well-established science.

          Creationist terms like ‘micro-evolution’ are ridiculous ways of dismissing evidence that confirms evolutionary theory.

          • Tim

            If the theory of evolution is as proven as gravity, then why do ALL scientists still refer to it as the THEORY of evolution? The fact of the matter is, it takes just as much faith to believe in the theory of evolution as it does to believe in the theory of intelligent design.

        • BamSmacka

          i’m on the opposite side,
          but i think this movie was bunk
          and thank you for being reasonable.

    • ahasver

      The theory of evolution has been proven times and times again. Unfortunately, it is too difficult to be comprehended by the four lonely neurons within a creationist’s brain.

      • BamSmacka

        but again, that won’t convince a creationist.
        you need to focus on their one real question:
        “how was the first cell assembled?”
        even as evolutionists, that is a legitimate, scientific question to which we – so far – cannot offer an answer better than ID.

        • Emmett

          See thats not something as ”evolutionists”, that we have to describe. How the first cell was created has nothing to do with evolution.
          It’s (at least if you’re claiming for an atheist point of view) called Abiogenesis, which has plenty of hypotheses, but is virtually impossible to reenact as it would have multiple stages, that would last huge periods of time each.

        • Hightower

          No better answer than ID? Okay… I hope you realize that your remark means that my theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating mankind is just as valid as your ID argument…

    • Zav

      You will only question Evolution if you are unqualified to understand it. That’s the problem with 99.99% of everyone who asks a question like you did. You’d get just as far questioning the theories of gravity and electricity.

      Honestly, if you have not taken the time to study it, ALL of it, then you’ll ask questions like what you just asked. Those questions are borne of ignorance and the retreat of “they attack us because we question Evolution” does not add up. You can not expect to be taken seriously if you are not educated enough in the discipline to talk about it intelligently.

      Seriously.

  • Butterfingers

    This film is what happens when people who (a) don’t know any science and (b) hate rationality…pretend to be rational and scientific.

    Only an idiot would fall for these lies. But there’s never a shortage of idiots.

  • http://greatjoyingreattribulation Sam

    It Never Ceases to Amaze Me that, there are Simpletons that are So Hell bent on Pushing God The Creator OUT of the equation, that, They couldn’t see the Light, if a Lazor Warehouse was Imbedded on the Inside of Their Eye Sockets! Tho those that CHOOSE to believe mankind Evolved, has NEVER seen ANY so called ‘proof’; They INSIST on the perverbial Name Calling when addressing Those that Believe in God! What are evolution believers hanging on to, with their insistant belief in evolution? Try Believing the scientists that are Digginmg into the GROUND! They dig & dig & Dig & Dig & dig & dig & dig digdigdigdig, and NEVER FIND Half ‘evolved’ Skeletal Remains! The ONLY Bones Ever found, is COMPLETE SKELTAL REMAINS OF WHATEVER DIED!! As for ‘seeding’…Now THAT is Amazing LIES! Because Every Ounce of the ingredients of what makes a Human Body is ONLY ingredients Found on EARTH! We Neither Evolved. Or were ‘seeded’! “The FOOL has said in his Heart ‘there is no God’!” Pretending God doesn’t exist, is like being in the Ocean, and pretending You’re NOT WET! OH! One day, Whether You believe in God or Not, You WILL Stand Before God’s Throne to give an Account of Your Life to Him! No Matter WHAT You THGINK or THINK YOU THINK; There IS a GOD! HE Created the Entire Universe, AND Mankind! So, When You Unbelievers Stand Before Your Creator One Day, Are You going to tell Him He Don’t Exist, Chuckles?

    • Jonte

      Sam: If, against all odds, I am faced with the Judeo-Christian God when I die I’d have to really hold back punching him in the face or something for all he put us through. I’d demand an explanation for why the hell we can’t just be well-off to start with if he loves us so much. Furthermore, I’d pull out a bible on him and ask him to answer to all the genocide, rape, torture, jealusy, and general small-mindedness he is obviously responsible for. Plus I’d take the opportunity to file a complaint regarding the terrible job he did contructing my body. It insists on standing up on two legs, though it’s back clearly isn’t made for that. Also, why did he eventually not put a tail on me, despite the fact that was obviously going to in the first place. Not to mention the energy-consuming. wastly illogical wiring of the bloodstream and nerves? Was he drunk when he made me or what?

      • http://www.bradleyfarless.com/ Brad F.

        Serious question. What do you mean by our backs weren’t designed for walking upright?

        • Zav

          They weren’t Brad. We transitioned from animals that walked on all fours. Note that as we are now walking, it is very dangerous for a woman to give birth, so much so that the #1 cause of death in woman in the 1800s was childbirth. By us making the transition to walking upright, this forces an additional turn in the birth canal, making it very difficult for the head of the baby to pass through. This is not found in our closest relatives who still (mostly) walk on all fours. This is an oversimplification on the matter, but I’m you get the point.

      • Dr Jenny Penny

        Hahaha! Excellent, that’s exactly what I would say too.

      • Dan

        Your problem is the evolutionists have lots of logical empirical proof, and you just have an easily led imagination.

    • http://atomicat.livejournal.com/ Atomicat

      All those capital letters speak of great emotional agitation, the kind of monkey-like agitation that causes folks like yourself to reach for a rock and bash in the skulls of people who refuse to agree with you. So, have I “proved” the theory of evolution to your satisfaction? I thought not. *ducks*

      Many years of study Sam, many years in many disciplines. That requires learning however, which is something that is impossible to do if you already think you know all the answers.

      “The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart”
      Kurt Vonnegut Jr. – “The Sirens of Titan”

      • Diddmund

        Atomicat… word ;-D

        And to second your notion from an informed perspective;
        There was a time, infact, when I was on the “creationist” side of this debate. I kept pulling these seeming logical/scientific errors out of my ass, believing that I actually KNEW what the hell I was talking about.

        And let me tell you (and anybody else interested), there is a lot of “absolute certainty” in the pentecostal christian church, as I would imagine exists in most similar congregations (christian or otherwise).

        Things are without exception spoken of as fact. “Jesus lives! God is mighty! The Holy spirit is working amongst us!” Oh… I’ve heard them all! My disposition was already made, since I and everybody else there were absolutely sure that we were living in absolute truth. Well… I could go on and explain my personal journey from religion to atheism/agnosticism, but…. I’d rather give you all a link to this youtube video series:

        Why I Am No Longer A Christian http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#p/c/A0C3C1D163BE880A/0/mSy1-Q_BEtQ

        This series is, by far, the BEST COLLECTION OF ARGUMENTS/TESTIMONIES AGAINST RELIGION I’ve ever seen!
        So Check it out, my ex-fellow saved Christians, and if you DON’T have some serious doubts about what is real afterwards… you get your money back guaranteed!

        • Anonymous

          I know EXACTLY what you mean about Pentecostals, Diddmund. I was raised in that shit denomination for the first 16 years of my life. The next year I discovered Voltaire, who was a huge influence on a whole new, better way of thinking. This led to lots of other things, and I haven’t looked back since.

        • Anonymous

          I know EXACTLY what you mean about Pentecostals, Diddmund. I was raised in that shit denomination for the first 16 years of my life. The next year I discovered Voltaire, who was a huge influence on a whole new, better way of thinking. This led to lots of other things, and I haven’t looked back since.

        • Cheese

          Those videos are fantastic! I feel like watching this guy’s videos does for the mind what eating your fruits and veggies does for the body. Purge the crap, and fuel yourself with the real, healthful, foundational, and necessary building blocks.

          • Cheese

            And just for a personal memo, I was raised Jewish and attended a private Jewish school where the Torah was taught as fact, and where Christians and Muslims (and Atheists, I suppose, although I didn’t even really understand that such a thing existed) were so obviously and pathetically misinformed…

            But I think being raised with the minority religion probably made it easier for me to move on from it that it would be for Christians, especially those from certain regions of the US. I more quickly realized that not everyone around me was Jewish, which I think helps trigger those first thoughts in childhood of “wait…this isn’t just taken as fact??!”

            Thank god (or Yahweh, my bad!) for books and for my college education! Cognitive psychology, human biology, and simply learning to approach the world with a truth-seeking, empirically based mindset are what really answered the mysteries in my mind that had as a child been ascribed to God.

      • Diddmund

        Atomicat… word ;-D

        And to second your notion from an informed perspective;
        There was a time, infact, when I was on the “creationist” side of this debate. I kept pulling these seeming logical/scientific errors out of my ass, believing that I actually KNEW what the hell I was talking about.

        And let me tell you (and anybody else interested), there is a lot of “absolute certainty” in the pentecostal christian church, as I would imagine exists in most similar congregations (christian or otherwise).

        Things are without exception spoken of as fact. “Jesus lives! God is mighty! The Holy spirit is working amongst us!” Oh… I’ve heard them all! My disposition was already made, since I and everybody else there were absolutely sure that we were living in absolute truth. Well… I could go on and explain my personal journey from religion to atheism/agnosticism, but…. I’d rather give you all a link to this youtube video series:

        Why I Am No Longer A Christian http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#p/c/A0C3C1D163BE880A/0/mSy1-Q_BEtQ

        This series is, by far, the BEST COLLECTION OF ARGUMENTS/TESTIMONIES AGAINST RELIGION I’ve ever seen!
        So Check it out, my ex-fellow saved Christians, and if you DON’T have some serious doubts about what is real afterwards… you get your money back guaranteed!

    • http://www.reddit.com Cole

      Oh sam… your lack of an understanding for well… science in general is astounding.

      “Try Believing the scientists that are Digginmg into the GROUND! They dig & dig & Dig & Dig & dig & dig & dig digdigdigdig, and NEVER FIND Half ‘evolved’ Skeletal Remains! The ONLY Bones Ever found, is COMPLETE SKELTAL REMAINS OF WHATEVER DIED!!”

      Um… of course because all fossils are dead animals. There is no such thing as an intermediate species in the “process of evolution” because that is not how evolution works- it sounds like you attained your knowledge on evolution from Pokemon? No, every animal from humans to Ameoba are constantly evolving over the eons. It never ends, and is completely involuntary.

      “As for ‘seeding’…Now THAT is Amazing LIES! Because Every Ounce of the ingredients of what makes a Human Body is ONLY ingredients Found on EARTH!”

      Uh… well this one is a bit embarrassing isn’t it? Our basic building blocks are found ONLY on Earth? First of all the earth was formed from the remnants of dead stars, therefore we are made of starstuff as Carl Sagan said. And our base materials are spread all over our solar system (and greater Galaxy) our main components are quite literally the most common materials in the universe.

      Now Im not one for putting another’s beliefs down- but how can I not when your knowledge of science is borderline nill? Educate yourself before listening to that moron Ben Steins rantings.

      • Casey

        Jesus… you must be really proud of this comment. Do you show this crap to your dates (assuming you have any)? Nah, I’m betting you have this page saved in you favorites, and you prefer to be alone with your brilliance and a bottle of Jergens. Hope you enjoy that. It must be nice to have all the answers.

        • Inq

          Ah, I see you didn’t just post one inane reply but several. You are at the bottom of the argumentative pyramid my friend. (http://imgur.com/MweR2). Apparently, someone who is looking for answers is someone you feel should be looked down on. Ignorance is bliss? Really?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

            Well I’ve clearly struck a chord with you. I’ll say this much for me: I don’t hide behind an anonymous avatar, and I’m fantastic at skipping rocks. Now do your best to take this information personally.   

          • Inq

            Heard of projection Casey? Everyone else here (well most) seems to be able to hold a coherent discussion and give their informed opinion. You insult and accuse without adding anything to the discussion. YOU are the one taking it personal. Did you even reply to anything I said? No.

            You are living proof that Poe’s Law is valid.

            Oh, and as for “HIDING” behind an anonymous avatar, I’d rather not have complete strangers (who might believe anything that deluded people or imaginary beings tell him) know anything about me or my family. You can insult that as much as you want, it just proves my point all the better.

            I must say, you really are the perfect spokesperson for this movie and religious belief in general.

    • BamSmacka

      could you calm down and stop skewing the argument?
      you make one entire party look idiotic
      and you’re wasting our precious internets.

  • Kevin

    If you wanna see more of this funny garbage go to the Creation Museum. Though beware, you may be blessed with bloodlust like I was.

  • Mr Weaven

    All this is, is whining that the pretend science of intelligent design is, quite rightly, not being taken seriously. Long may this continue to happen.

  • Adam

    What a piece of garbage. Ben really made a fool of himself with this one.

  • MJ

    This video discusses nothing of substance. It is clearly biased and omits far too much technical information to be considered a documentary.

    This documentary is interesting and there are others on this site that discuss both sides of the debate. True science is not about politics, religion or opinion.

    http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/

    • T.Craccie

      For the vast majority of the world there is no value in posting a link to a pbs documentary. This only works if based in the USA.

      The world is FAR bigger than the USA … have look.

  • Ash

    SO, they’re all cool calm and collected and VERY scientific. Advocates of freedom in science. Anything should be logically considered. Until 36 minutes into it and he does EXACTLY what mainstream science does and says “aliens??? I thought we were talking about science, not science fiction”.

    So up to a point he’s scientific, then he gets emotional and operates off a BELIEF that aliens are science fiction. Why not LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY consider that option also? Why dismiss it as fiction just because of his opinion?

    FUCKING FAIL!

    BTW, Human evolution DOES NOT add up, and neither does creationism. Throw your beliefs in the bin and embrace TRUE knowledge.

    • Paul

      Why doesn’t human evolution add up?

    • traicetrak

      I believe the point he was trying to make in expressing incredulity and dismissiveness at the proposal of aliens as the source of life is that it is just as big a leap as proposing that a deity is responsible. In fact, Dawkins even remotely considering this scenario while being dead-set against any notion of divinity in intelligent design speaks to just how much of his scientific conviction is formed more by personal prejudice than by science.

      • Cole

        Dawkins merely says that aliens seeding life is more likely than a god doing it. He never said he seriously considers this to be true however… big difference. Now sirs are you trying to say we are alone in the universe? The very fact that we exist says that there is life out there… somewhere. Now I wont say its likely aliens have visited us- the sheer technical problems of traveling through interstellar space is well daunting to say the least but its STILL more likely than a magic wizard who just made everything happen for no reason.

        • Zav

          Dawkins says that aliens made us? Mmmm no. I think you missed his point. Proof of aliens does not exist and Dawkins would not base any argument on such an unsubstantiated claim.

          • Cole

            No he never made that claim I know. And is the life on Earth not proof enough of life off Earth? Id say its more unlikely that in the entire universe we are the only life.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

            Be honest now: How many of you are jerking off to Richard Dawkins right now, or at least plan to later?

          • Anonymous

            An honest man’s word ON ANYTHING wouldn’t be worth telling to a dick like you: You already have all the information you’re ever going to need, so why bother? In fact, you should be in charge of this planet, just to let you know! Too bad you aren’t, though, huh? Too bad your breed’s going to die out, and there’s nothing you can do about it… Frankly, that’s precisely why you’re as pissed as you are: You’re stuck on a sinking ship, and you see everyone leaving you behind to go down with it.

            ( That’s a rock, by the way, and it just kicked your ASS. )

            p.s. Personally speaking, I had a LOT of fun writing this, and I’m saving it for my personal collection.

  • Human Being

    I’m glad I watched this, but I swear it feels like I’m losing brain cells when I watch ignorannce like this. It seems that the trump card for people who disagree with evolution is to bring up that Hitler was an athesis. Really childish because it puts one in a position of ‘siding’ with Nazis. Now when this retard Ben Stein mashes eugenics with evolution it shows the ‘herat-string puller’ tatics used in the movie. Do a survey for yourself to find how many people believe in a god and have no qualms with war. War in itself is doing enough to modify the population, as are countless other ‘non-ethical’ products of modern society.

    I don’t religion should be ‘banned’ as much as I think information should be more ‘flowing.’ When one takes a look at history religion and war are hand in hand.

    Oh and would people please stop using the ‘founding fathers’ to make a claim that all men are created equal. 90% of the population were slaves and women had very mild rights, so evidently “they DIDN’T get it right,” we’re still working on it.

  • Mickey Blue Eyes

    “Oh and would people please stop using the ‘founding fathers’.”

    I agree, but not for the reaosn you give, rather the ‘founding fathers’ are relevant to just 1 country but irrelevant to over 190 and the vast majority of the world’s population.

  • dan

    I think this movie makes a good debate on the forgotten fallout from Darwinism to Eugenics, and the suppression of rational discussion by the US Academy of Sciences.

    Too bad it’s not public knowledge how many discoveries have followed as a direct result of the assumption that Darwinism must be true.

    However, we need to understand that Darwinism is so inherently proven by the world around us, that even if Darwin had never existed, the concept of evolution would have been thought up eventually, by someone, somewhere. Several of Darwin’s contemporaries had come up with similar theories, forcing Darwin to rush his theory into publication first.

  • http://hello Fabrizzio

    i think actually this documentary is interesting in terms of putting in perspective how the importance that science has in our lives, but also how fundamental is spirituality in our lives. Thats where i find interesting this doc. A lot of the scientists interviewed there that don’t leave space to any other possibility of the origins of life seem very intelligent, which doesn’t mean that they are necessarily emotionally intelligent, i think an equilibrium of these two is necessary for this topic. accepting other points of view. In the part where he goes to Hadamar and talks with the lady there in the clinic. As far as i know she is not a scientist or maybe she is, but she clearly had a very scientific spectrum to see life and you could see how empty she was on the inside, she looked dry like raisin on the inside.

    Anyway as a matter of just sharing i would like to write you guys here a thought i read a while ago i, its interesting to consider i think.It centers in archeology but the core of it applies to our subject here it goes:

    “twentieth-century prehistory has been bedevile by a particular form of this search for proof, which i shall call “archeological positivism”. it is the fallacy that dealing with “objects” makes one “objective”; the belief that interpretations of archeological evidence are as solid as the archeological finds themselves. This faith elevates hypotheses based on archeology to a “scientific” status and demotes information about the past from other sources such as legends, place names, religious cults, language and the distribution of linguistic and script dialects”.

    The way see life now a days is the more we know we realize the less we know about anything so why not consider other options that go beyond proof, there are just things that are just not ment to be proven and there is an intelligence in itself to accept that.

    thanks for posting the doc.

  • jen

    If something is compared to Hitler, the holocaust or Nazi Germany it is safe to assume you are watching bs propaganda. I’m not all that educated on the matter of Darwinism and evolution. However, it only takes common sense to ask yourself what in the hell does NATURAL selection have to do with genocide and eugenics? I thought Ben Stein was a smart guy, is he playing dumb? What is his agenda here? What does he get out of making this film? It’s all very bizarre.

    • Elsa

      What they did is called Godwin’s law, epic fail. =D

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

      • BamSmacka

        *awesome

        in this case they even started w/ the comparison

    • BamSmacka

      hizzah
      binging hitler into anything is the end of the disintegration of the argument.
      i can usually handle Maoists and Stalinists, but Nazis just shut me right down.

  • Dan

    What is it with the USA and ‘intelligent design’? The rest of the world isn’t trying to peddle this nonsense. The Pope, the orthodox church, Anglicans etc etc aren’t trying to pretend the world was created 6 thousand years ago. Seems like a guaranteed way to turn any intelligent person away from Christianity as far as I can see.

    The people making this documentary know they are twisting the truth at times, and editing peoples quotes to suit their own ends, but call themselves Christians. I really don’t get North American Christianity. In the rest of the world, Christians tend to be ‘left wing’, but American ‘Christians’ (like my in-laws) are all for the death penalty, cutting back on support for those in desperate need, and of course the ‘land of the FREE’ still haven’t made things right with the recent descendents of their SLAVES. Just leave them to rot in ghettos, and them accuse theme of making bad choices when they appear in front of a judge on their way to prison. Is that what Christianity is? Not for me!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

      The United States of America is awesome. Get over it or we will bomb you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

      The United States of America is awesome. Get over it or we will bomb you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

      The United States of America is awesome. Get over it or we will bomb you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

      The United States of America is awesome. Get over it or we will bomb you.

  • Scott

    Absolutely Brilliant!!!

    I am not a creationist, but I am a scientist, artist, athlete and believer in hope and freedom.

    If people are allowed the freedom to post subjective and personal views on this website – Why do we deny respected, highly educated individuals the right to persue objective=evidence based research in the sciences that may help to further our knowledge of the World which may eventually lead to improvements of overall human condition?

    The basic issue here is freedom! Not freedom to preach and impose one group’s on another group. But, it is about the freedom to explore and learn and to explain.

    If you have a problem with the views of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims or even Buddhist – That is your problem! But, none-the-less, your fears and hate still have no relevance to the basic right of man to pose legitimate questions, whilst they seek a clearer understanding of the meaning of life!

    It is all about freedom! Who is anybody to deny another person their freedom to learn and explore?

    Certainly not me nor you!!!

    Peace,

    Scott

    • jaminya

      It is all about freedom! Who is anybody to deny another person their freedom to learn and explore?

      anybody is nobody, and the who is capital enterprise and mass enslavement.

    • Kate

      This is a school for goodness sake. You’re essentially arguing that a teacher should be able to teach children their opinions. As in why don’t we just teach children that Pearl Harbour got bombed by France. What? We can’t tell them that because I just made it up? But, but freedom of expression!!!!!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

        Shutup Kate. That analogy was dreadful.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

        Shutup Kate. That analogy was dreadful.

        • Inq

          Shut up Casey, your reply is without content. See how little this brings to the discussion? Useless to comment if you can’t give an explanation for why you think a certain way.

        • Inq

          Shut up Casey, your reply is without content. See how little this brings to the discussion? Useless to comment if you can’t give an explanation for why you think a certain way.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=686740790 Vegar Ottesen

          Actually Kate has a point. You can’t teach creationism as science because it is falsified. The earth isn’t 6-10 000 years old and life did and does evolve. To teach that as science is abhorrent and can easily be compared with teaching that France bombed Pearl Harbor. Or that Al Quaeda nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

        Shutup Kate. That analogy was dreadful.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

        Shutup Kate. That analogy was dreadful.

    • Vox

      Objective, evidence-based research cannot arise from dogma.  Thus, such dogma should be kept out of classrooms and laboratories, lest it taint fact-based education with meaningless opinion.  Teachers rightly do not and should not have the “freedom” to teach children whatever they feel like instead of the academically-accepted science, to argue such is nonsense.

      I do not believe that you are a scientist, Scott.  Religious folk can freely practice in their homes and temples, but should not have the “freedom” to proselytize via a publicly-funded environment.

      • Anon e mouse

        Atheism is the new religion led by the likes of Dawkins and their prejudice islamophobic views

      • Anon e mouse

        Atheism is the new religion led by the likes of Dawkins and their prejudice islamophobic views

        • Inquartata

          Wow. How ignorant. 
          If atheism is a religion then OFF is a tv-channel, not collecting stamps is a hobby, bald is a haircolor and abstinence is a sexual position.As for prejudice towards islam, atheism simply implies a nobelief in a deity. You are thinking about anti-theism, which, imho rightly, is against any religion, not just islam. Religion divides people, shatters hope and destroys families. Without religion, the world would be an infinitely better, more harmonious and loving place.

          • Turkishjudge

            According to the BMV, bald is a hair color.  I know, you live somewhere that doesn’t have a BMV, maybe you have a DMV.  Maybe where you live doesn’t count bald as a hair color, that’s cool too.  All I’m saying is that blanket statements, like what you just did there, can conceal fallacies in them.  Much like your closing statement that “Without religion, the world would be an infinitely better, more harmonious and loving place”; adding your own opinions to the end of a list of “facts” leads unnecessary and unearned credence to your opinion. 

          • Turkishjudge

            According to the BMV, bald is a hair color.  I know, you live somewhere that doesn’t have a BMV, maybe you have a DMV.  Maybe where you live doesn’t count bald as a hair color, that’s cool too.  All I’m saying is that blanket statements, like what you just did there, can conceal fallacies in them.  Much like your closing statement that “Without religion, the world would be an infinitely better, more harmonious and loving place”; adding your own opinions to the end of a list of “facts” leads unnecessary and unearned credence to your opinion. 

          • Inquartata

            Wow. You can obfuscate as much as you want but I really don’t get your point.

            1) BALD IS NOT A HAIRCOLOR. 

            2) The fact that BMV/DMV’s might define it as such for LEGAL reasons has no bearing on the truth of 1.

            >Adding your own opinions to the end of a list of “facts” leads unnecessary and unearned credence to your opinion.
            My opinion? Right, because religions has truly been such a driving force for peace in the world?

            Pull the other one. 

            Correct me if I am wrong but no one has killed or waged wars in the name of atheism. Countless have died in the name of countless gods. This, just like the first part of my post is as much “my opinion” as the statement “the sun will rise tomorrow”. It is based on experience. You cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but based on past experiences, YOU CAN STATE IT AS A FACT.

            Atheism doesn’t cause violence. Religion does. My statement stands as a theory backed by reason, not as merely an opinion.

            And really, what WAS the point of your post?

          • Freebird

            Hey pal, you’re talking rubbish. Are you really implying that atheistic communism doesn’t cause violence??? Go do homework then reply.

          • Inquartata

            You see to either have reading problems or a short attention-span.

            THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

          • Inquartata

            You see to either have reading problems or a short attention-span.

            THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

          • Inquartata

            Wow. You can obfuscate as much as you want but I really don’t get your point.

            1) BALD IS NOT A HAIRCOLOR. 

            2) The fact that BMV/DMV’s might define it as such for LEGAL reasons has no bearing on the truth of 1.

            >Adding your own opinions to the end of a list of “facts” leads unnecessary and unearned credence to your opinion.
            My opinion? Right, because religions has truly been such a driving force for peace in the world?

            Pull the other one. 

            Correct me if I am wrong but no one has killed or waged wars in the name of atheism. Countless have died in the name of countless gods. This, just like the first part of my post is as much “my opinion” as the statement “the sun will rise tomorrow”. It is based on experience. You cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but based on past experiences, YOU CAN STATE IT AS A FACT.

            Atheism doesn’t cause violence. Religion does. My statement stands as a theory backed by reason, not as merely an opinion.

            And really, what WAS the point of your post?

          • Inquartata

            Wow. You can obfuscate as much as you want but I really don’t get your point.

            1) BALD IS NOT A HAIRCOLOR. 

            2) The fact that BMV/DMV’s might define it as such for LEGAL reasons has no bearing on the truth of 1.

            >Adding your own opinions to the end of a list of “facts” leads unnecessary and unearned credence to your opinion.
            My opinion? Right, because religions has truly been such a driving force for peace in the world?

            Pull the other one. 

            Correct me if I am wrong but no one has killed or waged wars in the name of atheism. Countless have died in the name of countless gods. This, just like the first part of my post is as much “my opinion” as the statement “the sun will rise tomorrow”. It is based on experience. You cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but based on past experiences, YOU CAN STATE IT AS A FACT.

            Atheism doesn’t cause violence. Religion does. My statement stands as a theory backed by reason, not as merely an opinion.

            And really, what WAS the point of your post?

          • Inquartata

            Wow. You can obfuscate as much as you want but I really don’t get your point.

            1) BALD IS NOT A HAIRCOLOR. 

            2) The fact that BMV/DMV’s might define it as such for LEGAL reasons has no bearing on the truth of 1.

            >Adding your own opinions to the end of a list of “facts” leads unnecessary and unearned credence to your opinion.
            My opinion? Right, because religions has truly been such a driving force for peace in the world?

            Pull the other one. 

            Correct me if I am wrong but no one has killed or waged wars in the name of atheism. Countless have died in the name of countless gods. This, just like the first part of my post is as much “my opinion” as the statement “the sun will rise tomorrow”. It is based on experience. You cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but based on past experiences, YOU CAN STATE IT AS A FACT.

            Atheism doesn’t cause violence. Religion does. My statement stands as a theory backed by reason, not as merely an opinion.

            And really, what WAS the point of your post?

          • Freebird

            like North Korea? Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Stalin’s paradise?
            Oh yes – removing religion leads to vastly improved human society, even utopia…?   Dream on friend.

          • Inquartata

            Honestly? I do not believe you have even read my posts. Your replies are loosely related jumbled sentences.

            I apologize in advance for the capital letters, but hey, since you are not actually reading, just posting, I hope they will catch your attention.Your stated examples are those of COMMUNIST TOTALITARIAN STATES.Do you blame people who sleep? Sleepers make up 100%  of the MASSMURDERERS! CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.

          • Inquartata

            Honestly? I do not believe you have even read my posts. Your replies are loosely related jumbled sentences.

            I apologize in advance for the capital letters, but hey, since you are not actually reading, just posting, I hope they will catch your attention.Your stated examples are those of COMMUNIST TOTALITARIAN STATES.Do you blame people who sleep? Sleepers make up 100%  of the MASSMURDERERS! CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.

    • Djb3500

      Rot.  Ask away as much as you like.  Just don’t pretend this stuff is “evidence based” or a true attempt to understand the world at all.  It is a PR monkey’s attempt to get religious teaching back into publicly funded institutions.  If it could stand up to peer review and the consideration of real experts these ideas would have a legitimate, if provisional place in the range of scientific opinion like many other controversial ideas.   They don’t, so are relegated to where they belong – with the antivaccinators, the crystal healers, those who channel fairy auras and who have the firm belief that aliens have traveled from distant planets to shove arcane electrical equipment up their bum.  

      Nice folks, most of them and pretty harmless but I am not about to let them start writing the syllabus for my Kids’ education.

  • Danno

    I can understand the need for open communication, I just don’t think Intelligent Design supporters have anything new to say…it seems like there is just one argument: “Can’t explain something? Like the origin of everything? Must be God!” While the counter argument is simply “that is not an explanation…it’s a scapegoat you could use for anything you don’t understand!” And therefore, there IS no reasonable debate because they are just speaking at odds and until there is more evidence one way or the other you have to stick with the best theory you can muster. That’s science for ya!

  • reg

    No, you are clearly an ID proponent.

  • WMT
  • Coli

    test

  • Coli

    Hi everyone – amazing discusion here to say the least.
    What I thought I would share here is some insights that came to me from the scientific documentaries I have enjoyed on this very site.

    imagine if you will that einstein kept some of his discoveries to himself, in particular, the proven fact that time is not a constant for everyone…..it depends on how fast you are travelling….especially when you travel near the speed of light. To make it more clear to the non scientific types, if you could travel at twice the speed of light around the earth (or about 2 times around the earth per second) and you came back to earth after one day, the poeple you knew would be about 50 years older, while you would only be 1 day older. Now belive me when I say that this is not a theory, it is a proven fact..time is not a constant.

    To a scientist or the layman who would choose to tell people about this without proof would be sent to the loony house for sure.
    Point is einstien would know the truth even though the rest of the world could not even imagine it…he had the math to prove it while everyone else would be relying on Newtonian math…far less advanced and the only believable evidence and therfore dismiss anything as crazy as time is not a constant

    Belive me when I say that true creationist know that god exisits and have the proof of einstein not by way of math but by imeasurable love, caring, seflessness ( mother teresa for expample)

    If you watch the latest science documentaries on string theory, quarks, the fact that we may not even exist is a testament the the fact that we know nothing yet..both about creation and science

    Understanding that we dont understand is the basis for understanding
    excuse my spelling

    • Coli

      correction…1/2 the speed of light, not twice

  • Melanie

    How ridiculous! You know, this documentary had me going for a little while. I have always been not very religious and believed in Darwin’s theories… even so, I opened my mind for this… AT FIRST! The more this documentary goes on, the more outrageous it gets. Stating that planned parenthood was designed to prevent lower class people from reproducing is absolutely insane. Also, trying to heavily convince the viewer that darwinism leads to naziism… I cant even begin to comprehend their rationalization. In that same argument, it is just as easy to say that a strong belief in creation and religion leads to unprecedented genocide.

    I can not believe such a known public figure would put his name on this piece of garbage.

  • givemeliberty

    Adaptation IS NOT evolution.

    Saying humans came from monkeys because our DNA is similar is as absurd as saying Velveeta came from melted plastic because it’s molecular structure is very close, or that individuals with downsyndrome are the babies of aliens.

    Intelligent Design AND Evolution are BOTH theories. Both have some aspects that have evidence, or some facts and the Bible is still being used to this day as an accurate tool for archaeological finds.

    I personally, think that it is possible for both to exist. If one really gets into researching, they will find that they do not actually contradict each other.

    And to the person eluding to “why isn’t everything perfect if God is so great….”
    From what I know of the Bible: “God” gave people free will. They made horrible decisions and now we deal with the consequences. Shit happens and it is humans’ fault. Humans make decisions; some good, some evil. And if there is a “God” then there also has to be a “Satan.”

    • Middleview

      God gave us free will? You mean the freedom to choose between ignorance and knowledge? The entire story of Adam and Eve is designed to persuade believers that seeking “knowledge” is bad and that blind devotion to God is where it’s at….

    • Inquartata

      “Adaptation IS NOT evolution.” 
      Adaption over several generations based on the survival of individual with certain genes over others IS evolution. You obviously don’t understand what evolution is.”Saying humans came from monkeys…”Case in point: That is NOT what evolution says. For frakks sake, try to read up on what evolution actually states.”Intelligent Design AND Evolution are BOTH theories…”

      AGAIN, not true. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning that people have tried to prove it wrong over and over and keep failing. Feel free to try to prove them wrong. Evolution has not been proven wrong once. It is an indisputable fact. Intelligent design has proven wrong over and over. Not the same thing

      • Freebird

        If evolution is true, where are all the transitional fossils?

        Where are they? I know, it’s tough to try to come up with one. Darwin himself realised that their absence was the greatest obstacle that could be raised against his theory. but he presumed that in the years to come those missing links would all be found.
        But — Oh dear, they are still missing..! 

         What would Darwin postulate today, after all the decades of searching and sifting through hundreds of thousands of fossils? If he were a truly objective scientist perhaps he might have the humility and broadness of mind refine his theory and to consider other explanations for the origin of the species.

        • Inquartata

          >If evolution is true, where are all the transitional fossils?

          Now, I just have to say before I write the reply that I cannot be the first person to tell you this since the question you ask is so easy to answer that you must have heard this before.,I only hope you might listen… :/

          Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Every one. We are both transitional forms between or ancestors and our future offsprings offspring. Transitional forms between our parents and our kids. Evolution has no GOAL. We only call giraffs giraffs and expect them to look a certain way because that is the way they look today. The same holds true for all animals. While some animals are extremely wellsuited to the environment they habit, and might therefore not change much over time (so called living fossils) most animals are in a constant state of change. Go back a few thousand generations and you would see changes.

          >Where are they? I know, it’s tough to try to come up with one. 

          Well, no, as you can see, it took me about 2 seconds…to mention millions.

          >Darwin himself realised that their absence was the greatest obstacle that could be raised against his theory. but he presumed that in the years to come those missing links would all be found.
          But — Oh dear, they are still missing..! 

          Patently false. The interesting things is not that we find fossils, but that using evolutionary theory, we can predict where and what kinds of animals we should find. And we have. There are literally millions of them. All supporting evolution as truth. That is the second thing. All we would need is one fossil that would contradict evolution (say, a man found next to a dinosaur) and then we would have to seriously consider a revision of the theory. As it stands now, only small adjustments have had to be made to include ALL fossils. They fit like a huge puzzle. Every piece fits. Every single one.

          >What would Darwin postulate today, after all the decades of searching and sifting through hundreds of thousands of fossils? If he were a truly objective scientist perhaps he might have the humility and broadness of mind refine his theory and to consider other explanations for the origin of the species.

          Answered above. Once again, as long as you open your mind and look beyond your book…you can see the truth. If god put you here in reality, where do you think the truth is? In a book or in the reality you are?

        • Inquartata

          >If evolution is true, where are all the transitional fossils?

          Now, I just have to say before I write the reply that I cannot be the first person to tell you this since the question you ask is so easy to answer that you must have heard this before.,I only hope you might listen… :/

          Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Every one. We are both transitional forms between or ancestors and our future offsprings offspring. Transitional forms between our parents and our kids. Evolution has no GOAL. We only call giraffs giraffs and expect them to look a certain way because that is the way they look today. The same holds true for all animals. While some animals are extremely wellsuited to the environment they habit, and might therefore not change much over time (so called living fossils) most animals are in a constant state of change. Go back a few thousand generations and you would see changes.

          >Where are they? I know, it’s tough to try to come up with one. 

          Well, no, as you can see, it took me about 2 seconds…to mention millions.

          >Darwin himself realised that their absence was the greatest obstacle that could be raised against his theory. but he presumed that in the years to come those missing links would all be found.
          But — Oh dear, they are still missing..! 

          Patently false. The interesting things is not that we find fossils, but that using evolutionary theory, we can predict where and what kinds of animals we should find. And we have. There are literally millions of them. All supporting evolution as truth. That is the second thing. All we would need is one fossil that would contradict evolution (say, a man found next to a dinosaur) and then we would have to seriously consider a revision of the theory. As it stands now, only small adjustments have had to be made to include ALL fossils. They fit like a huge puzzle. Every piece fits. Every single one.

          >What would Darwin postulate today, after all the decades of searching and sifting through hundreds of thousands of fossils? If he were a truly objective scientist perhaps he might have the humility and broadness of mind refine his theory and to consider other explanations for the origin of the species.

          Answered above. Once again, as long as you open your mind and look beyond your book…you can see the truth. If god put you here in reality, where do you think the truth is? In a book or in the reality you are?

        • Inquartata

          >If evolution is true, where are all the transitional fossils?

          Now, I just have to say before I write the reply that I cannot be the first person to tell you this since the question you ask is so easy to answer that you must have heard this before.,I only hope you might listen… :/

          Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Every one. We are both transitional forms between or ancestors and our future offsprings offspring. Transitional forms between our parents and our kids. Evolution has no GOAL. We only call giraffs giraffs and expect them to look a certain way because that is the way they look today. The same holds true for all animals. While some animals are extremely wellsuited to the environment they habit, and might therefore not change much over time (so called living fossils) most animals are in a constant state of change. Go back a few thousand generations and you would see changes.

          >Where are they? I know, it’s tough to try to come up with one. 

          Well, no, as you can see, it took me about 2 seconds…to mention millions.

          >Darwin himself realised that their absence was the greatest obstacle that could be raised against his theory. but he presumed that in the years to come those missing links would all be found.
          But — Oh dear, they are still missing..! 

          Patently false. The interesting things is not that we find fossils, but that using evolutionary theory, we can predict where and what kinds of animals we should find. And we have. There are literally millions of them. All supporting evolution as truth. That is the second thing. All we would need is one fossil that would contradict evolution (say, a man found next to a dinosaur) and then we would have to seriously consider a revision of the theory. As it stands now, only small adjustments have had to be made to include ALL fossils. They fit like a huge puzzle. Every piece fits. Every single one.

          >What would Darwin postulate today, after all the decades of searching and sifting through hundreds of thousands of fossils? If he were a truly objective scientist perhaps he might have the humility and broadness of mind refine his theory and to consider other explanations for the origin of the species.

          Answered above. Once again, as long as you open your mind and look beyond your book…you can see the truth. If god put you here in reality, where do you think the truth is? In a book or in the reality you are?

        • Inquartata

          >If evolution is true, where are all the transitional fossils?

          Now, I just have to say before I write the reply that I cannot be the first person to tell you this since the question you ask is so easy to answer that you must have heard this before.,I only hope you might listen… :/

          Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Every one. We are both transitional forms between or ancestors and our future offsprings offspring. Transitional forms between our parents and our kids. Evolution has no GOAL. We only call giraffs giraffs and expect them to look a certain way because that is the way they look today. The same holds true for all animals. While some animals are extremely wellsuited to the environment they habit, and might therefore not change much over time (so called living fossils) most animals are in a constant state of change. Go back a few thousand generations and you would see changes.

          >Where are they? I know, it’s tough to try to come up with one. 

          Well, no, as you can see, it took me about 2 seconds…to mention millions.

          >Darwin himself realised that their absence was the greatest obstacle that could be raised against his theory. but he presumed that in the years to come those missing links would all be found.
          But — Oh dear, they are still missing..! 

          Patently false. The interesting things is not that we find fossils, but that using evolutionary theory, we can predict where and what kinds of animals we should find. And we have. There are literally millions of them. All supporting evolution as truth. That is the second thing. All we would need is one fossil that would contradict evolution (say, a man found next to a dinosaur) and then we would have to seriously consider a revision of the theory. As it stands now, only small adjustments have had to be made to include ALL fossils. They fit like a huge puzzle. Every piece fits. Every single one.

          >What would Darwin postulate today, after all the decades of searching and sifting through hundreds of thousands of fossils? If he were a truly objective scientist perhaps he might have the humility and broadness of mind refine his theory and to consider other explanations for the origin of the species.

          Answered above. Once again, as long as you open your mind and look beyond your book…you can see the truth. If god put you here in reality, where do you think the truth is? In a book or in the reality you are?

      • ScottA

        Actually you will find that evolution itself has been debated by many different parties through time. For instance, the Darwinian theory was actually thrown out by the introduction of the idea of saltations. Saltations being the theory that evolution happened via radical changes from one ancestor to their offspring. This was loosely portrayed by Mendel. This idea was then the accepted form of evolution and for years the Darwinian theory was seen as “proven wrong”. It wasn’t until Castle conducted experiments on hooded rats that the Darwinian theory was then accepted as the prominent theory of evolution.

        In all your comments you assert your opinion to people to “Read up on what evolution actually states” but the clear distinction within the theory itself has been changed and warped throughout history. “People have tried to prove it wrong over and over again.” Clearly not.

        I’m not trying to portray myself as a Creationalist in any way, I’m just merely pointing out how insanely naive you sound. When I first watched this documentary, I would have called myself an atheist (I mostly still do) and I would have rejected the idea of ID, saying its a way for churches to get at our kids. The documentary was certainly not about that, it was merely making a point that if we starve ourselves of academic process by not considering every avenue, then how can we as a people evolve and understand the greater meaning of life?

        Another point I would like to make: consider the idea of what makes a species “The forming of an offspring that is able to reproduce”. I know its a basic idea and understanding of it, but to all intents and purposes it kind of works. Consider the horticulturalists that create different coloured roses by grafting, thereby changing the colour of the flower. Typically they have selected these new roses, not by means of natural selection, but by means of their own desiring. Would you call that Intelligent Design?

        I think these are certainly things to think about when directing your own opinions at people. Perhaps try to be less biased within the future, educating people in a way that makes sense, rather than releasing your prattle to convert more followers to your cause. Think outside the box for instance. Perhaps take some LSD?

        • Inquartata

          Evolution, like any scientific theory, goes through changes, getting more and more close to the truth. The fact that the theory itself has evolved (haha!) does not make it false, it makes it more correct. Are you actually saying that because the theory was incorrectly consider false, this is an example of it being disproven???

          If you cannot see the difference between a theory proven false and one that has evolved, then maybe an example will help:The sun revolves around earth. (PROVEN FALSE)VERSUSThe earth revolves around the sun in a circle. (NOT ACCURATE)>>>The earth revolves around the sun in an ellipse. (MORE ACCURATE)
          >>>
          MORE ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS WITH MORE DETAILS

          >I’m not trying to portray myself as a Creationalist in any way, I’m just merely pointing out how insanely naive you sound. 

          Actually you have not. What exactly is naive? You are the one who seems to not fully grasping scientific theories and how they change over time. You accuse me of unnecessarily asking people to read up on evolution when they essentially are stating things that has NOTHING to do with evolution whatsoever. “If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there monkeys?” “Where are the transitional fossils?” and more inane questions like it. Even IF these questions would make sense with ANY version of evolution, the fact that previous iterations would have involved what they are talking about is of no consequence whatsoever. 

          Do you use a 50 year old television? Do you make statements about TVs only being available in black and white? What does it matter if that WAS considered the truth before? It isn’t any longer! As long as we are refining the truth, distilling it, then we are on the right track. You cannot point to your TV and use it as proof of your claim and you DEFINITELY cannot say that TV’s don’t work and LSD gives you a better reception than a TV receiver.

          >When I first watched this documentary, I would have called myself an atheist (I mostly still do) and I would have rejected the idea of ID, saying its a way for churches to get at our kids. 

          Sorry, but you cannot MOSTLY not believe. If this so called “documentary” affected your choice, then you obviously have not tried to see both viewpoints as you claim.

          The documentary was certainly not about that, it was merely making a point that if we starve ourselves of academic process by not considering every avenue, then how can we as a people evolve and understand the greater meaning of life?

          ID has been proven false and false over and over again. It can be rejected as a serious viewpoint! Keeping your faith in things that have been proven false is something religious people do very well. 

          Your next paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. What are you actually trying to say, if anything?

          >I think these are certainly things to think about when directing your own opinions at people. Perhaps try to be less biased within the future, educating people in a way that makes sense, rather than releasing your prattle to convert more followers to your cause. Think outside the box for instance. Perhaps take some LSD?

          Being logical and using reason is the OPPOSITE of being biased. Educating people in a way that does not make sense? How would that even be possible? Oh wait, right, creationism in schools. Of course. Gotcha. Of course, that is NOT education. That is religious brainwashing. Prattle? Think outside the box? LSD?

          Yeah… Keep an open mind but don’t keep it so open that you let all the trash in and let your brain fall out.

        • Inquartata

          Evolution, like any scientific theory, goes through changes, getting more and more close to the truth. The fact that the theory itself has evolved (haha!) does not make it false, it makes it more correct. Are you actually saying that because the theory was incorrectly consider false, this is an example of it being disproven???

          If you cannot see the difference between a theory proven false and one that has evolved, then maybe an example will help:The sun revolves around earth. (PROVEN FALSE)VERSUSThe earth revolves around the sun in a circle. (NOT ACCURATE)>>>The earth revolves around the sun in an ellipse. (MORE ACCURATE)
          >>>
          MORE ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS WITH MORE DETAILS

          >I’m not trying to portray myself as a Creationalist in any way, I’m just merely pointing out how insanely naive you sound. 

          Actually you have not. What exactly is naive? You are the one who seems to not fully grasping scientific theories and how they change over time. You accuse me of unnecessarily asking people to read up on evolution when they essentially are stating things that has NOTHING to do with evolution whatsoever. “If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there monkeys?” “Where are the transitional fossils?” and more inane questions like it. Even IF these questions would make sense with ANY version of evolution, the fact that previous iterations would have involved what they are talking about is of no consequence whatsoever. 

          Do you use a 50 year old television? Do you make statements about TVs only being available in black and white? What does it matter if that WAS considered the truth before? It isn’t any longer! As long as we are refining the truth, distilling it, then we are on the right track. You cannot point to your TV and use it as proof of your claim and you DEFINITELY cannot say that TV’s don’t work and LSD gives you a better reception than a TV receiver.

          >When I first watched this documentary, I would have called myself an atheist (I mostly still do) and I would have rejected the idea of ID, saying its a way for churches to get at our kids. 

          Sorry, but you cannot MOSTLY not believe. If this so called “documentary” affected your choice, then you obviously have not tried to see both viewpoints as you claim.

          The documentary was certainly not about that, it was merely making a point that if we starve ourselves of academic process by not considering every avenue, then how can we as a people evolve and understand the greater meaning of life?

          ID has been proven false and false over and over again. It can be rejected as a serious viewpoint! Keeping your faith in things that have been proven false is something religious people do very well. 

          Your next paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. What are you actually trying to say, if anything?

          >I think these are certainly things to think about when directing your own opinions at people. Perhaps try to be less biased within the future, educating people in a way that makes sense, rather than releasing your prattle to convert more followers to your cause. Think outside the box for instance. Perhaps take some LSD?

          Being logical and using reason is the OPPOSITE of being biased. Educating people in a way that does not make sense? How would that even be possible? Oh wait, right, creationism in schools. Of course. Gotcha. Of course, that is NOT education. That is religious brainwashing. Prattle? Think outside the box? LSD?

          Yeah… Keep an open mind but don’t keep it so open that you let all the trash in and let your brain fall out.

    • seriouslywtf

      In scientific terms, evolution, yes is a theory, which means that once upon a time it was a hypothesis and then it was tested and tested for many many years until it finally became the theory it is today. ‘Intelligent Design’ however, is still stuck in that hypothesis stage and the refusal of anyone who believes in it to actually conduct scientific research inhibits its ability to ever progress to the accepted fact level of a theory.

    • seriouslywtf

      In scientific terms, evolution, yes is a theory, which means that once upon a time it was a hypothesis and then it was tested and tested for many many years until it finally became the theory it is today. ‘Intelligent Design’ however, is still stuck in that hypothesis stage and the refusal of anyone who believes in it to actually conduct scientific research inhibits its ability to ever progress to the accepted fact level of a theory.

  • tony bless

    Ben neglects to address the primary issue, which is this. Science has specific rules for any theory to become an actual scientific theory. If it does not met these criteria, then it is not a scientific theory, and the science community has every right to reject it, and relegate it to the world of fairy tale or religion. Just because you imagine it, does not make it so. It must be proven with evidence and repetative experiment, and when it has passed this test, it will stand until someone presents a better theory backed up by better evidence and experiments. That’s what science is. Intelligent design has no real science to back it up. Religion, unfortunately is the most dangerous idea ever, because it suspends rationality and justifies the most henious behavior. Check history to verify.

  • kathy collins

    This is such a taboo subject to those who refuse to expand their minds.
    I am type 0 negative blood which of 7% of the world has. But, We are the only blood type without the antigen on our blood. We are the only blood type they cannot trace or clone. We DO NOT have the DNA part of the rehuses monkey like everyone else has. Instead, we have a reptilian factor-no monkey. Science has yet to figure out where it came from. One theory is alien interbreeding with white women. As in immaculate conception from Mary and Jesus was born. I am a christian but it is certainly an interesting subject. And, it would mean our higher power is something different than we have interpreted from the bible. There is definetly a higher power and a “God” – its the definition that has us boggled. Check out the samatarians and the aztec and all the early ancient writings on their walls that all address a White light coming to them and “angels” getting out of their ship. I am a believer in a higher power but its definetly interesting to read about.

    • Geraldo

      “One theory is alien interbreeding with white women.”

      Excellent – thank you for that laugh over my morning coffee.

    • http://meditationmatters.blogspot.com/ Ellie

      Do, please, look up theological terms before you use them. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not the same as that of the Virgin Birth. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary herself having been conceived (by her parents) without sin. That is, it is the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was sinless. It has nothing to do with Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

      You don’t help your credibility when you assume you know what a term means when it actually means something else altogether.

  • Riff

    Tim, you claim “The fact of the matter is, it takes just as much faith to believe in the theory of evolution as it does to believe in the theory of intelligent design”

    You confuse ‘fact’ with your opinion.

    There is innumerable evidence to support the theory of evolution whereas: there is no evidence to support intelligent design. (and intelligent design is simply a modern PR term that was invented to suggest it’s something other than ‘God did it all.’)

    That you suggest the use of the word ‘theory’ somehow suggests evolution is invalid only demonstrates your misunderstanding of science.

  • Brandon

    Besides the fact I cannot stand utter bullcrap, Ben Stein’s voice is definitely the most annoying sound I have ever heard.

  • BamSmacka

    the intelligent designer’s complaints are legitimate
    the interview w/ richard dawkins is a lot of silly, fallacious, self-congratulatory nonsense
    i think dawkins is silly, too, but i feel for him. he must be constantly pestered by such gibberish.

    i also resent the hobbling endeavour to bring america into everything all the time always. we just die for that emotionally-loaded narcissistic claptrap.

    i also resent the reference to nazis in any and all arguments. if you need a totalitarian regime go with China, Russia, or one of the Stans. nazis have just become an overdone crutch for uninspired and lazy debaters.

  • http://n/a AtomicBacon

    LMAO @ “darwinian propaganda” if propaganda is the collection of massive amounts of evidence and the proving of multiple fact based theories maybe its not such a bad thing. yes, its a theory but its one that is supported by HUGE amounts of correlating data and not just some tatty old book thats been re-written a thousand times by those that seek to manipulate religion to their own ends and aims. proving the “intelligent design” theory does not only come about by disproving the mainstream theories of evolution but by proving the existence of a “creator” which i would challenge ANY “creationist” to do. on the other hand darwins theories are backed up with hundreds if not thousands of experiments using tried and tested scientific methods. spouting religious rhetoric is NOT a scientific arguement and we should NEVER tear down the progress in understanding evolution we have made in order to satisfy the religious. religion is a matter of personal belief and shouldnt be hoisted on others by any means.

    @ cole. youre quite wrong. the building blocks of life on earth are found throughout the universe. have you never heard the term “we are made of star stuff”. if the building blocks of life where exclusive to earth the rest of the universe would be a cold and un-reactive place, suns wouldn’t fission planets wouldnt form and nebulae wouldn’t exist but they all do.

    • Casey

      You’re an idiot. Beyond that, you seem to be a desperate idiot. I’ll pray for you.

      • Trevor

        Don’t “pitty pray” for anyone. Your comment contains little to no intelligence, especially in contrast to the one that inspired it.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

          Odd choice, travis. Of all the asses in the world to kiss, you nuzzle up to the ass that belongs to someone named AtomicBacon. You’re a brave man.

  • lmao

    Best line in this forum:

    If, against all odds, I am faced with the Judeo-Christian God when I die I’d have to really hold back punching him in the face or something for all he put us through. I’d demand an explanation for……..

    • Djb3500

      Bet you wont.  Bet you will be sh*tting yourself because you are face to face with a maleficent psychopath who has the power to burn you for eternity.  I suspect you will be very, very polite.  Not that it will do you any good.

  • http://plabebob.blogspot.com Martha

    Tim says:
    November 17, 2010 at 7:23 am
    If the theory of evolution is as proven as gravity, then why do ALL scientists still refer to it as the THEORY of evolution? The fact of the matter is, it takes just as much faith to believe in the theory of evolution as it does to believe in the theory of intelligent design.

    Rating: -5 (from 9 votes)

    Either you are wilfully misunderstanding the definition of the word ‘theory’ or you are actually stupid. Look it up.

    A scientific theory refers to a collection of ideas (nothing in science is said to have been proven – you are thinking of mathematics). You are confusing it with the word ‘hypothesis’ which means a postulated idea to be tested.

    It does not take faith to accept evolution as true. If you go to any museum you can see fossils that back it up, not to mention the massive amount of very easily understandable research on the subject, which you would have to be deliberately ignoring to have not yet understood it. The idea that there is no proof for evolution is a myth sadly touted by those ho do not understand its most basic concepts.

  • http://www.statusoftaxreturn.com Krista Rasberry

    Thanks for the nice info.Very neat blog layout. Easy on the eyes. Thanks and happy holidays.

  • fort

    It seems obvious that we have evolved. It is the MECHANISMS of evolution that are in question. All above arguments are moot in this light. Of course evolution is just a theory, we know so little about it; just like gravity, atomic physics and so on. It is a dubious practice our modern science partakes in to accept one theory for lack of a better one, but it is what we do. Really look into ANY field of science and you will find it relies on at least one key assumption that if proven false destroys the entire doctrine. You will find these assumptions carefully guarded but they are there.Do you really think that in 1 or 2 hundred years we won’t laugh at the silly things we think now? We are so closed minded and live in a scientific tyranny to be sure. Science is at least as evil as religion and sadly gaining popularity. A true academic is hard to find in this age and it is certain they are as persecuted as copernicus was in his.
    Richard Dawkins is as frightening as any god pushing christian, and the debate that rages between the two is a hilarious waste of time: there are so many answerse out there, that to allow this debate to destract you from them is to truly rip yourself off in terms of true scientific and spiritual mastery. OF COURSE WE EVOLVED. OF COURSE THERE IS GOD. YOU, AS AN EVOLVED BEING, ARE GOD. YOU WILL EVOLVE FURTHER AND IN DOING SO INCREASE YOUR AWARENESS OF GOD(YOURSELF). WHEN YOU ARE EVOVLED AND AWARE ENOUGH YOU WILL TRANSCEND THIS REALITY. But first we must evolve past this argument… its just so silly…

  • doctim11

    Not surprised that someone who was a speech-writer for Nixon would continue a career based on faulty information and lies, especially for money. Ben saw how rich Mel got from The Passion and realized that a captive audience is a lucrative market. Bingo: manipulate the money out of their pockets with hogwash that they already want to believe in. Anyone who paid to see this side-show got what they deserved.

  • Casey

    You militant-Atheists have such a boner for evolution, your blind devotion rivals that of the most religious zealot. Take your heads out of your asses long enough to recognize the flaws present on both sides of the argument, and maybe you’ll realize that, in fact, us humans simply haven’t figured it out yet. We’re far more arrogant than we are intelligent, after all.

    • travis

      You, are far more arrogant than you are intelligent.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

        I would agree. So, does that mean arrogance is a result of natural selection? One more thing: You’re a poophead. I believe that squares us.

        • travis

          And by inserting a link into your name you are a spammer. Also, as I don’t resort to puerile name calling that most certainly doesn’t “square us.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Casey-Spradling/100001933112324 Casey Spradling

            Your face is a spammer, poophead.

          • LaughingMan

            evolution is fact. god is dead. live with it.

          • LaughingMan

            evolution is fact. god is dead. live with it.

          • LaughingMan

            evolution is fact. god is dead. live with it.

          • xStahl

            So god was alive ? You just acknowledged that god did exist your athiesm is lacking I’d say the least.

          • xStahl

            So god was alive ? You just acknowledged that god did exist your athiesm is lacking I’d say the least.

          • Higgs Bt

            God exists only because the concept of god exists… 

          • Higgs Bt

            God exists only because the concept of god exists… 

        • Cdevonr

          I have  a feeling 8 year olds who still call people poop-heads are neither well versed in either evolution or religious beliefs. And yes evolution is fact, take a bacterial strain place it in 3 different environments….it won’t take long before these bacterial strains mutate to suit their environment……keep calling people poop-heads I’m sure that is what God would want u to say..

        • Cdevonr

          I have  a feeling 8 year olds who still call people poop-heads are neither well versed in either evolution or religious beliefs. And yes evolution is fact, take a bacterial strain place it in 3 different environments….it won’t take long before these bacterial strains mutate to suit their environment……keep calling people poop-heads I’m sure that is what God would want u to say..

        • Cdevonr

          I have  a feeling 8 year olds who still call people poop-heads are neither well versed in either evolution or religious beliefs. And yes evolution is fact, take a bacterial strain place it in 3 different environments….it won’t take long before these bacterial strains mutate to suit their environment……keep calling people poop-heads I’m sure that is what God would want u to say..

        • Cdevonr

          I have  a feeling 8 year olds who still call people poop-heads are neither well versed in either evolution or religious beliefs. And yes evolution is fact, take a bacterial strain place it in 3 different environments….it won’t take long before these bacterial strains mutate to suit their environment……keep calling people poop-heads I’m sure that is what God would want u to say..

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.nielsen.3726 David Nielsen

          Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is
          no God.

    • travis

      You, are far more arrogant than you are intelligent.

    • travis

      You, are far more arrogant than you are intelligent.

    • Doug

      You seem to have confused blind devotion and fact based research.  (Hint: they’re opposites.)  It’s okay, I’ll just assume you’re retarded.

    • Doug

      You seem to have confused blind devotion and fact based research.  (Hint: they’re opposites.)  It’s okay, I’ll just assume you’re retarded.

    • Cheese

      Well, Chupacabra, unfortunately this comparison between the firm believers in God and the firm believers in Atheism is simply not accurate, and I’ll tell you why.

      While one person shouting “You are wrong!” and another person shouting “You are wrong!” may seem the exact same, here is the difference: A believer in God bases his or her beliefs on a core faith, and is prepared to disregard contradicting evidence because of the overriding strength of this faith.

      An atheist, on the other hand, begins first with evidence. Lots and lots of evidence from lots of scientific studies (which are put through the absolutely most tedious, pain-in-the-ass gauntlet when it comes to ensuring objectivity, validity, etc.).

      A person with a scientific mind is prepared to, on a moment’s notice, cast aside previously held beliefs when solid evidence arises to adequately support doing so. If there were valid, objective studies that did, in fact, show real evidence of a God and disproved evolutionary theory in favor of creation, a scientifically minded person WOULD change his or her belief about the existence of a God.

  • John

    I find it quite telling how many people got so defensive over the arguments against evolution. One thing we must face when given the evidence (which is not being given to the general public). Evolution is an idea that is on it’s last limbs and will soon die.

    • Anonymous

      I would say the same about religion – it’s an outdated myth that will soon die. Look at the number of relgious people and church attendance around the world – they are falling rapidly because people are finally waking up to the lie that is religion…thank god!…excuse the pun

      • michael

        true true. cant really take religious people seriously. especially those who believe in a certain god. like the one described in the bible.

        there are like a couple of hundreds of gods and a couple of hundreds that people in the past have prayed to. To believe in the god described in the bible is just stupid.

        Religion is dead. im fortunate enough to live in a develop country(Sweden) where only a few people(emigrants excluded) believe in some kind of god. And 99% of those who are religious are 60+ and where born im a time when you could be considered sane even thou you where religious.

        I know it cant change a religious persons mind about this issue and I cant prove they are wrong. Well, some things in the bible are obviously wrong, but you could alway go with the interpretation argument.

        According to me it should be the religious person who should prove they are right. If you come with such a retarded claim, as to say there is some kind of “god”, you should at least have a better argument than to say “you cant prove im wrong” and just because people have believed in gods for thousands of years doesn’t mean they are right.

        I can add that what I really dont like is the idea of a god that we know about like allah, god, zeus or some other person you can read about in a book. To belive in that is stupid. To believe in some kind of intelligence behind life on earth is less stupid, even thou I haven’t seen any proof of that and I find it very unlikely that I will ever do.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=686740790 Vegar Ottesen

          Well Michael, I would like to point out one fact which the nutjobs behind ‘Expelled’ don’t like to admit: They are a minority. Most religious people are not believers in the propositions put forth in this mockery of a film.

          Religion is not necessarily stupid, the problem – and I do see where you’re coming from – arises when some nutjobs try very hard to convince people that religion (here: Christianity) is about anti-science or xenophobia (as is the case for many members of far right religious groups) or other fear-based narrowminded ideological perceptions.

          I would like to point out that even today the majority of scientists – myself included – are in fact religious or believe in a deity of some form or other at the very least. This does – and I most emphatically stress this – mean they are daft enough to fall into the group which made and believe in the nonsense portrayed in this farce of a movie.

      • michael

        true true. cant really take religious people seriously. especially those who believe in a certain god. like the one described in the bible.

        there are like a couple of hundreds of gods and a couple of hundreds that people in the past have prayed to. To believe in the god described in the bible is just stupid.

        Religion is dead. im fortunate enough to live in a develop country(Sweden) where only a few people(emigrants excluded) believe in some kind of god. And 99% of those who are religious are 60+ and where born im a time when you could be considered sane even thou you where religious.

        I know it cant change a religious persons mind about this issue and I cant prove they are wrong. Well, some things in the bible are obviously wrong, but you could alway go with the interpretation argument.

        According to me it should be the religious person who should prove they are right. If you come with such a retarded claim, as to say there is some kind of “god”, you should at least have a better argument than to say “you cant prove im wrong” and just because people have believed in gods for thousands of years doesn’t mean they are right.

        I can add that what I really dont like is the idea of a god that we know about like allah, god, zeus or some other person you can read about in a book. To belive in that is stupid. To believe in some kind of intelligence behind life on earth is less stupid, even thou I haven’t seen any proof of that and I find it very unlikely that I will ever do.

      • freebird

        You are dead wrong actually, Churches are springing up all over the non- Western world. There are more Christians martyred for believing in Christ every year than at any time in history. Now why would they want to do that? Why would a person rather die than deny their love of Jesus Christ? What would cause a person to be faithful even to the point of facing death.

        Are they all deluded? Or could it be that they are really on to something…

        Where are you going to spend eternity?

      • freebird

        You are dead wrong actually, Churches are springing up all over the non- Western world. There are more Christians martyred for believing in Christ every year than at any time in history. Now why would they want to do that? Why would a person rather die than deny their love of Jesus Christ? What would cause a person to be faithful even to the point of facing death.

        Are they all deluded? Or could it be that they are really on to something…

        Where are you going to spend eternity?

      • freebird

        You are dead wrong actually, Churches are springing up all over the non- Western world. There are more Christians martyred for believing in Christ every year than at any time in history. Now why would they want to do that? Why would a person rather die than deny their love of Jesus Christ? What would cause a person to be faithful even to the point of facing death.

        Are they all deluded? Or could it be that they are really on to something…

        Where are you going to spend eternity?

        • Inquartata

          >You are dead wrong actually, Churches are springing up all over the non- Western world. While the things about churches is true, your premise does not hold. Between 1990 and 2000 there was a net gain of 4600 churches in the US; however, to simply maintain the pace with population growth a gain of 38,800 would have been needed.The truth is that between 80-85% of churches in the US are in numeric decline.From 1990-2001 the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as “Christian” dropped nearly 10%. At that rate, non-Christians will outnumber Christians of any denomination by 2042.>There are more Christians martyred for believing in Christ every year than at any time in history. This claim I would like to see references for. >Now why would they want to do that? Why would a person rather die than deny their love of Jesus Christ? Why would someone want to spend their life in service of a nonexistent deity? I could think of a few reasons myself.>What would cause a person to be faithful even to the point of facing death.Are they all deluded? 

          Yes.

          >Or could it be that they are really on to something…Reality seem to dictate otherwise, so no.

          >Where are you going to spend eternity?
          I most probably do not have eternity. I have probably only got this one life. I will spend it in a way that matters, making the world a little bit better. Today, I am refuting Christian myths in hope of helping another fellow human being. Hoping he will not waste his life on myths and superstition. 

        • Inquartata

          >You are dead wrong actually, Churches are springing up all over the non- Western world. While the things about churches is true, your premise does not hold. Between 1990 and 2000 there was a net gain of 4600 churches in the US; however, to simply maintain the pace with population growth a gain of 38,800 would have been needed.The truth is that between 80-85% of churches in the US are in numeric decline.From 1990-2001 the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as “Christian” dropped nearly 10%. At that rate, non-Christians will outnumber Christians of any denomination by 2042.>There are more Christians martyred for believing in Christ every year than at any time in history. This claim I would like to see references for. >Now why would they want to do that? Why would a person rather die than deny their love of Jesus Christ? Why would someone want to spend their life in service of a nonexistent deity? I could think of a few reasons myself.>What would cause a person to be faithful even to the point of facing death.Are they all deluded? 

          Yes.

          >Or could it be that they are really on to something…Reality seem to dictate otherwise, so no.

          >Where are you going to spend eternity?
          I most probably do not have eternity. I have probably only got this one life. I will spend it in a way that matters, making the world a little bit better. Today, I am refuting Christian myths in hope of helping another fellow human being. Hoping he will not waste his life on myths and superstition. 

          • Inquartata

            Oh for crying out loud, the formatting here really sucks. ^^

          • Inquartata

            Oh for crying out loud, the formatting here really sucks. ^^

  • Gerry

    god doesnt exist…dont make me prove it

    • Lyn

      Good ahead, Gerry…prove it, once and for all. The world awaits your proof.

      • Inquartata

        Luckily for Gerry, he doesn’t have to prove it since it is the christians that claim that god exists. Gerry is wrong to assume that it is possible to prove it of course, but that doesn’t mean a thing since noone can prove pixies, ghosts, unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist either. That doesn’t mean they exist.

        I just saw a Flarghlarghn flying around, it told me god doesn’t exist. There. I have proof. The Flarghlarghn told me so. What? You want me to prove it exists? You cannot prove it doesn’t!

    • Lyn

      Good ahead, Gerry…prove it, once and for all. The world awaits your proof.

  • http://twitter.com/jahnmanbersj jahn bæsjmæn

    What a stupid and shallow documentary..

  • http://twitter.com/jahnmanbersj jahn bæsjmæn

    What a stupid and shallow documentary..

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.nielsen.3726 David Nielsen

      What a stupid and shallow comment.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Ben Stein actually loses credibility by supporting this. “Intelligent Design” isn’t even a theory…its a hypothetical paper that was written by a lone scientist and never peer reviewed or even examined by others before publication. It was snatched up by political wingnuts and made into a modern buzzword overnight…all without being subjected to any intellectual rigor or inspection. To place a random paper above the whole of scientific discourse for the last 200+ years is an act of arrogance unmatched in history. Essentially, Stein makes the case that ignoring even the most trivial, arcane, unconvincing, non-scientific claims is a crime against science. For it to be a crime against science…there would have to be some science involved first. By his standard…we should lend equal class time to people who contend the world is flat, that the universe revolves around the Earth, and that flight and space flight are media fictions that never actually happened. Good one Ben…stick to waiting for Ferris to show up for class.

  • http://profiles.google.com/kndll.ngyn kendall nguyen

    … so… is this a good documentary or not?

  • thekingbeyondthegate

    Haha Casey do you reallly disbelieve in evolution? Even if it has gap its pretty patently true, or do you think we have had the same set of animals since “god created the Universe”?

    Intelligent design is just rubbish. Science and religion are two completely different things, you cannot base any scientific theory on religion. If you base any religious theory on science then you’re just grasping at straws and trying to keep a last grasp on an outdated concept.

    Science is observation and theory. Something happens, you observe and measure it, then create a theory.

    Religion is nonsense and superstition. It is based on beliefs thousands of years old and on events you have not seen and do not know happened. There is no reason to believe in the religion, there is nothing to say it exists and it only provides ridiculous answers. As Nietzsche said: “God is dead”.

  • http://www.buybacklinkservices.com Backlinks

    Ben Stein is awesome.

    • Guest

      Warning – the above comment is a fake, and was used just to insert a link to a fraudulent website. This website is a con: they take money without providing the service they claim.

  • Luke Warm

    Experts are great.
    I took my truck into a mechanic for an electrical issue. The guy I initially spoke with, upon hearing that the problem was electrical, called Barry over to take a look.
    “Barry’s an expert with electrical issues,” he told me.
    A day later I had my truck back and running perfectly.
    Experts are great.

    Ben Stein is an expert.
    He knows how to write political speeches.
    And articles for Playboy.
    And how to host a gameshow.
    And how to act poorly in bit parts in movies and TV shows.

    But he’s not an expert on the subject of Biology.

    Neither is Kent Hovind.
    Nor is Ken Ham.
    Nor is Kirk Cameron.
    Nor is the Bible.

    Sadly, for some, “expert” has become a dirty word. If not one that’s entirely outside the scope of their lexicon.

  • Jojo

    This “documentary” is intellectually dishonest trash. Ben Stein should be ashamed of himself, as should the other hacks that were involved in the making of this obtuse and insulting film. Watch this only if you are so uneducated as to not feel insulted when the writers, via Mr. Stein of course, attempt to equate an acknowledgement of evolution as truth with Nazism. As far as documentaries go this is the worst, truthless waste of time I’ve ever seen; the cinematic equivalent of diarrhea.

  • Divine my ass

    such wise words have never been stated and i take full ownership of this quote ” You can teach a monkey math, but if you teach him religion will he still go to heaven”

  • Divine my ass

    such wise words have never been stated and i take full ownership of this quote ” You can teach a monkey math, but if you teach him religion will he still go to heaven”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sean-Ledwich/685722504 Sean Ledwich

    Very poorly done. Save your time

  • sam raisbeck

    that is a well presented argument ben… 

    however i must offer the counter argument that science has nothing to do with proving or disproving god….

    the vast majority of active scientist are in fact godfearing people doing their best to understand the actions by which god works…. 

    and further that a large number of those people become convinced that god does not exist has no bearing on the work they are able to experimentally and repeatedly able to demonstrate–such as the evolution of insects exposed to toxins, changes in the human muscular structure since the1800’s, and the failure of bacteria to respond to antibioics within the last twenty (or so) years…  

    facts that your documentary completely fails to take into account..

    good science is repeatable….  much unlike religious claims which seem to be–for the most part–inexplicable, one-time only events…

    yes ben, science cannot disprove god…  is that the response you wanted?…  

    but neither can it prove god…

    godel showed that unanswerable questions exist almost one hundred years ago…

    you are currently broaching one..

  • sam raisbeck

    that is a well presented argument ben… 

    however i must offer the counter argument that science has nothing to do with proving or disproving god….

    the vast majority of active scientist are in fact godfearing people doing their best to understand the actions by which god works…. 

    and further that a large number of those people become convinced that god does not exist has no bearing on the work they are able to experimentally and repeatedly able to demonstrate–such as the evolution of insects exposed to toxins, changes in the human muscular structure since the1800’s, and the failure of bacteria to respond to antibioics within the last twenty (or so) years…  

    facts that your documentary completely fails to take into account..

    good science is repeatable….  much unlike religious claims which seem to be–for the most part–inexplicable, one-time only events…

    yes ben, science cannot disprove god…  is that the response you wanted?…  

    but neither can it prove god…

    godel showed that unanswerable questions exist almost one hundred years ago…

    you are currently broaching one..

  • Steve

    This movie pretty much just shows one guy who doesnt understand the science and tries to push his lack of knowledge of the subject into a claim there is a debate among scientists. There is debate in evolutionary but certainly not about this. Hearing this makes me feel genuinely embarrassed for him and if you have any more than a high school education you cant seriously believe this rubbish. 

  • http://media.nola.com/tpphotos/photo/9346409-standard.jpg bondmen

    It’s an excellent film and raises very troubling questions about group think in academia.  Change is coming to universities across America as taxpayers and students try to survive in a declining economy and funds are reduced.  Campus cost cutting is coming like a flood, will the professors and administrators be ready?

    • http://media.nola.com/tpphotos/photo/9346409-standard.jpg bondmen

      Science on the cutting edge thoughtfully and accurately analyzed is here http://crev.info/

    • Conor Merriman

      its a good thing, theres far too many universities in the US, and theyr far too expensive. I think this change could lead to some of the crappier lower ranked universities closing but in the long run the good ones will stay open. Too many Americans go to university anyway. Watch the documentay College Conspiracy. Its not a conpiracy theory documentary like those stupid moonlanding and 9/11 ones. Makes you really consider whether college is necessary for everyone and whether its time to invest money back into trades schools, instead of giving all the money to China and Corporate Execs.

    • Conor Merriman

      and its not an excelent film its rated 2.8/10 here and 3.8/10 on imdb. also its not groupthink when 99% of scientists are atheists. and why should they give them money to do unscientific research. research into intelligence design doesnt agree with the scientific method, since you are already assuming that hypothesis is your conclusion

  • Condor

    wow i seriously feel sorry for this guy,having made such a shit documentary….i mean seriously even if ur a theist, u just cant use this as an argument…the reason these people intrested in intelligence bullshit dont get grants is because they are looking for grants for research, for which the conclusion has already been come up with…intelligence design doesnt work without a designer(god?) so giving these people grants is just like throwing money into fire

  • Corvus

    I agree, actors should act and stay out of matters that they know nothing of. But the undeniable fact is that there i lack of freedom in the academic society. This oppression is mostly fueled by decrypted scientist whom are more occupied save guarding there theories then advancing science. 

    Even though Darvin work is in some senses flowed, he was still miles ahead of he’s time and provided a steppingstone for biology.

    This obvious bias host is an utter duller and creationist alike. Furthermore putting panfirma after resent discoveries that NASA made of what cosmic dust consist of, is same weapon used toward Intelligent Design (but without proof of creation).   

    If you must take any from this republican absurdity is never stop asking question and nothing else.        

                

  • Corvus

    I agree, actors should act and stay out of matters that they know nothing of. But the undeniable fact is that there i lack of freedom in the academic society. This oppression is mostly fueled by decrypted scientist whom are more occupied save guarding there theories then advancing science. 

    Even though Darvin work is in some senses flowed, he was still miles ahead of he’s time and provided a steppingstone for biology.

    This obvious bias host is an utter duller and creationist alike. Furthermore putting panfirma after resent discoveries that NASA made of what cosmic dust consist of, is same weapon used toward Intelligent Design (but without proof of creation).   

    If you must take any from this republican absurdity is never stop asking question and nothing else.        

                

  • Corvus

    I agree, actors should act and stay out of matters that they know nothing of. But the undeniable fact is that there i lack of freedom in the academic society. This oppression is mostly fueled by decrypted scientist whom are more occupied save guarding there theories then advancing science. 

    Even though Darvin work is in some senses flowed, he was still miles ahead of he’s time and provided a steppingstone for biology.

    This obvious bias host is an utter duller and creationist alike. Furthermore putting panfirma after resent discoveries that NASA made of what cosmic dust consist of, is same weapon used toward Intelligent Design (but without proof of creation).   

    If you must take any from this republican absurdity is never stop asking question and nothing else.        

                

  • Feder

    this thread is hilarious

  • Coalmanmacfurson

    While this documentary is on occasion thought provoking, it fails to prove its point ultimately. This feature paints all scientists and supporters of evolution as intolerable which is just not the case. While there are some evolutionists who are intolerant, there are also intolerant “Intelligent Designers”. One thing I particularly hated was the claim that evolution is unproven. One thing I hated even more was that it tried to blame Darwinism for the Holacaust. Darwinism proclaims that nature decides who is fit to survive but the idea of the master race was humans deeming who is fit. That is not Darwinism. Furthermore, Hitler used Christianity to fuel the Holacaust. Hitler claimed that he was doing God’s work in killing Jews, gypsys, and homosexuals. That was how he gained the support of the German elite. I reccomend this documentary only as a source by which those who want to study the evolution controversy can learn how NOT to make an argument. 

  • Coalmanmacfurson

    While this documentary is on occasion thought provoking, it fails to prove its point ultimately. This feature paints all scientists and supporters of evolution as intolerable which is just not the case. While there are some evolutionists who are intolerant, there are also intolerant “Intelligent Designers”. One thing I particularly hated was the claim that evolution is unproven. One thing I hated even more was that it tried to blame Darwinism for the Holacaust. Darwinism proclaims that nature decides who is fit to survive but the idea of the master race was humans deeming who is fit. That is not Darwinism. Furthermore, Hitler used Christianity to fuel the Holacaust. Hitler claimed that he was doing God’s work in killing Jews, gypsys, and homosexuals. That was how he gained the support of the German elite. I reccomend this documentary only as a source by which those who want to study the evolution controversy can learn how NOT to make an argument. 

  • Coalmanmacfurson

    While this documentary is on occasion thought provoking, it fails to prove its point ultimately. This feature paints all scientists and supporters of evolution as intolerable which is just not the case. While there are some evolutionists who are intolerant, there are also intolerant “Intelligent Designers”. One thing I particularly hated was the claim that evolution is unproven. One thing I hated even more was that it tried to blame Darwinism for the Holacaust. Darwinism proclaims that nature decides who is fit to survive but the idea of the master race was humans deeming who is fit. That is not Darwinism. Furthermore, Hitler used Christianity to fuel the Holacaust. Hitler claimed that he was doing God’s work in killing Jews, gypsys, and homosexuals. That was how he gained the support of the German elite. I reccomend this documentary only as a source by which those who want to study the evolution controversy can learn how NOT to make an argument. 

  • Coalmanmacfurson

    Oh yeah, and furthermore I think its ridiculous how scientists are bashed when they admit that they don’t know an answer to something. Personally I think that this whole argument is stupid. However, there are a few problems with Darwinism. The allegation that life evolved completley by chance is tantamount to saying that a tornado can pass through a junkyard an successfully assemble the scrap metal into a working car.Obviously, some other force is at work. However, this does not imply at all that life is created with a set plan. Even if there was a creator (not admitting there was, also not no denying the possibility, thats called being open minded) then I doubt that there was any set design. This creator wouldve set the wheels in motion to create the conditions for life and let things unfold on their own. While there is remarkable order amongst living organisms, scientists have found no evidence for one grand scheme.

    So in conlcusion, while I don’t think of Intelligent Design as pure Creationism, the best explanation of life is still Darwins theory. While I don’t think Intelligent Designers should be totally ignored, I believe that until we know more about the Universe that we should continue to teach Evolution in the classrooms.

  • XO

    oh, boo-hoo for all those poor creationists! they can all believe what they want but i feel you can’t blame any university for letting them go. after all, “scientific research” featuring “intelligent design” is contradictory in itself..   

  • XO

    oh, boo-hoo for all those poor creationists! they can all believe what they want but i feel you can’t blame any university for letting them go. after all, “scientific research” featuring “intelligent design” is contradictory in itself..   

  • XO

    oh, boo-hoo for all those poor creationists! they can all believe what they want but i feel you can’t blame any university for letting them go. after all, “scientific research” featuring “intelligent design” is contradictory in itself..   

  • paul

    More thinly veiled creationist propaganda.If everyone thought like these people wouldn’t have emerged from the dark ages.

  • paul

    More thinly veiled creationist propaganda.If everyone thought like these people wouldn’t have emerged from the dark ages.

  • http://twitter.com/nycemay Shaunyce Hurst

    So you post a documentary and give a biased synopsis…

    Great Job!/sarcasm -.-

  • Design Intelligence

    Just because I believe the world is flat, doesn’t make it so.

  • Spicey_mco

    Obviously “proof”, one way or the other, is not going to come about on this forum.

    I don’t think the point of the documentary was to say which side is “right”. I think the point was to show the systematic (not-scientific) castration of a particular theory. 

    IMO, it doesn’t look like we have irrefutable answers to any of the “big” questions of life – how did we get here; why are we here; etc. And it is very unhealthy to fear truth so, why not allow exploration of all possibilities? There is both evolution and intelligent design in our lives today. To thoroughly “explain the science” doesn’t seem to be possible with so many experts in disagreement – we are stunting our own growth. Rational, thoughtful, and progressive creatures should not fear the pursuit of truth, aka “knowledge.”

    • Katsu

      By far the most intelligent comment so far. Congratulations on not missing the point.

      • Marvo

        I think he has still missed the point. The problem with the academia is that when something is discovered, It is taken as complete truth and no other point of view is accepted. Keyword “accepted” especially in the “comfortable world we live in now.” I believe if Albert Einstein made his discoveries today, they wouldn’t have been accepted. A perfect example is the recent discovery that neutrinos might actually travel faster than light which renders a lot of Einstein’s theories false. 
        What I picked from this documentary is not whether the universe was created by someone vs something but the closed mindedness of the academia aka “the great minds”. 

        • Marvo

          Correction: The second sentence was supposed to be in past tense.

    • Inquartata

      When one “theory” is based on fiction, and has no scientific basis behind it, while the other one is backed by literally millions of experiments, denying one side of the argument is perfectly valid. There comes a point where an idea has been proven wrong so many times by so many different people that you can cease “exploring” that certain “possibility” since it is in not possible given the evidence.

      What you are describing is not a fear of truth. It is a disregard of rational thought. You cannot logically hold a viewpoint which is contradictory to all the evidence without actively disregarding all said evidence.And as far as scientists in disagreement, that is just blatantly false.

    • Inquartata

      When one “theory” is based on fiction, and has no scientific basis behind it, while the other one is backed by literally millions of experiments, denying one side of the argument is perfectly valid. There comes a point where an idea has been proven wrong so many times by so many different people that you can cease “exploring” that certain “possibility” since it is in not possible given the evidence.

      What you are describing is not a fear of truth. It is a disregard of rational thought. You cannot logically hold a viewpoint which is contradictory to all the evidence without actively disregarding all said evidence.And as far as scientists in disagreement, that is just blatantly false.

  • Spicey_mco

    Obviously “proof”, one way or the other, is not going to come about on this forum.

    I don’t think the point of the documentary was to say which side is “right”. I think the point was to show the systematic (not-scientific) castration of a particular theory. 

    IMO, it doesn’t look like we have irrefutable answers to any of the “big” questions of life – how did we get here; why are we here; etc. And it is very unhealthy to fear truth so, why not allow exploration of all possibilities? There is both evolution and intelligent design in our lives today. To thoroughly “explain the science” doesn’t seem to be possible with so many experts in disagreement – we are stunting our own growth. Rational, thoughtful, and progressive creatures should not fear the pursuit of truth, aka “knowledge.”

  • guest

    Do athieists find it offensive for people to question if there is some kind of god? I mean, does it threaten the belief that there is no god? I find this thread to be very emotional, so I have to wonder.

    • Inquartata

      No. Atheists find it offensive when their rights are violated for the simple reason that they don’t hold the same belief that the majority. They get emotional when they are told they are immoral scum that will rot in hell. Furthermore, they find it insulting that they are expected to not act emotionally when treated in such a way! 

      Oh, and they also find it funny that the theists call atheism a belief. Do you “believe” that there are not flying blue otters in your attic? No. You can safely say that you “know” that there aren’t any.

  • guest

    Do athieists find it offensive for people to question if there is some kind of god? I mean, does it threaten the belief that there is no god? I find this thread to be very emotional, so I have to wonder.

  • Bob

    So, professors and scientists were blacklisted for bringing intelligent design into the classrooms… what did they expect? The reason that there is no room for intelligent design in the mainstream learning environment is because there is no intelligent outcome from it – it completely devalues the scientific method by suppressing logical, independent thought .

    If a sex education teacher were to be hired to teach sex education to children in attempt to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy and they started telling the kids that God wants us to proliferate like bunny rabbits… that teacher brought religion into a non religious classroom, failed at their job and deserves to get their ass fired. If they want to bring religion into their work then they can go teach theology at any number of schools and universities world wide. Stop whining about not being able to weasel religion into mainstream science because there is no room for the phrase, “that’s just because God decided…”Ben Stein is an absolute idiot and I have no idea why anyone gives him any credibility whatsoever. 

  • Bob

    So, professors and scientists were blacklisted for bringing intelligent design into the classrooms… what did they expect? The reason that there is no room for intelligent design in the mainstream learning environment is because there is no intelligent outcome from it – it completely devalues the scientific method by suppressing logical, independent thought .

    If a sex education teacher were to be hired to teach sex education to children in attempt to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy and they started telling the kids that God wants us to proliferate like bunny rabbits… that teacher brought religion into a non religious classroom, failed at their job and deserves to get their ass fired. If they want to bring religion into their work then they can go teach theology at any number of schools and universities world wide. Stop whining about not being able to weasel religion into mainstream science because there is no room for the phrase, “that’s just because God decided…”Ben Stein is an absolute idiot and I have no idea why anyone gives him any credibility whatsoever. 

  • Bob

    So, professors and scientists were blacklisted for bringing intelligent design into the classrooms… what did they expect? The reason that there is no room for intelligent design in the mainstream learning environment is because there is no intelligent outcome from it – it completely devalues the scientific method by suppressing logical, independent thought .

    If a sex education teacher were to be hired to teach sex education to children in attempt to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy and they started telling the kids that God wants us to proliferate like bunny rabbits… that teacher brought religion into a non religious classroom, failed at their job and deserves to get their ass fired. If they want to bring religion into their work then they can go teach theology at any number of schools and universities world wide. Stop whining about not being able to weasel religion into mainstream science because there is no room for the phrase, “that’s just because God decided…”Ben Stein is an absolute idiot and I have no idea why anyone gives him any credibility whatsoever. 

  • Bob

    So, professors and scientists were blacklisted for bringing intelligent design into the classrooms… what did they expect? The reason that there is no room for intelligent design in the mainstream learning environment is because there is no intelligent outcome from it – it completely devalues the scientific method by suppressing logical, independent thought .

    If a sex education teacher were to be hired to teach sex education to children in attempt to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy and they started telling the kids that God wants us to proliferate like bunny rabbits… that teacher brought religion into a non religious classroom, failed at their job and deserves to get their ass fired. If they want to bring religion into their work then they can go teach theology at any number of schools and universities world wide. Stop whining about not being able to weasel religion into mainstream science because there is no room for the phrase, “that’s just because God decided…”Ben Stein is an absolute idiot and I have no idea why anyone gives him any credibility whatsoever. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1259430605 Paul Lofeodo

    Ummm… I don’t get why it’s called “No intelligence allowed” aren’t they being expelled for stupidity? I mean they might as well teach them about the Spaghetti Slime Monster orbiting Pluto along with creationism. 

    These people being interviewed are being fire because they’re publishing fiction as reality… You can’t publish a paper about the Spaghetti Slime Monster orbiting Pluto without proof there’s one. As you can’t say String Theory is right, period. You have to give proof, and formulas, evidence, not being true because it just is.

    Ben Stein is trying to portray this as discrimination. But all he’s showing is stupid people being fired for being UNscientific. This seems rather ridiculous…

  • One

    Yo…muppets…something seems to have slipped your grasp…There is no right side or wrong side to this argument simply because there is no argument…The issue is not how or why we got here…ask yourself what physical effect having a scientifically proven answer to those questions will have on your life?…none…the only relevant fact is that we are here…time to look inward and realize that these questions are nothing more than distractions created by you because you’re shit scared of life and think you haven’t a clue how to live it…there are no questions…everything you need to know you already know…so stop fucking around and start living you twats…life’s too short and your children are counting on you to end the bullshit…

    Grow a pair and get on with it…

    • Inquartata

      Yeah, believing in magical skyfairies and spending years of your life in service of nonexistent deities, brainwashing your kids to believe the same as you…

      Yeah. No effect on your life whatsoever.

      You, good sir, are an intellectual midget.

  • Marvo

    I guess only time will tell.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6LT4FIUONEDY7JKUSKTKE57T7Q loyell13

    The consensus of the Admin staff at TDF is that this film is a Conspiracy-Theory rant (Vlatko and Epicurus).  They even admit it should be in the conspiracy section (Epicurus).  But they have purposefully kept it in the Religion section.  When I asked them to put it in the Conspiracy section instead of the Religion section accordingly they said no because they might get possible complaints from religious people of discriminatory bias.  I pointed out that I am a religious person and I am actually complaining and that it is actual discriminatory bias (to leave it in the religion section at this point).  I asked them to move it to the Conspiracy section accordingly.  They called me a Troll saying I should have politely asked them to move it to the conspiracy section via email in the first place.  And they directed me to this site so I could see that it’s in the religion section on this site too.  I am of the opinion that this film would be more correctly at home in the Conspiracy section.  As a religious person I am offended and feel that people of religion have come under bias and are being discriminated against by having this film, which covers Science and Conspiracy topics, in the Religion section. For those who are religious, would you prefer to have this film be in the religion section or the conspiracy section?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6LT4FIUONEDY7JKUSKTKE57T7Q loyell13

    The consensus of the Admin staff at TDF is that this film is a Conspiracy-Theory rant (Vlatko and Epicurus).  They even admit it should be in the conspiracy section (Epicurus).  But they have purposefully kept it in the Religion section.  When I asked them to put it in the Conspiracy section instead of the Religion section accordingly they said no because they might get possible complaints from religious people of discriminatory bias.  I pointed out that I am a religious person and I am actually complaining and that it is actual discriminatory bias (to leave it in the religion section at this point).  I asked them to move it to the Conspiracy section accordingly.  They called me a Troll saying I should have politely asked them to move it to the conspiracy section via email in the first place.  And they directed me to this site so I could see that it’s in the religion section on this site too.  I am of the opinion that this film would be more correctly at home in the Conspiracy section.  As a religious person I am offended and feel that people of religion have come under bias and are being discriminated against by having this film, which covers Science and Conspiracy topics, in the Religion section. For those who are religious, would you prefer to have this film be in the religion section or the conspiracy section?

  • http://www.facebook.com/BryanPShepard Bryan Shepard

    http://www.expelledexposed.com/  Debunking this propoganda. 

  • Anonymous

    What a load of crap. Of course Intelligent design isn’t tolerated amongst scientists. That’s because Intelligent design isn’t science. Its religion. Religion masquerading as science. It’s pseudo-science. It has as much value as flat earth theory, UFOs or astrology. Perhaps these should be treated with respect by scientists too?

  • Anonymous

    Caroline Crocker wasn’t fired. She was on a non tenure track contract position and when her contract ended she wasn’t rehired. Hardly surprising seeing that this crackpot was teaching creationism to her biology students. 

  • Anonymous

    I don’t get it….Intelligent design is, by definition, not science since Intelligent design assumes the existence of an outside force/actor that we can never validate (test, measure, repeat, etc.).  Why would a well educated individual claim Intelligent design is science (note, not saying that Intelligent design is right/wrong but just saying it isn’t science).

  • Caz Kelly

    Well I wasn’t an Atheist, until I watched this..

  • David Bunting

    And next, how flat earth theorists are expelled from the physics class. How sex education classes are unjustly persecuting stork theorists and how biology class has no tolerance for the possession by demon theory of disease.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nielsen.3726 David Nielsen

    This film was an excellent example of how Evolutionists try to manipulate Darwin’s book to answer the question of the origin of life.  Darwin certainly never answered that question and it certainly shows how the book is misnamed.  The book should have been called “The Adaptation of Species” and perhaps  there world  be  less hostility between science and the truth of God today.  The film only goes to show how a lie often repeated can be accepted as fact.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nielsen.3726 David Nielsen

    Big Bear

    “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.”

  • Jara

    The “Opinion-description”above of the documentary is probably what is displeasing the most. It would be nice to have a “neutral” description of a documentary and leave the viewer to come to their own conclusion and interpretation instead of weaving your own opinion into the description.

  • nimrod

    Mischievous rubbish. Ben who? I had to wiki him as I’m not from the US of A. Someone I’ll make a point to avoid in future.

  • test all

    Can wait!!