Expelled is a combination of exaggeration, outright lies, fabrications and interviews conducted "Borat" style to make those interviewed appear ridiculous.

Expelledesposed.com has a line by line refutation of every statement in the movie.

That having been said, every religious nutball will be drawn to it like flies to, uh, film, and it will be interesting to see if it can break the $20 million opening of Prom Night last week.

I don't like seeing science, or prom-goers being sliced and diced, but I guess both films are ultimately both mindless and rather harmless.

Oh, look another nutball rolling by! Going to church and a movie on a Friday night!

Sorry, that was expelledexposed.com, set up by the National Center for Science Education.

I'm surprised my local theater chain (well, actually, its a smaller national chain since it was bought up by a different chain) is having this. I didn't think they would. The local reviewer only gave it one star.

"That having been said, every religious nutball will be drawn to it like flies to, uh, film, and it will be interesting to see if it can break the $20 million opening of Prom Night last week."

****

If they want to spend their money on such silliness....

Just left Expelled which is absolutely fabulous!!!

It is funny, clever and incredibly devastating to those who have
made science their god in America.

The connection of Darwin to Hitler is clear for all who have
ears and eyes to hear and see.

God is so good.

The timing of this movie couldn't be more perfect!

GOD BLESS BEN STEIN!!

Prom Night opened on 3,300 screens, so comparing it with Expelled at 1,052 screens for total Box office isn't really analogous. Better to check out the per screen take.

BTW, a "wide" release is usually in the ballpark of 2,500-3,000 venues, and 3k-4k actual screens.

This movie does seem to be polarizing - out of 18 reviews on BoxOffice mojo, 9 gave it an F and 8 gave it an A! One of those "love it or hate it" movies.

Yeah...I think I'll be saving my money and instead wait for "Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay" or the new Ewan McGregor movie...

"Yeah...I think I'll be saving my money and instead wait for "Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay""

LOL!

@Bobby: Aw c'mon! The first Harold and Kumar movie is hilarious!

At least it's honest too...it *knows* it's a stupid movie...this one thinks it's more intelligent than it really is.

Really Rae? Is that a real movie? I thought you were just making up the stupidest thing you could think of! Yikes, I"m certainly not hip to what the kids are into these days...

@Bobby: Yeah, it's a real movie. The ads for it crack me up, I love Kal Penn.

It may be good to have a vague idea what "kids" these days like to watch and listen to for when you become a professor someday and have to teach. :-p

And yeah, that movie is the stupidest thing I could think of...and it's doubly convenient that it's real and I can actually go to it.

Are you available to chat on AIM?

Yes, I'm chatting with you on AIM right now in fact!

Sneak!

GOD BLESS BEN STEIN!!

Posted by: lesforlife at April 18, 2008 4:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He must be an expert on evolution!
Here he is pictured with Bill Nye the Science Guy on "America's Most Smartest Model":

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/Image/AMSM/amsm-ep4.jpg

mwahaha!

Went a skeptic.

Saw it.

Loved it.

Will be giving the DVD (along with Joyer Noel and Shooting Dogs) to everyone on my Christmas list. Go Ben, go.

BTW--my mom said she heard an interview with Ben...said his motivation for making this movie began when he was going to appear on a celebrity game show and they WOULDN'T ALLOW him to donate his winnings to a pro-life charity....

I'm not particularly interested in "Expelled", but I think I'll go see the movie just to make the first commenter on this post mad.

I'd like to see this, but I may just rent it when it comes out on DVD, instead. I'm pumping myself up for the next Narnia movie, Prince Caspian. I still have to finish the book and I'll watch TLW&W about 4 times before PrinceC opens in 28 days.

Hey John McDonnell,

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229

I watched the video tonight, and there's some really cool stuff therein.

I forgot what you said about it, though, and going back through the threads I can't find your post or my response saying I'd watch it later.

Saw Expelled last night. Why are so many Higher institutions fearful of scientific fact finding or questions? What are we protecting? It is okey to consider aliens but not some order in formation of the earth and life?

Saw Expelled last night, and its angle was genius. It didn't spend so much of its time analyzing Darwinism as it did simply asking why isn't the other theory of our origin allowed into discussion by academia and science?

No wonder famed atheist/Darwinist Richard Dawkins is so hopping mad about Expelled. The end unveiled him as a kook. He proposed that aliens planted seed on earth as a theory to answer the ultimate question, "How did nonlife become life?" while utterly denying an intelligent Designer could have.

And loved seeing Sanger the eugenicist on the screen!

Rae and Bobby,

Talk about not knowing what kids are into these days...what's AIM?

"Talk about not knowing what kids are into these days...what's AIM?"

LOL

Rae, 7:31 p.m.

I'm with you on this one!!!

It didn't spend so much of its time analyzing Darwinism as it did simply asking why isn't the other theory of our origin allowed into discussion by academia and science?

Jill, "discussion" is one thing, but giving it equal time, etc., when there's no evidence for it isn't going to happen in sensible institutions.

If I come up with a different explanation why matter is attracted to other matter, do I get equal time with gravity?

"He proposed that aliens planted seed on earth as a theory to answer the ultimate question, "How did nonlife become life?" while utterly denying an intelligent Designer could have."

How many times do I have to tell you, they took this completely out of context. Read his review.

"Went a skeptic.

Saw it.

Loved it."

Well, you are already a creationist, so can you truly consider yourself a skeptic? Not trying to disrespect you or anything.

" It didn't spend so much of its time analyzing Darwinism as it did simply asking why isn't the other theory of our origin allowed into discussion by academia and science?"
Why wouldn't it analyze Darwinism and Intelligent design if it is supposedly a lie or fabrication made by "big science." There are several propositions and dissents with Darwinian evolution, but they are acceptable because they have proof. Why would a movie who has nothing to hide not spend its time actually looking at the science but instead take people out of context, kick interviewees out of pre-screenings, and making radical accusations about history?

Here it is again: Nationalism and Anti-Semitism were present LONG before darwin's theory. Would you mind me accusing your faith for the crazies that used it to torture people? Because it's incredibly easy to do.

Lewandowski 9:13 It doesn't make me mad if anyone goes to the movie. As I said, every religious nutball will be drawn to it, and it probably won't destroy more brain cells than Prom Night.

I don't care if you, or anyone else doesn't believe in evolution or doesn't believe in gravity, as long as you are not flying the plane I am on.

It's gotta be tough believing in creationism. Invisible being vs. alien beings. Of course it doesn't matter in the least unless one is desperate to prove that either or both exists.

Saw Expelled last night, and its angle was genius. It didn't spend so much of its time analyzing Darwinism as it did simply asking why isn't the other theory of our origin allowed into discussion by academia and science?

No wonder famed atheist/Darwinist Richard Dawkins is so hopping mad about Expelled. The end unveiled him as a kook. He proposed that aliens planted seed on earth as a theory to answer the ultimate question, "How did nonlife become life?" while utterly denying an intelligent Designer could have.

And loved seeing Sanger the eugenicist on the screen!
Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 19, 2008 6:40 AM

Why isn't it allowed? Because it's not science. Hypothesizing that a creator made something can't be tested, therefore not science. Why do IDers have a lot of published books, but not any science articles? Because they have to be tested, peer-reviewed science texts. Because ID cannot be tested, it falls into the void of non-science and into the realm of philosophy. ID belongs in philosophy, not science.

And Dawkins proposed aliens because Stein pushed him to come up with any possible way life appeared on earth from outside the earth. Dawkins said aliens, but Stein missed the point... where did the aliens come from?? Surely they would have to evolve too.

As much as I'm curious about this movie I think I'm going to wait. Not worth spending $8 at the theater when I can rent it for $2.

Why isn't it allowed? Because it's not science. Hypothesizing that a creator made something can't be tested, therefore not science. Why do IDers have a lot of published books, but not any science articles? Because they have to be tested, peer-reviewed science texts. Because ID cannot be tested, it falls into the void of non-science and into the realm of philosophy. ID belongs in philosophy, not science.

Danielle,

I have stated this numerous times so I agree with you here! My science teacher said something that really made it click for me: "If you want to learn the science behind the origins of humanity, take a science course, if you want to learn the religious view of the origins of humanity, take a theology course."

Makes perfect sense to me!

Danielle,

I have stated this numerous times so I agree with you here! My science teacher said something that really made it click for me: "If you want to learn the science behind the origins of humanity, take a science course, if you want to learn the religious view of the origins of humanity, take a theology course."

Makes perfect sense to me!
Posted by: Elizabeth at April 19, 2008 2:37 PM

Exactly! I mean, I don't have a problem with ID as a theory, or God as a theory, or aliens as a theory, or whatever you believe. I just don't like when people blur the lines between science and philosophy. You wouldn't try to teach math and then talk about ghosts and extraterrestrials or anything like that. Haha, though I wish I could find a teacher who would... I bet THAT would be an entertaining class!!!

Lol I know right Danielle. I said before that just because they don't talk about God in math MUST mean they're trying to say God doesn't exist! NOT! lol.

From the post:

Walt Ruloff, the movie's executive producer... said the film could top the $23.9-million opening for Michael Moore's polemic against President Bush, Fahrenheit 9/11, the best launch ever for a documentary.

OOOPS! Another bad prediction from the C/ID folks!

Expelled opened in 8th place with $1.2M in revenues in 1,052 theatres resulting in a $1,141 per theatre revenue. You do the math. At an average of 5 showings this makes $220 per showing or 30-40 people. Expelled ranks 4th in the list of “new releases”

And in comparison:

Fahrenheit 9/11’s opening weekend grossed $23.9 million in 868 theatres grossing $27,558 per theatre and $8,565,000 on it’s first day.

Saw Expelled last night, and its angle was genius. It didn't spend so much of its time analyzing Darwinism as it did simply asking why isn't the other theory of our origin allowed into discussion by academia and science?

Because they don't want to have to submit to God who is sometimes a mystery?

Expelled opened in 8th place with $1.2M in revenues in 1,052 theatres resulting in a $1,141 per theatre revenue. You do the math. At an average of 5 showings this makes $220 per showing or 30-40 people. Expelled ranks 4th in the list of “new releases”

Let's see "EXPELLED" this weekend! Hiero says numbers are too low!

"Talk about not knowing what kids are into these days...what's AIM?"

Wait, did you write this Mary Kay? I thought it was John at first, but I just noticed a post where you posted as anonymous accidentally. If it is you, let me know, cause I (and I bet Rae) would like you join us on AIM.

@MK: AIM = AOL Instant Messanger. :) It's fun! You should join uuussssssssss.

Ha! Told ya!

@Bobby: Group chats! :D

Though unfortunately, I use a Mac, so I'm not sure they even have an option for group chats on iChat's version of AIM.

You kids and your macs...

*sticks tongue out*

Nyaaaaaaaaaah.

They're sexy little machines...so nice and light. Colorful, clear screens.

And for the record, let it be said, that I *loathe* writing IMRAD papers.

I saw Expelled today, it was good, but the theatre was hardly full.
If you like Ben Stein, you will enjoy it.

Saw Expelled tonight.

Ben Stein just did a great job at exposing the truth about evolution.

There's so many layers in that movie I'm going to go see it again.

Ben, you're a genius at asking questions and getting to the truth.

PiP, 4/19, 11;51a, wrote: "How many times do I have to tell you, they took this completely out of context. Read his review."

PiP, it wasn't taken out of context. He said in the midst of a long silloquoy. Whatever he's saying now is back-peddling. See the movie and get back to me.

Danielle, 4/19, 1:02p, wrote: "And Dawkins proposed aliens because Stein pushed him to come up with any possible way life appeared on earth from outside the earth. Dawkins said aliens, but Stein missed the point... where did the aliens come from?? Surely they would have to evolve too.

That's exactly what I said to my daughter as we left the movie.

Just read this in a commentary to Steve Cornell (http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/):

Yet empirically detecting design is common to many other disciplines. In her new book, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity, Nancy Pearcey identifies other disciplines that depend on discovery of design. "Detectives are trained to distinguish murder (design) from death by natural causes. Archeologists have criteria for distinguishing when a stone has the distinctive chip marks of a primitive tool (design), and when its shape is simply the result of weathering and erosion. Insurance companies have steps for deciding whether a fire was a case of arson (design) or just an accident. Cryptologists have worked out procedures to determine whether a set of symbols is a secret message (design) or just an accident."

Using the same principles found in each of these disciplines, scientist are capable of distinguishing products of nature from products of intelligence. This is simply the way most people understand the world. Pearcey offers several examples: "Walking on the beach, we may admire the lovely pattern of ripples running across the sand, but we know it is merely a product of the wind and the waves. If, however, we come across a sand castle with walls and turrets and a moat, do we assume it too was created by the wind and waves? Of course not. The material constituents of the castle are nothing but sand and mud and water, just like the ripples all around it. But we intuitively recognize that those starting materials have a different kind of order imposed upon them."

Well, you are already a creationist, so can you truly consider yourself a skeptic? Not trying to disrespect you or anything.

Disrespect accepted...can you please pull the quote where I said I was a creationist?

Second of all, since I did not state what I was skeptical of, I think you ought to keep your assumptions to yourself and ask questions instead.

Danielle, 1:02:Why isn't it allowed? Because it's not science. Hypothesizing that a creator made something can't be tested, therefore not science. Why do IDers have a lot of published books, but not any science articles? Because they have to be tested, peer-reviewed science texts. Because ID cannot be tested, it falls into the void of non-science and into the realm of philosophy. ID belongs in philosophy, not science.

And Dawkins proposed aliens because Stein pushed him to come up with any possible way life appeared on earth from outside the earth. Dawkins said aliens, but Stein missed the point... where did the aliens come from?? Surely they would have to evolve too.

As much as I'm curious about this movie I think I'm going to wait. Not worth spending $8 at the theater when I can rent it for $2.

"Excelled", the movie:

I don't have strong opinions either way, but Ben Stein is excellent at getting to the heart of the matter.
Highly recommended! By not going to see "Excelled", you are supporting the whole premise of the movie.

I don't think Stein missed the point at all. Dawkins said the aliens would have evolved first. Dawkins appeared to be tap-dancing around Stein's question of where it all started by bringing up aliens.

What a snooty, elitist group these Evolutionist professors are! All academic disciplines are related to a certain degree. To say they are not is incredibly closed-minded. They are limiting their options by wanting to limit the debate to the discipline of science.

The original stuff off life, and where it came from has not been proven. No one could answer that question!!!
Where else can one go but to "philosophy"?

Weekend numbers are in (but don't include Sunday)

Prom Night - $3370 per screen
Expelled - $2997 per screen

Expelled did finish in the top ten - not bad for an indie documentary without a major headliner!

BTW - Darwinism cannot be tested either, but that doesn't make it "not science". That's why it's a THEORY. It cannot be proved by experiments and the results reproduced.

Gravity is a LAW, not a theory. So comparing the two vs. ID isn't a good analogy.

What a snooty, elitist group these Evolutionist professors are!

Yes, those evolutionary biologists are such horrible people. Absolutely unlike the people who persecute them:

Steve Bitterman was an instructor who taught the Western Civilization course at Southwestern Community College in Red Oak, Iowa. In 2007, at the age of sixty, he was fired because he did not teach the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth. (How many faithful Christians there are in this country who see that story as an allegory, and a powerful, meaningful one, of the loss of innocence!) “I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here,” he said afterward. “From my point of view, what they’re doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century.”

Alex Bolyanatz was an assistant professor of anthropology at Wheaton College, a Protestant liberal-arts college in Illinois. He had been popular with both students and his fellow teachers, but in the spring of 2000, he received a letter from his provost issuing a stern rebuke: “During your term at Wheaton College,” Stanton Jones wrote, “you have failed to develop the necessary basic competence in the integration of Faith and Learning, particularly in the classroom setting.” Jones castigated Bolyanatz for not treating creationism with respect and instead teaching evolution as the plain, scientific truth. Bolyanatz had repeatedly made the point that evolution did not conflict with his own religious faith, but claiming that “The evolutionary model does not discount faith” was not enough to save his job. His experience parallels that of Howard J. Van Till, who taught physics at Calvin College in Michigan. When Van Till made the modest claims that evolution had been scientifically proven and that Biblical texts were influenced by the cultures in which they’d been written, angry community members pressured Calvin College’s Board of Trustees into forming an investigative committee, which subjected Van Till to four years of inquiry. He was, eventually, cleared, but not until the committee had performed, he said, “a test of the entirety of my theological position.”

Likewise, Richard Colling graduated from Olivet Nazarene University and taught there for twenty-seven years. A man of strong religious convictions, he argued that one could believe in the Christian God and still accept the scientific truth of evolution. In 2004, he published a book about this belief, and for his pains, he was barred from teaching general biology or having his book used in the school.

Colling had been granted tenure, so that at least his job and paycheck were secure, even though the ejection from the community he loved brought him significant anguish. Nancey Murphy of Fuller Theological Seminary did not have that shield, and so when her negative review of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial aroused Johnson’s ire, she had to fight for her job. Johnson, a lawyer who was one of the instigators in rebranding creationism as “Intelligent Design,” has never displayed a grasp of basic biological facts, but that didn’t stop him from calling up a Fuller trustee and starting a campaign to get Nancey Murphy fired.

Gwen Pearson taught biology at the Permian Basin branch of the University of Texas, located in the city of Odessa. Her three years as an assistant professor ended with assaults on her integrity and her physical self:

"This all became a great deal more serious when I began to get messages on my home answering machine threatening to assist me in reaching hell, where I would surely end up. I also received threatening mail messages: “The Bible tells us how to deal with nonbelievers: ‘Bring those who would not have me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ May Christians have the strength to slaughter you and end your pitiful, blasphemous life!”

An envelope containing student evaluations from my evolution class was tampered with. A student wrote a letter to the president of the university claiming that I said in class that “anyone who believes in God gets an F.” Despite the fact that she had never been in my class, and it was clearly untrue, a full investigation of the charge ensued.

There were other problems. Often I arrived in class to find “Dr. Feminazi” scrawled on the blackboard. An emotionally disturbed student assaulted me on campus. In town, Maurice Sendak’s award-winning book Where the Wild Things Are was removed from school libraries, as it might “confuse children as to the true nature of Beelzebub.” The California-based Institute for Creation Research (ICR) preached in the county stadium to 10,000 local people.

I finally resigned when I received an admonition from the dean in my yearly reappointment letter to “accommodate the more intellectually conservative students with a low threshold of offensibility” in my evolution course. Rather than compromise my academic freedom, I chose to leave what seemed to be a dangerous place."

More here: http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626

@Milehimama: That's wrong. Gravity is a theory, not a law. That's why it's called "Gravitational Theory" not "The Law of Gravity".

There is no such thing as a Law of Gravity.

Nothing in science is ever really "proven true". If anything, the only thing that can be done is that something is "proven false". You can't prove something is true in science, but you can falsify things.

Expelled claims that an atheistic, amoral scientific elite is barring the door to the consideration of ideas like intelligent design that include a religious component. Yet scientists who are religious also perform science without bringing God in as part of their theories. Scientific theories do not include God because scientific theories must be tested. Testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God; therefore, scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable. All scientists work this way, whether they are religious or nonreligious. This is a practical restriction on what science can do, not a philosophical or moral restriction imposed by some elite.

...

New scientific views challenge the consensus all the time. Is intelligent design being kept out of the scientific consensus because of some “old boy” network that requires scientists to “go along to get along?” Hardly. New scientific ideas do get a hearing – that is how a scientist makes a reputation, after all.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Carl Woese proposed a radical rearrangement of the evolutionary tree of life, splitting bacteria into two groups and dividing life into three “domains,” rather than the traditional five kingdoms. As he produced new evidence for this approach, his colleagues began to apply his ideas in their own papers. When it became accepted within the scientific community, textbook authors rewrote the chapters on the classification of life, and college professors and high school teachers were glad to modify their lesson plans.

Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics both went through a similar process, as did Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity, plate tectonics, Big Bang cosmology, and the atomic theory. We have cataloged a number of recent biological theories that faced intense criticism, surviving and becoming well-accepted and acclaimed, and then were incorporated into pre-college textbooks and curricula.

Thus far, intelligent design hasn’t made a scientific case that its proposals help us understand nature, and the ideas have not generated the sort of research which led Woese’s ideas to wide acceptance. Protestations in Expelled to the contrary, scientists knowledgeable about relevant subject areas have critiqued intelligent design – it has not merely been waved away without consideration (see reviews of classic intelligent design statements like Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and William Dembski’s The Design Inference) The burden of proof is upon intelligent design advocates to show through scientific research that intelligent design is a useful scientific proposition. If they did, the science-funding agency review panels would gladly fund such research. As things stand now, intelligent design can be considered neither scientific nor useful for understanding nature.

There has been a history of promissory notes from intelligent design proponents, but where is the actual research? Here we can agree with intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer when he says, “The debate isn’t going to be settled by numbers, it’s going to be settled by the evidence and the arguments.” But these arguments must be made to the scientific community, not to the movie-going public.

Expelled makes so many erroneous claims about the science of evolution that it would require several movies to correct the record. Whenever Ben Stein talks about evolution, the viewer should remember that actor-economists are not known for their scientific training. There simply is not time to correct so much misinformation, but www.expelledexposed.com would like to set the record straight on at least some examples.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution

I was referencing Newton's Law of Gravitational Forces. It's an equation used in physics.

I was not saying science can prove TRUTH, I was pointing out the difference between a theory and a law. The standard is, in a nutshell, reproducible results.

@Milehimama: Oooooh...*that* equation. Gotcha. Sorry 'bout that. :)

Technically though, gravity *is* still a theory because we haven't been able to test its existence outside of our own solar system (and in our own solar system, I think Mars is the only planet we've landed on "mechanically" to determine gravity?).

Saw the movie last night. Excellent. Spot on. Particularly when Ben arrives at Hadamar (T-4). It's where that thinking leads.

For those who haven't seen it, yet criticize the movie - sorry, you're not being objective at all, considering you could see it and validly criticize it.

If anything, by doing that, you only prove the main point of the film.

No wonder famed atheist/Darwinist Richard Dawkins is so hopping mad about Expelled. The end unveiled him as a kook. He proposed that aliens planted seed on earth as a theory to answer the ultimate question, "How did nonlife become life?" while utterly denying an intelligent Designer could have.

Yeah, cause THAT doesn't take any faith to believe! LOL !!

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 20, 2008 1:15 PM

It sounds like neither group likes each other very much, that there's a lot more politicking than science going on in some places. Maybe that's the point of the movie?

You need to see it if you haven't. Stein has me convinced that there's no reason to discount other theories at this point in time.

I wasn't saying the evolutionists were horrible, just snooty and elitist. See the movie, and you'll understand why.

Janet - I would, but the problem is that the supposed "expelling" of the ID viewpoint that takes place in the movie is presented in a completely dishonest fashion. Kind of like the supposed "101 scientists against evolution" thing that I posted about over in the weekend poll thread. If ID is so great, why do they constantly have to fudge the facts?

What really bothers me about this is that it's an attempt to push ID in by public opinion, rather than by actually presenting it as a valid and testable scientific theory.

Hieronymous, right - the objection is to the lack of recognition that ID gets, but it's because it isn't testable and valid, demonstrable, etc., as is evolution.

Are we really worried about alternate explanations for gravity? No. Yet if people had a religious bent that led them toward such, it could be the same deal.

I saw it this afternoon with my daughter and really enjoyed it. It is thought-provoking and is not anti-science. It is about how the scientific community doesn't allow discussion of some issues. Academic freedom is only for those who agree with the evolution-only paradigm.

I do find it so interesting that those who are criticizing it on this site will never see it. And will only repeat the words of others about it.

The Sanger connection is well outlined in this movie. Pro-abortionists wanting to get rid of undesirables --- somethings will never change. Today's Sangerites are very busy placing mega clinics in the heart of minority communities across America.

Hiero:

Janet 7:42 said: It sounds like neither group likes each other very much, that there's a lot more politicking than science going on in some places. Maybe that's the point of the movie? You need to see it if you haven't. Stein has me convinced that there's no reason to discount other theories at this point in time. I wasn't saying the evolutionists were horrible, just snooty and elitist. See the movie, and you'll understand why.

Hiero said:8:40: Janet - I would, but the problem is that the supposed "expelling" of the ID viewpoint that takes place in the movie is presented in a completely dishonest fashion. Kind of like the supposed "101 scientists against evolution" thing that I posted about over in the weekend poll thread. If ID is so great, why do they constantly have to fudge the facts? What really bothers me about this is that it's an attempt to push ID in by public opinion, rather than by actually presenting it as a valid and testable scientific theory.

My take after the movie is that they are not pushing ID, but just want to level the playing field so that it can be given the respect for further discussion in the scientific community.

Personally, I can't agree that we MUST study science in a vacuum with out allowing that chance that there is a higher being that exists. Wouldn't science say, that if something cannot be disproved, then there is a chance it does exist? Isn't that what hypotheses are all about?

Remember, I'm not a scientist or up on the debate, so I don't know what facts are being fudged. Do you mean that some scientists are trying to "find holes" in the theory of evolution? How can we say that the theory of evolution is set in stone (is that what you say?) is all the variables aren't explained? (like where does the impetus for "life" begin, and how does the complexity of it evolve so independent of an outside designer?) On a side note, I went for a walk in the woods yesterday and was photographing all of the flowers starting to come out. The complexity of plant life/nature is enough for me to know with 100% certainty that there is a God (or designer for those who don't believe in God). I haven't met a person yet who could come close to duplicating the complexity and beauty of plant life. (Just my two cents, I know everyone doesn't believe in a designer or God).

Personally I can't see how this whole question of where we came from will ever be solved with 100% confidence. Somewhat related, I've been to a few lectures at Fermilab by leading scientists on big bang, and other similar theories on how things got started, (with my husband who is the physics/science buff of the family) and the impression I always get from these very scholarly men and women, is that the ideas they present on these "hard to know" issues are only theories, and until the next one comes along, it's the best they can do. (I don't mean to belittle science at all Isn't that what much of science is about- coming up with a hypothesis and then working through it to find an answer?

According to the movie, ID seems to be one hypothesis that is being shot down too quickly by those who don't want to listen for whatever reason. Thanks for listening, even though I'm just an observer in this debate. Please, go see the movie!

What really bothers me about this is that it's an attempt to push ID in by public opinion, rather than by actually presenting it as a valid and testable scientific theory.

You're misunderstand the point of the movie - and yet at the same time, through your ignorance, you're making the point of the movie entirely!

Hiero - If you don't understand the difference between physical sciences and the teleological sciences then you're only showing your ignorance, because you're lumping them together.

If you're discussing the movie itself, then you're just being obstinate. See the movie, then you can adequately discuss it rationally, and validly refute the purpose of the movie - otherwise, you're simply illustrating the very point of the movie, which is how many impose their world-views (teleological science) upon the physical sciences when they shouldn't.

One doesn't arrive at meaning first and then reject facts if they don't fit that meaning. One explores the facts without prescribing meaning, then after the facts have been established, one looks for meaning and purpose.

You want to defend science? Fine - Use the scientific method first - establish your facts by observation: go watch the movie, then come back and discuss the purpose behind the movie.

Don't make assumptions you can't empirically support.

Janet, LB, and Chris, great posts!!

Personally, I can't agree that we MUST study science in a vacuum with out allowing that chance that there is a higher being that exists. Wouldn't science say, that if something cannot be disproved, then there is a chance it does exist? Isn't that what hypotheses are all about?

EXACTLY!

Chris, what is it exactly that you think the purpose of the movie is?

Chris - sorry, missed part of your post. Ignore earlier question.

You said that the movie was about how many impose their world-views (teleological science) upon the physical sciences when they shouldn't.

Really? You think the movie really demonstrates that the vast majority of people in the biological scientists are imposing their world-views on the physical sciences? We're going to have to agree to disagree, because to me that's venturing into tinfoil hat territory.

ARgh. I need coffee...sentence two, paragraph two should read "biological sciences" not "scientists".

Milehimama, you wrote: "Darwinism cannot be tested either,...."

If by "Darwinism" you mean what most ID proponents mean when they mistakenly use this word: Evolutionary Biology, and the idea that organic change occurs through a combination of random mutation plus natural selection, then you are wrong. This idea has been tested in the lab and in nature many times and has so far survived every test.

You cant base science on the supernatural. They are mutually exclusive.

You think the movie really demonstrates that the vast majority of people in the biological scientists are imposing their world-views on the physical sciences?

Hiero - Okay - for starters, if you really needed coffee ( a vast majority of people in biological scientists... what is that - like "Being John Malkovich" or something? ;-) then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you might not have understood what I was saying. I'll clarify.

Science provides, in it's purest form, simple operational facts, not all of which stand the test of time. You could go to the extremes and believe that there is nothing that is absolutely certain with regard to physical constructs, and it's all relative anyway. Our ability to look into smaller cosmos, or beyond spectrums, hinders our full understanding. In other words, there's a "faith" that's necessary at some point, because in the physical world there are transcendent boundaries we cannot pass.

With our instruments incapable, our understanding limited, we can theorize all we want, but it's still incomplete. The problem comes when people think the physical explanation is complete. Then instead of physical science, they enter a realm of teleology - which is philosophy. They jump to conclusions, focusing on the purposes and not on what is.

It can work both ways, for both atheists and theists, which is pretty much the world-views at odds. Yet, there are implications for the way a society thinks about such things, how we even go about thinking. Go see the movie, then let's talk.

I'm not going to argue ID or creationism here, neither am I going to continue a conversation with someone who's at the unique disadvantage of not knowing what I know about something they're supposedly arguing about. Again, doing so makes the point of the movie.

Chris - if the point of the movie is to argue against imposing presuppositions on the evidence, I think that maybe the movie's producers, directors, and supporters could use a good long look in the mirror....

Also, this: Science provides, in it's purest form, simple operational facts, not all of which stand the test of time.....isn't exactly true. What science provides is discovery of the facts, and then hypotheses and theories that explain the facts.

The problem comes when people think the physical explanation is complete.

I've never met or communicated with a scientist who thought that the physical explanation for speciation was complete. The theory of evolution is being tested and challenged constantly.

You know, you may not want to discuss this with me, and that's fine. I'm relatively science literate, but I'm not a scientist. However, I do have a recommendation for you. The folks who discuss science here: http://www.darwincentral.org/inside.htm are a group of conservative, mostly Republican, scientists and science-interested. The site got started by a group of current and ex-Freepers to focus on science discussions. They're a great bunch of people, and I'm sure would be willing and able to engage with you on these topics.

Also, I doubt that I'll see the movie while it's still in theaters. Maybe when it comes out on dvd, or if I could borrow a copy from someone. It may be that seeing it would change my mind about it being a dishonest propaganda piece, but I've read too many thorough reviews by people whose opinions I respect to think that's very likely.

It may be that seeing it would change my mind about it being a dishonest propaganda piece, but I've read too many thorough reviews by people whose opinions I respect to think that's very likely.

Then for heaven's sake don't challenge your presuppositions based on what you've been told to think....

Hooves - to be more clear, it isn't just that. It's the fact that the film was supported by the Discovery Institute, and also the fact that I'm fairly familiar with the Guillermo Gonzalez tenure thing, and also the fact that I followed the Dover trial fairly closely. I haven't been "told to think" anything. The Discovery Institute basically founded the ID movement to try and backdoor creationism into public schools. It's all out there if you bother to look it up. Try googling "Discovery Institute Wedge Document" for a good primer on the topic.

"the film does not try to explain what ID is, or attempt in any way to show that it is scientific (probably smart, since it's not), it just attempts to convince the audience that evolution might not be the right answer, and that people that are pushing ID are persecuted for it. There is no argument for or against the validity of ID in the film. They are quite literally trying to argue for the validity of ID as science simply because it's not being taken seriously. It's a complete non-argument."

-- Brad Leclerc

Walt Ruloff, the movie's executive producer... said the film could top the $23.9-million opening for Michael Moore's polemic against President Bush, Fahrenheit 9/11, the best launch ever for a documentary.

Oh Pullleeeaase..... Movie producers never tend to lie?

'Expelled' barely made enough to avoid being worse than straight-to-video.