ok Ock, looked at your site and can see easily it's very one sided but that is to be expected.  I mean it was all about trashing this movie.  That's exactly what the movie was about basically.  Don't question the "other side."  If you do, you'll be made to look foolish but in fact, if you watch the movie it's all about seeing live interviews. 

On the Wiki site you gave me it had answers to objections.  That's to be expected.  For instance it mentioned the Crocker teacher who dared to just barely mention ID and on this site it made it out to be a bunch of hype when in fact, if you watch the movie you can see with your own eyes the administrator stumbling over himself trying to give an answer to why she was "let go."  It was obvious.  And you can also see how they say one thing verbally but in their letters of dismissal say something totally different.  In one instance (could be the Crocker incident) the Admin stated bluntly (he was lying) that ID had nothing to do with this dismissal but a letter of dismissal stated clearly the teaching of ID was very much a big part of the reason for dismissal.

Again, you really have to "see" this instead of reading these reviews.  Because for one thing it's to be expected that there will be a clear line drawn down the middle.  If you're an Evolutionist you will absolutely hate this movie but if you're a believer in the ID theory or a Creationist you will love this movie and the Wiki was not fair in representing both sides: 

AIG said this in their review, of course not elaborated on in the Wiki site:

Yet there are some bright lights and moments of sanity in this penetrating documentary. John Lennox of Oxford correctly points out that all scientists have biases and worldviews that they bring to their research—and then to the conclusions they draw from evidence. Also, David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher, sits down with Stein and eloquently brings up the problems with evolution (comparing it to a “room full of smoke”).

 

 

oh dang....meant to add this as well!

Overall, the film is more about exposing the fear of evolutionists in allowing free speech in scientific inquiry (and their accompanying tyrannical behavior) than it is an anti-evolution piece. Stein discovers an elitist scientific establishment that has exchanged science’s supposed quest for open-minded inquiry for harsh dogmatism. Freedom, “the essence of America” says Stein (a former civil rights lawyer), is easily taken away at universities, with qualified scientists expelled for not embracing evolution.

The question is the same as the reason why Galileo was censured. Fear. Fear they are wrong. And without evidential proof to convince the skeptics, they have to or their religion (and yes, it is a religion) is shown to be simply "the man behind the curtain".

So I just went to try and download it somewhere . . . not to be found.

Guess it's not too popular.

I actually haven't read the wiki. Someone brought it up, you dismissed wikis as unreliable due to the ability for anyone to edit them, and I defended the principle of wikis on the basis of a "belief" (yes, I have a few) that there aren't scads of demonic internet dwellers running around rewriting wikis.

I don't need to read the wiki or see the movie (and I've done neither). If ID scientists start doing some peer reviewed research and making hypotheses with tests and results, I'll be fascinated to see such research in exactly the same way that I would be fascinated to see any other research on any other subject. So far, ID hasn't provided anything like that, to my knowledge. If they have, link please.

For what it's worth, I'm a complete skeptic. I won't trust spin doctors from either side of any issue to tell me the whole truth and nothing but the truth (which is why I didn't bother reading the wiki - I expect it to be slanted as well.) All I was suggesting to you was don't discount wikis. Pick something FROM a wiki and discount that. It's far more credible, and on that particular wiki I saw lots of citations. So pick one and have at it

That is exactly the "slant" the wiki has. It goes into great detail how the interviewees were misled and quote mined, how the stories of discrimination left out little tidbits about how some of the people "losing" their jobs after publishing ID material were known beforehand to be going to be leaving their job voluntarily, how Ben Stein giving a speech to an auditorium of students was fabricated, and the movie made excessive attempts to associate the holocaust with evolutionary theory. Oh yeah, the producers also excluded religious scientists that are able to resolve the two, because they felt it would "confuse" the issue. Apparently, its not ID if it isn't biblical literalism?


I'd like that link too.

All this time you've been discussing evolution KFC and you still have no idea what science is. I guess I'm not that surprised Michael Bein, the creationist who testified in Dover thinks Astrology is a scientific field.  

Everything in that film is ether a direct lie or a nefarious manipulation of the truth. All the people that were supposed to have been black listed or fired or had their careers ruined because of their beliefs were lying. But the film makers don't care because they know creationist won't check the facts and wouldn't believe anything the godless evolutionist said about the facts of the film anyhow. I mean you see intersecting lines and that's constitutes all the proof of creation you need.

The "Expelled exposed" website just about covers all the BS from the movie. Link

If our bodies are designed, the designer was a real moron. There's a superior version of almost ever system in the rest of biology. Superior hearts, lungs, eyes, ears, olfactory and digestive systems. Just a separate breathing tube would have prevented millions of choking deaths. Half of our genes are junk that just cause cancers and other mutations.

If everything was created then science will eventually come to that conclusion. But it will get there in it's own way and religion will never regain the control it once had over science so just let it be will you.

Well the reason we feel this way is quite simply because Intelligent Design (and even more so Creationisim) are NOT science. They have NO scientific fact and as such should not be taught in Science.

Debating whether or not there is a god is fine by me and something i try to encourage (so long as it's in a civil enviroment). it. To take that further and say it is fact is wrong. Are you not able to grasp this? I understand you have allegiance to the Church, but even with this you have to understand that while your beliefs have no fact that you must not classify them as Science.

I grew up during a time of economic turmoil in the area of England i lived (the North East, which suffered heavily thanks to the decline in British Industry), many peoples parents were out of work (i can't stress how high unemployment levels were in the North East), most often drank heavily, riots were common place and  life was far from as comfortable as it is now.

So it was quite easy to grow up as a child quite disillusioned, potentially, but i don't attribute this to my take on Creationisim, what this did do for me was sort of give me a realistic perspective from a very young age.

I remember being taught about Dinosaurs at school, then going to Sunday school and being told that God made the world, then man, but there were no Dinosaurs in the bible. I remember doing basic Geography and about how the Earth was formed, what stood out was probably pictures of Volcanos and lava spilling out everywhere. Any questions on the irregularities between what i was being taught in school and sunday school were obviously avoided. Which is quite easy to do for a class full of 8 year olds.

I did at one point get an answer on the Dionsaur issue, and why they weren't mentioned in the bible.

The answer i was given was something along the lines of 'That's because Dinosaurs don't really exist, the fossils being fond were put there to test our faith in god'.

I think it was at this point i started to reject the notion that Gensis actually happend. I consider myself someone who doesn't believe in any of the monolistic religions (or any religion for that matter), but this was only a recent development, for example i'm now 23 and on my 21st birthday i was given a Crucifix by mother. I never took it off up until about a year ago.

From a philosophical stand point, i wouldn't out right deny the existance of god, but when it comes to Science and the Scientific Method, there is no proof and it's wrong for anyone to try and make it Science until there is observable and measureable evidence.

There is actually a huge difference between being threatened and terrified actually, but i think i know what your getting at.

The notion of creatonisim, does not terrify me, from a personal perspective given what we know now, i just think it's wrong.

What does terrify me, is when as i said, George Bush saying we should teach Intelligent Design in science, as an example of both sides of the arguement. This terrifies me, the fact that something that has not been proven has found it's way into science. I hope this clarifies it for you. 

Stubby

To say I'm unintelligent and that Creationist are lying don't lend to a very nice argument.  In fact it's a double sided one and one I'm unwilling to engage in. 

Let me ask you this. ....did you see the movie?  Because if you did, you'd be able to see with your own eyes what you just said to me is untrue. 

Like I keep saying, when it comes to origins, Science does not have a corner on this market.  Yet they are allowed to keep selling their wares nontheless. 

ID is not a religion masquerading as Science but evolution is religion masquerading as Science.

The ongoing debate over teaching of evolution employs the same old false assumptions to frame the argument.  It is assumed that the teaching of bilogical macroevolution is justified because evolution is based upon Science and that the teaching of Intelligent Design is not justified because its basis is religous rather than scientific.  Bot of thse assumptions are false.  ID proponents always prsent scientific evidence to support their theory.  Their argument is based on science. 

given what most people define as church it would be clearer to say that my allegiance is to Christ not man-made religion.  Now if you're talking of Church in the context of all born-again Christ followers than that would be a fair statement as well but my overall allegiance is to the head of the church who would be Christ. 

and this is the reason we are told to search things out for ourselves and not rely on man.  Whoever gave you this answer gave you false information. I mean it's so clearly a made up answer.  Dinos are just put here to test our faith but didn't really exist?  Com'on you bought that Scotteh?   So now the question is how do you know what the Evolutionists are telling you is the correct answer? 

While the word "dinosaur" is not in the bible since it's a modern word coined I think in the 1800's the animal dinosaur or very large dinosaur is mentioned more than once. 

I understand what you're saying but you're not using this same criteria for the other side.  There is no observable and measureable evidence when it comes to the origins of man via the Evolution Theory either. 

Thanks Scotteh on the historical info.  I like to know what makes people tick and where they are coming from. 

 

 

 

 

Out of curiosity.  Where?

 

 

Out of curiosity.  Where?

 

 

List one experiment and the results.  Just one.

 

 

No sheet, Sherlock.  You know just as well as anyone (considering that you've been told this a hundred times) that Evolution has nothing to do with origins.  Evolution never claimed to say anything about origins.  Do you not listen?  I KNOW it would make your argument really palatable if you could somehow link origin theory to evolution theory, (thereby disproving any credibility of the latter) but you can't, ok?  Stop it already.  Never the twain shall meet, ok?  You get it?  Evolution has nothing to do with origin.  Please reply that you understand this so we can all get on with everything else there is to talk about.  Hows about I repeat this another million ways.  Evolution != Origin.  Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of man at all.  Evolution isn't trying to explain origin of man.  Evolution isn't a theory about the beginnings of anything.  Evolution is a theory about genetic changes over time.  Evolution deals with development of life.  That life is presupposed before evolution starts talking about it, therefore it has nothing to do with where that life started.

 

Do you get it yet?  Maybe?  Please?

If you don't get it yet, then just hang an "I'm a retard" sign around your neck so the rest of us can steer clear.  If you DO get it (and I know you do, because I don't think you're a retard and those are the only two choices) then stop with the constant BS about Origin vs. Evolution.  OK!!!???

Ok Ock I'm pulling an Ock here.

Going to the dictionary. Everything has to have an origin. Everything has a beginning including the theory of Evolution. Resorting to name calling even if you're saying I'm not but trying to insinuate I might be is not fairplay. When have I ever called you a retard or idiot?

While you're quite right about evolution being about processes and development it also attempts to show us how all this started with an explosion sans God. It has a beginning as well.

ev·o·lu·tion Audio Help /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. 8).
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.


[Origin: 1615–25; < L évolūtiōn- (s. of évolūtiō) an unrolling, opening, equiv. to évolūt(us) (see evolute) + -iōn- -ion]

You simply will not accept that ID is not science even though it's been proven to you over and over again. So ether you don't understand it or your trying to redefine it. Take at look at Ock's post, What is "The Scientific Method?" maybe a miracle will happen.

All the people that were supposed to have been "expelled", are still working in their fields, none were fired or even blacklisted, even though some deserved to be.  

Richard Sternberg, "did not lose his office or his access to collections, he did not lose his job, he was not “fired” from the (unpaid) editorship of the journal (he had resigned six months before the publication of the Meyer article), and from the e-mails in the appendix to the Souder report, it appears that his colleagues were civil in their communications with him".

Guillermo Gonzalez, was denied tenure for failing to bring in research grants. "The average tenured faculty in the ISU physics and astronomy department brought in $1.3 million in grants during their first six years. Gonzalez brought in, at most, $200,000 during the same amount of time.

Caroline Crocker, Despite claims of being fired, Crocker was allowed to continue teaching and complete her GMU contract after the Department became aware of her ID instruction through student complaints. She was instructed to not teach about intelligent design and creation science, which was not part of the curriculum of the courses she had been hired to teach. Academic freedom does not mean the freedom to teach about anything you want, regardless of the expected content of your courses. And, far from having her academic career “come to an abrupt end”, after leaving GMU, Crocker taught at NVCC, and additionally acquired in 2006 a postdoctoral position at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD, working on T-cell signal transduction – an actual scientific investigation – suggesting that her reputation as a scientist was unaffected by the controversy over intelligent design

Robert Marks, "The worst that happened to Professor Marks was that he had to remove his web site from Baylor’s webserver. In no other way was his free speech impinged, nor have his work conditions changed in any way: he remains a Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, holding a full professorship in the School of Engineering and Computer Science. He continues to teach his courses and conduct research. Where is the harm?

Pamela Winnick wrote a book, A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion, and then didn't like the reviews it got. "Jeffrey Shallit descibes her book as “not a fair, reliable, or objective look at the battles between science and religion,” for example – but it is insupportable and absurd to characterize such criticism as blacklisting".   

Physician Michael Egnor posted an essay on an intelligent design blog in response, claiming that evolution was irrelevant to medicine and didn't like the responses he got. Welcome to the Internet Mr. Egnor.

The site I linked has the rest of it. Expelled Exposed

What I found unbelievable is them expelling people with a dissenting opinion from the screening of a movie about expelling people with a dissenting opinion.

Yea this is an honest film alright.   

  

Ok KFC, I didn't see anything in that post supporting evolution encompassing origins; and your assertion that everything must have one is backed up by what?

 

No, it doesn't.  Evolution has zero to do with origin.  And look, I'm not calling you names.  You're taking them for yourself.  I told you 5 or 6 different ways what I just told you again.  What is it about it you can't understand?

WRITES:

Great article KFC...and very interesting comments too!  I'm glad that you followed up with an article after seeing the movie.

I haven't seen the film yet, but have read quite a number of articles, pro and con. Based upon what I've read isn't the movie mainly about how scientists, professors, etc.  who dare to criticize Darwinism or discuss ID theory are expelled, fired, denied tenure, blacklisted, denounced and their works never given a chance to be published?

Ben Stein has really riled up his critics, academia, and the media for the very last thing they want is for anybody to challenge, question or criticize Darwinism or suggest that ID theory might have a basis for explaining the origin of life.

When you  think about it, it all boils down to freedom....and academic and scientific freedom really doesn't extend to this issue. Stein's message is that the attack of freedom of inquiry is anti-science and anti the whole concept of learning.

 

Exactly! Why are the media,  academia, and the grant-making foundations so determined to supress and punish any mention of Intelligent Design theory?