Advertisement

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.

Join The Conversation

252 Comments / User Reviews

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. To make it completely clear what a ridiculous attempt to create a propaganda film this is, do this; watch it through again but wherever “designer or intelligent designer” is mentioned, remove it and substitute “The Good Fairy” and for design” or intelligent design,” substitute “Magic”. It is amazing how well these terms fit their argument to a ‘T’. Sometimes more so than their original terms!

  2. A species can adapt within certain constraints. This is a fact no one, not even creationists, dispute. But evolutionists make far more grandiose claims than just that, claiming that a species can diverge and become something completely different over eons. And of course this cannot be, and has not ever been, tested in a lab because no one has been alive for eons to test it. Those “millions of experiments” (source please?) are completely irrelevant.

  3. Caroline Crocker wasn’t fired? If this is the best possible rebuttal to this documentary, then there is all the more reason to look into the question of design.

  4. This is not so difficult to understand. Intelligent design does not assume the existence of a designer, rather it asks whether there is a design. If there is found to be a design, then and only then would an inference be made that there is a designer.

    Specifically, the question is whether life is so complex that it requires a designer, and for that there is of course no need to test and measure the designer, but the potential design.

  5. We can look and see that the earth isn’t flat. We can’t look and see that evolution happens because it takes quite a long time. We are observers who have come after the fact and we are making our best guesses as to what happened.

    You believe in evolution on faith alone and are every bit as religious as the people you are criticizing. It’s just that it’s a religion you like. Smart men told you that it must be this way, and now you parrot their blustering words without doing critical thinking of your own.

  6. 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.

    • You speak as someone who believes critical thinking is something best left to our “superiors”. Who cares who he is.

  7. 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.

    • This is why that point is brought up in the description. It goes from the debate between intelligent design and evolution to the danger that this may cause religious doubt to Nazis. Not one scientist argues that evolution implies eugenics or the Holocaust. Hitter acted as an individual. The wrong of all of that has much more to do with the belief in his authority. We could equally argue that Christianity leads to slavery or sexism. In the end people should think for themselves. Anyone who does wrong because they believe that an authority makes them exempt from moral responsibility is the real evil. Christan, atheist, Muslim or any other belief or ism. We are all the same and we are all connected and we are all part of the whole whatever that may be. When watching films like this just be aware that it is still trying however subtle to sell you what they believe. Thank God or Darwin or whatever that we have the intelligence to notice that and be critical. I have learned more by researching the opposition than by listening to the coire. And to be clear this country is not based on freedom. It is based on exploitation, fear and religious and governmental indoctrination.

    • My thoughts exactly. The description is much too one-sided. I’m NOT an creation-ist (whatever they are called), but science has much better ways to contradict than this totally over-board description. Should have just stated what the documentary was about and let intelligent people decide for themselves.

  8. 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.”

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

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

    • But no evidence was presented in this documentary in favor of evolution. The only thing you saw was scientists saying that ID is stupid and evolution is not. (None of Ben’s thoughtful questions made it through to you.) So what that means is that you are willing to believe whatever scientists believe, and you don’t even need to see the evidence. This is the exact problem the documentary exposed: lack of critical thinking and mob mentality. History is repeating itself. The majority now shuns outsiders for questioning the establishment. If Darwin had not questioned the establishment, you would not have Darwinism. The difference is that in the past the establishment hid behind religion and now it hides behind unproven science.

      • Until the origins of life is scientifically demonstrated there will always be room for debate unless the evolutionists get their way and put all the intelligent design people in concentration camps along with the climate change deniers. When people like the evolutionists begin calling people who doubt that evolution can explain everything names you can be sure mass round-ups are in the back of their minds.

  12. 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).

    • This is not so difficult to understand. Intelligent design does not assume the existence of a designer, rather it asks whether there is a design. If there is found to be a design, then and only then would an inference be made that there is a designer.

      Specifically, the question is whether life is so complex that it requires a designer, and for that there is of course no need to test and measure the designer, but the potential design.

  13. 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.

  14. 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?

    • Real scientists have open minds and treat everything with healthy skepticism and do not vote to determine what is or is not ‘science’.

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. I guess only time will tell.

  18. 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…

    • 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.

  19. 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…

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

    • 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.

  26. 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.”

  27. 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.”

    • 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.

    • 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.

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

      • 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”.

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

  29. So you post a documentary and give a biased synopsis…

    Great Job!/sarcasm -.-

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

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

  32. 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..

  33. 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..

  34. 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..

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. this thread is hilarious

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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

  44. 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?

    • 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

    • 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.

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

  45. 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.

  46. 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..

  47. 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..

  48. Very poorly done. Save your time

Load More Comments