Exclusive: Jill Stanek sees ‘Big Bang’ coming from the left April 18
From the WorldNetDaily By Jill Stanek On April 18,
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” will boast the largest U.S. opening of any documentary film ever.Scheduled for release in 1,000 theatres, “Expelled” will be hotter than “Farenheit 9/11,” which debuted on 868 screens, and much more convenient to see than “An Inconvenient Truth,” which I was surprised to find opened on only four screens nationwide despite all the hype, peaking at 587 before its appeal melted.What’s “Expelled” about? Synopsizes CNS News:
“Expelled” calls attention to the plight of highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles Darwin’s 150-year-old theories about the origins of life. Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a “systematic and ruthless” way at odds with America’s founding principles, the film asserts.
Liberals have been going ape about “Expelled” for months as it has been screened around the country.(Column continues here)
Editor’s Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.- The Producers of “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”
April 11th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Liberals are going “ape” over “Expelled.” Never seen so much fire with words and the concern over promoting creationism when it comes to evolutionists in the blogs. And guess what? It’s not only “Expelled” Evolutionists are going “ape” over.
A new discovery has shocked them. They checked and re-checked, wipe their eyes in disbelief, thinking something went wrong, it can’t be, noooo, wait a minute!…lol…But as it turned out, nothing went wrong…Here is the news bit, “Earth’s first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge, according to a new find that has shocked scientists who didn’t imagine the earliest critter could be so complex.”
More shockers to come as science grows so stay tuned!
April 11th, 2008 at 4:38 am
“EXPELLED” the NEW GALILEO; LIBERALISM the NEW CHURCH
As monk Giordano Bruno was burned to death in 1600 by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church for the “crime” of going public with his belief in a Sun-centered universe, Galileo was persecuted, tried, and found guilty of the same “crime.”
And why? Not because the science behind his theories was not sound and backed up by solid observations. The telescope he had built gave ample proof for his assertions. And the truth was, many members of the council of theologies were scientists and mathematicians who believed Galileo’s conclusions were accurate. So what was his “great sin?”
The Church was feeling threatened by the increasing popularity of Protestantism, and thus their previously unchallenged authority and rulership in their sphere of religion in daily life was being called into question. Professional jealousy, we would call it today. Thus they viewed Galileo’s public pronouncements, not as scientific realities to be welcomed and celebrated, but as a threat to their profitable worldview and power base. Therefore, he had to be eliminated.
Fast-forward to today. The friction point we find ourselves at now is between science falsely so-called, and belief in God. Evo-fundies, or as Ann Coulter calls them, Darwiniacs, will brook no interference with their version of reality, and have opted to crucify and/or burn at the electronic stake, anyone who dares question their self-appointed place as SOLE arbiters of truth and reality.
Coulter pulls no punches as she throws open the doors of the church of liberalism:
“Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. OF COURSE LIBERALISM IS A RELIGION. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints [Pope Darwin!], its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.” -From Godless.
Galileo was persecuted for telling the truth. “The Earth MOVES!” he said, and he was right. And down through the centuries, everyone was to learn that the Sun is our center and that the Earth we live on rotates, tilts on its axis, and revolves around the Sun. Just so, spiritually-speaking, God is the center of human life, Jesus Christ is THE central figure in human history, and man is NOT the center of the universe as he so loves to pretend.
Darwinism/evolutionism (humanism) is the old/new self-centered axis of evil in our world, and there will be hell to pay for defying these firmly-established Satanic powers that be.
But God’s truth will win, just check the back of the book. As it is written, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Just keep in mind, this is a religious war, and the evo-fundies are the most religious, the most dangerous, and the most foaming-at-the-mouth fanatical of all. THEY are the wolves and the serpents and scorpions Jesus spoke about.
Just observe how much they dearly HATE “EXPELLED!”
“EXPELLED” the new Galileo, evo-fundie LIBS the New CHURCH!
April 11th, 2008 at 5:17 am
I don’t think it is simply the idea of Intelligent Design that seems to not be accepted by science. The real reason for its denial is the relation of this idea to centuries old altered texts that contradict science and to a greater sense, reality. If the idea is even considered that there is some reasoning not yet revealed behind life, the religious nuts of the world will use the event as scientific proof of their religions. The psychological reason behind the backing of ID could simply be brainwashing by religion. In the same way most bigots who were raised by bigots will see their own group as superior, those trained to believe in religion will always want to believe. Religion has always been the enemy of science, and it has been losing the war. As the old saying goes, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em,” so has religion joined science by claiming science as a part of religion. It is unfortunate for the religious leader that there is no conection between science and exagerrated history.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:23 am
After the jump, I counted about one lie per sentence in that column.
Any advance on one / sentence ?
April 11th, 2008 at 6:24 am
DISCOVERY INSTITUTES BEST SHOT….
I would like to take a moment and ask people to take an honest look at The Discovery Institute’s best comeback and attempt to discredit the 2006 film “Flock of Dodo: The Evolution, ID circus” by Randy Olsen. Brace yourself for the DAMING evidence my friends and I would ask that you more importantly watch the twisting of the whole truth. The Discovery Institute was peed off that Olsen busted Wells (DI Fellow) book out when he asked Calvert to show him in one of he’s many text books to find Haeckel’s diagram
In one of the many text books he had on the shelf behind him. He couldn’t, they searched and searched. In this video below however you will see them go through a few books, and show the picture time after time saying, “See there it is again, yep he was lying”. The fact is like I have said before, notice how they never tell you what all the paragraphs right below the pictures tell us. In fact I will defy the good Christians out there to find me a current text that in fact shows it as anything but an example of a scientific blunder. We don’t suppress information as I have noted before. We show people examples of bad science and what not to do unless you want to be remembered for “eternity” as a fraud. Please enjoy. I had to watch it twice I was laughing show hard at the deceit.
HOAX OF DODOS
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8732543236266221620
Here is pz’s explanation, not that one should be needed lol……
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_false_accusation_against.php
Also don’t miss the outtakes from Flock of Dodos, which had Randy Olsen not been trying to present a bias view could have seriously beat up on ID, had he only left them in the film. Also notice how Cashill (great ID mind) reviews Flock of Dodos. Quit deferent from the way this film has started out even before it’s release. I think Expelled only helps our cause when you only look at the obvious deceit that has already had light shined on it. The lies about the Title as well as the purpose of the film, EXPELLing people from a free admission, no less someone who is actually in the film who shouldn’t have had to sign up, who should in fact have been asked to attend. At least that’s how our side does it, as you will see. Yes, bad idea. The Iders I feel have revealed themselves to us all.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7142082734991931331&q=flock+of+dodos&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search
I think all this deceit should speak volumes about the character of the cause. And people who support people who twist the truth to such extremes should expect, like Haeckel’s diagram, to spend the rest of mankind’s time on this earth, to be reviewed in textbooks one day as “what not to do and why”.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:44 am
It’s gratifying to know that this soon before the movie opens, the only positive press coverage y’all can get is from the likes of Worldnetdaily, and even they had to resort to trotting out the tired old “tried to bust into a private screening” lie. Even Fox news panned the movie.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Oh, and Michael, think for a second. Where did this new data about early life forms come from? Mainstream scientists. You know, the ones that the movie alleges are all part of a massive conspiracy to prevent data that challenges “Darwinism” from becoming public. Like you allege this data does. Funny how IDers, not doing any science of their own, are always pouncing on new data coming out from mainstream science as evidence that mainstream science won’t tolerate the very kinds of data that’s getting published.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Why these yahoos blather about ‘Darwin’s 150 year old theories amazes me. It’s as if they don’t understand that science is flexible, and can change.
Or don’t care.
So, IDers, are you ignorant or apathetic?
April 11th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Holy poop, batman! A slight anomaly in a previous conjecture! Time to discard mountains of peer reviewed evidence in favor of blaming it all on a sneaky Creator!
You guys are getting pathetic. We have yet to hear the Expelled! team’s account of PZ’s attempted entry(only one of a casual witness, for which, conveniently, Mathis need take no responsibility). You lied to your subjects. You’ve plagiarized tons of copywritten content. You lie and lie and lie. And then you blame Hitler on Darwin, which is a bit like blaming Rutherford and Niels Bohr for the Atom Bomb.
Way to take a giant dump on Godwin’s Law.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Quote of the Day
God must have loved the people in power, for he made them so much like their own image of him.
-Kenneth Patchen,
poet and novelist
(1911-1972)
April 11th, 2008 at 8:30 am
To all readers,
Please consider the source of this thread. CNS News has a tag line of “The RIGHT news, RIGHT now.” Doesn’t sound too “fair and balanced” to me.
And how did evolutionist become “liberals” now? At least I understood the “atheist” label, although there are MANY theist evolutionists.
So now the tally sheet looks like this:
Evolutionist=atheist=communist=racist=nazi=liberal.
If anything, this progression shows that evolutionists have EVOLVED.
I am just saddened by the “TRUE” Christians (John’s phrasing, not mine) that are supposed to love their fellow man that are giving scientists these labels of hate (except liberal).
April 11th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Rolling on the floor over here, literally, due to Jill Stanek’s obviously hysterical wit as well as “natural selection” of sparkling “creative” clarity and spot-on accuracy regarding EXPELLED!
“I will confound the wisdom of the wise. The intelligence of the intelligent (NOT!) I will frustrate…sayeth the Lord.”
Get ready for some major FRUSTRATION, ALL Evo–atheist–Orc–types! Repent for your short-sightedness, and submit, once and for all, to absolute TRUTH! And, absolutely, do it now.
And speaking of our buddy Al “Chilly” Gore…don’t forget to preorder your advance copy of his new (and, no doubt, Nobel-prize winning backstory) blockbuster, runaway NY Times best seller:
“Is It HOT In Here…Or Is It Just ME?”
April 11th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Thinking Man-
.
The difference between ingorance and apathy?
I don’t know and I don’t care.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Ah, dog nmad, it
Ignorance, not ingorance
April 11th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Science devoid of philosophy is dangerous
Philosophy devoid of religion is dangerous
“Man centered” religion is dangerous
All three combined, in their above presented
states bring suffering and death
April 11th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“THE PLAGARIST,” (aka Stinking Man), at # 882 (past life), foolishly (duh, ya think?) again blurts:
“The moderators here may discreetly ask him (referring to the one and only, LQQKinEast, an “unbeatable foe”)to ‘tone it down’, or perhaps ban him from the website, it may be the only solution.”
LOL. My friend, your wayward suggestion again shines the ever-illuminating INSANITY spotlight right between your eyes. Don’t forget those cockroaches I had once written about? Squash. Splat. Die. And…
Your suggestion, don’t you know, would be somewhat on a par with Ted Bundy (your cousin?) going on television as national spokesman for the “Women’s Rights” movement! (Should I translate?)
Or…and…have you not yet noticed, Gollum, of what particular spirit our kind moderators are “created?” Of course not. That would require discernment. (you can look that up under “D” (for DUFUS!) by the way. Dictionary’s probably in the garbage. Don’t forget to close the door on your way out…
“Relax now. This won’t take long at all. Roll up your sleeve. Now just close your eyes (dream you had LE’s wit), and it’ll all be over before you know it. Sweet dreams…
April 11th, 2008 at 9:51 am
At this point, I don’t care about this movie anymore. Even though you mock and ridicule science and complain that your ideas aren’t allowed in the classroom, you will still benefit from the good science found in the theory of evolution.
To PZ’s credit, he’s not advocating firing teachers for their religious beliefs, but for teaching creationism. It’s good to get angry at these anti-science kooks when they arrive to teach a science class.
Teaching good science generates good science, which helps everyone.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Gollum…
I see you voted “NO” on your state’s referendum/proposal to ban public viewings of Death-Row executions.
Stick.
* You can ask your local gas inspector guy to translate for you, okay? I know he gets it…since I know you DON’T.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Still trying to match me, chump?
Or do you yet concede that you’re clearly way outmatched!
Suggest…pick a game you can win. Marbles? Nope. Forgot, gotta have some before you can play. Anyway, let me think on it. Get back to you…
I got it! GO FISH. Water’s shallow, like player, in nearby backyard mudpuddle. Won’t slip and drown that way. Maybe?
Lesson for your life: Pick far less-capable, learned and inherently skilled opponent to play with next time!
Easier on the ego that way…
April 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
LQQKinEast, you are getting more hysterical with each post. Take it easy, friend, we are here to help you.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
John,
What a bummer (for you) that one of your MANY tirades couldn’t have been the first post.
How about you trying to answer some questions (previously posted for you) instead of just spreading your blather?
1. Does the bible support, condone and explain how slavery should be done? Never answered.
2. Duwr vs. Chuwg? You know, the circle, sphere, ball thing.
3. All southerners being racist and rednecks? (as you have repeatedly posted)
4. What is the difference between a “true” christian and a “false” christian? (Since you posted about “true” christians)
Come on, John…enquiring minds want to know.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am
“Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.
The Producers of “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”
We’ll see won’t we
“Dear Mr. Craft:
This letter will constitute notice to you, as Chairman of Premise Media Corporation, of the copyright infringement by your
corporation, and its subsidiary, Rampant Films, of material produced by XVIVO LLC, in which XVIVO holds a copyright.”
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/EXPELLED-Letter.pdf
April 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am
““Expelled” calls attention to the plight of highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles
Darwin’s 150-year-old theories about the origins of life.
Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of
competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a “systematic and ruthless” way at odds with America’s founding principles, the film asserts.”
Just so that the matter gets complete clarity perhaps the owners of this blog would care to document the evidence to show that the academics were forced out rather than just going on their say-so. Surely you guys remember what evidence is. It is that item you continue to ignore in the hopes that it will fade away a stop bothering you.
Please ,by all means, show us the documentation that must be in your possession in order to back up the statements you make.
As a side note to this little item in the fine print.
“Editor’s Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.”
I have included here a copy of the item sent you concerning the copyright infringement.
Perhaps Logan Craft would care to utter a statement here for the public record that he may vindicate himself. Most pointed of all the criticism in this comes the fact that not only was the clip similar to the one in Inner Life but that it made exactly the same errors pertaining to what actually occurs with the kinesin molecule.The walls just keep crashing down around you and you seek refuge in the lame excuse that BIG science is trying to silence you.
So quit the crying and put up the EVIDENCE already fools.
Logan Craft
Chairman
Premise Media Corporation
Suite K
1850 Old Pecos Trail
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
Re: Copyright infringement in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”
Dear Mr. Craft:
This letter will constitute notice to you, as Chairman of Premise Media Corporation, of the copyright infringement by your
corporation, and its subsidiary, Rampant Films, of material produced by XVIVO LLC, in which XVIVO holds a copyright.
It has come to our intention that Premise Media and Rampant Films has produced a film entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed,” which is scheduled for commercial release and distribution on April 18, 2008. To our knowledge, this film includes a
segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled “The Inner
Life of a Cell.” XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in this video, and has not authorized
Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of this material.
We have obtained promotional material for the “Expelled” film, presented on a DVD, which clearly shows in the “cell segment”
the virtually identical depiction of material from the “Inner Life” video. Among the infringed scenes, we particularly refer to the
segment of the “Expelled” film purporting to show the “walking” models of kinesic activities in cellular mechanisms. The
segments depicting these models in your film are clearly based upon, and copied from, material in the “Inner Life” video.
We have been advised by counsel that this segment in your film constitutes an actionable infringement of XVIVO’s intellectual
property rights, as protected by federal statutes, including Section 106 of the Copyright Act, the Visual Artists Rights Act of
1990, and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. Each of these statutes provides for judicial enforcement of their
provisions, with substantial civil penalties for their infringement.
We have also obtained legal advice that your copying, in virtually identical form, of material in the “inner Life” video clearly
meets the legal test of “substantial similarity” between the copied work and our original work.
This letter will also serve as notice to you that XVIVO intends to vigorously and promptly pursue its legal remedies for your
copyright infringement, unless and until Premise Media, Rampant Films, and their officers, employees, and agents comply with
the following demands:
1) That Premise Media, Rampant Films, and its officers, employees, and agents remove the infringing segment from all
copies of the “Expelled” film prior to its scheduled commercial release on or before April 18, 2008;
2) That all copies of the “Inner Life” video in your possession or under your control be returned to XVIVO;
3) That Premise Media notify XVIVO, on or before April 18, 2008, of its compliance with the above demands.
We have been advised, by a telephone conversation with Mellie Bracewell of Premise Media on April 8, 2008, that an e-mail
transmission of this letter to her will be promptly forwarded to you. A hard copy of this letter, on XVIVO stationary, will also be
sent to you today by express delivery.
We are sure that you will want to avoid legal action in this matter, and urge you to promptly notify us of your compliance with
the above demands. You may do so by return e-mail, directed to @ xvivo.net or @ xv ivo.net, followed by a hardcopied
letter indicating your compliance with the above demands.
Sincerely,
David Bolinsky
Partner and Medical Director
XVIVO LLC
Michael Astrachan
Partner and Creative Director
XVIVO LLC
Cc: Peter Irons, Esq.
Attorney at Law
2551 North Valley Road
Greenville CA 95947
Enjoy
April 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Creationists obviously believe everyone to be as gullible as they are!
April 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Eminem, in former life, writes:
““P.S. - Not a clairvoyent, just a prophet; big (no, HUGE) difference there! One’s of “the world” - one’s of a much HIGHER (supernatural) authority…”
Oh, so you called up God on line 2 to inquire as to the personality of your online opponent? Why does God bother to waste his time dealing with “prophets” concerned with such trivial information?”
Blah. 10 points taken, retrieved. Wait. Impossible. No existing inventory. Regroup.
LE Quick Answer: Hardwired.
Friend, it’s abundantly clear, not only to me—-but to EVERYONE watching, that you’ve run out of material. Need to go make a new withdrawl. Take it to the limit this time! (Sorry, Randy) May I suggest some B-12?
Or you are, in addition to TM, another waywardly enthused “NO” advocate for the ban of public viewings (and nationally, I might add!) on DEATH-ROW EXECUTIONS?
You, as well, can go to sleep now…
Lights. Camera. Action. Shoot…
Wrap. Fade to Black…
April 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
“Religion has always been the enemy of science, and it has been losing the war.” This is the biggest load of crap I’ve ever seen written. In its incipience science was driven by religious people who gave credit for their discoveries to God and acknowledged God as the supreme designer. The true enemy of science is the unwillingness to fallow the evidence where it leads and the persecution of those with other ideas. The rightness of an argument is self evident so if an idea is being persecuted that inevitably means that its counter idea is faulty. The unwillingness of Darwinists and neo Darwinists to openly debate and research the idea of intelligent design is testament to the weaknesses in their own ideas.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
“The man who invented the telescope found out more about heaven than the closed eyes of prayer ever discovered.”
– Robert G. Ingersoll,
“The Great Agnostic” (1833-1899)
April 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
WorldNetDaily? CNS News? This is where you had to look when the Fox News review of this movie totally trashed it?
“Liberals have been going ape”
Oh! Now I see! This is just a right wing propaganda piece.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Hey, love the new location shots, by the way!
Perspective: a wonderful thing, ain’t it…
April 11th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Make no mistake “Expelled” is intellectually leftist. Make up
your own science, lie about the mainstream science, and claim
entitlement because you are somehow you, a “credentialed scholar”,
got your canned because you were spewing stupidity.
Expelled is the very flower of leftist thinking.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I just wanted to say real quick that I’m elated about this movie. I’m a scholar and a man of faith and the fact that no one knew about Intelligent design often frustrated me. This movie is a great thing and should bring (or i hope it brings) some peace between the religious and scientific sections of our society. Thank you Ben Stein
April 11th, 2008 at 11:45 am
LQQKING wrote: “Get ready for some major FRUSTRATION, ALL Evo–atheist–Orc–types!”
Morgoth mado lin hun.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Semi-repentent alternative title to—-”Is it HOT in Here…Or is it Just ME?”—-Al’s new confessionary bio:
“Liar, Liar…Pants on FIRE!”
He’s still considering…
April 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It is interesting how narrow minded both sides of this argument are. But if it is a fact that people are being removed from positions or denied opportunities simply because of their beliefs, this is a true travesty.
I thought that true academics (which I am not…I am a simple Electrical Engineer) would welcome the opportunity for open debate and challenge. After all if your position is right, open debate and challenge should only strengthen your argument.
Unfortunately we seem to see continued polarization of issues that challenge us and fewer and fewer people are left in the middle to engage in open discussions. This is happening in this issue as well as issues such as global warming where people are claiming that there is no more room for debate (even though we are dealing with 100 years of data for an earth that is millions of years old).
In any event I will personally withold judgement on this movie (positive or negative) until I actually see it and then look into and think about the data presented.
I believe that would be the proper time to formulate an opinion or make a “judgement”
Cheers
April 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Boo,
It depends the meaning behind it which causes the suppression and the feeding frenzy of government grants. Evolution claims life arose from simple means to more complex means. Evolution goes from one cell animals and then jumps to millions of cells animals. Where is the 10 cell animals or the 50 cell animals? Where is that progression evolutionists would endorse?
There is a difference between conducting studies to find things and conducting studies to prove things. The life tree as this new discovery evolves around does have flaws. Dr White an evolutionist said, “A five million piece of bone thought to be a collarbone of a human creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they so much want to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes hominid.”
Now what is the pattern here, the criticism of the field of evolution, still from those who continue to believe in evolution, rather than suggesting another concept that might explain something created out of nothing. Now let’s switch that, Dr White becomes a creationist and says the same thing, do you really believe his writings would still be published in science journals? Do you think the scientists who discovered something contrary to their belief that the sponge was first, do you think before this discovery if they became creationists, would have gotten the same amount attention as they have now?
While you think, well they are not hiding anything like your claim, well like I said, it depends about who is saying it. In the field of evolution an influence of a label matters to how they treat the person and information.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
In seven days, BEN STEIN’s BIG BANG will be heard around the world. He can sit back fulfilled in the knowledge that the Truth will be out there and that the SUPPRESSION of Big Science will end. (Remember that a LOT can be accomplished in seven days…)
The world was designed - otherwise, how could it work? Design requires intelligence. THUS, the Intelligent Designer is real. Thermodynamics places no limit on the ID for the ID; the Designs benefit from the boundary conditions present in the definition of the Du Gerdemain manifold - as earlier discussed. Every local coordinate patch fits neatly in its given atlas - the connections taut in their power. Only if one understands the equations in their infinite depth, does one see the revelation. Only TRUTH and BEAUTY together can only yield such a quaint and strangely, charming clarity! Energy and Spirit flow…. There is no unceasing motion, but for HIM: it is real as HE is real. UP or DOWN, they are the same in His omniscient, omnipotent Gaze.
But for the short-sight academicians who would lose out if the ONE TRUE SCIENCE of ID were embraced, the world would be a better place.
Why should anyone wonder what is causing Global Warming? The cause is as clear as the difference between Good and Evil. (This might be a hint, if you have ears to hear or eyes to read.)
May God Bless, Ben Stein!
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
April 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
[Spencer on April 11th, 2008 at 8:13 am]”You lie and lie and lie. And then you blame Hitler on Darwin”
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
an exercise: parallels between 1871 Darwin & 1924/5 Hitler?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1134448996.907734.300780%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
4 more Hitler-Darwin parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135092414.972723.104980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
April 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Finally! A full frontal assault on this dam##d theory of evolution!
I’m glad someone has had the courage and the audacity to join us at http://www.evolutionsucks.org
Attaboy Ben!
April 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
[Bored on April 11th, 2008 at 6:24 am]”find me a current text that in fact shows it as anything but an example of a scientific blunder”
It was known in Haeckel’s day that his embryo drawings were faked.
See Goldschmidt in
1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo depictions; 1956
Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
What was the last textbook to use Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings?
And when was that textbook published?
June 2006
Ann Coulter’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory”
by Robert Savillo of Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010
* On the drawings and theories of Ernst Haeckel,
omits a century of scientific criticism while falsely
suggesting that textbooks still use Haeckel.
==
Additionally, Coulter continues to discuss Haeckel’s
drawings as if they are still being used today. Also
on Page 240, Coulter claims that:
Fully five years later [after Richardson’s 1997
study], the New York Times reported that biology
textbooks were still running Haeckel’s doctored
drawings. The Times specifically singled out the
third edition of _Molecular Biology of the Cell_, ‘the
bedrock of the field,’ as one of the culprits.
Coulter fails to inform the reader that the very same
Times article, printed April 8, 2001, also mentions
that the authors of _Molecular Biology of the Cell_
planned to correct the error in a subsequent edition.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
voxday.blogspot.com
Read his book, for free, The Irrational Atheist. Good stuff.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
In the beginning was a quantum singularity. There is no known mechanism known that should have caused the quantum singularity to stop being a quantum singularity but this is science, we believe in blind chance and what we can’t test, observe or prove. After all, there is no way any intelligence could have acted upon this quantum singularity so perhaps two imaginary planes of existence collided together to cause the quantum singularity to explode. Any improvable hypothesis that does not include intelligence will suffice; after all, this is science. Now, it doesn’t matter how improbably the existence of this universe is we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an un testable, observable or provable mechanism exists to produce as many universes as are needed to overcome the improbability of things like gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electro magnetic forces being at the exact strength needed so that the universe as we know it, can exist. It matters not that usable, functional, translatable, transcribable information does not come about without the imposition of intelligence; chance, random particle collision and time are all the mechanisms we need for a complexes information system to rise. After all, it doesn’t matter how improbable this happening is, this is science and the idea of intelligent imposition is unacceptable. It matters not that 40 peaces of the flagella have to be removed before the next functional unit can be found. The high specificity and extreme improbability posed by the peaces of the flagella is no match for time, random particle collision and chance. The absurdity of this structure coming about by natural processes is preferable to any kind of admission that intelligence might have been involved in it’s formation. It matters not that the fossil record shows sudden appearance then stasis as apposed to gradual change over time nor does it matter that punctuated equilibrium has no mechanism to give rise to body types, this is science and anything is better the an intelligence having a hand in it. It also doesn’t matter that several organisms haven’t changed sense they were first seen in the fossil record evolution doesn’t seem to be a universal force. It also matters not that over 20,000 the rate of genetic change in bacteria tapers of hitting a genetic wall. We don’t have to actually observe emergent properties developing to know they did, this is science we don’t have to test or observe anything to assert what we know to be true. We don’t’ really have to do anything to dictate what’s scientific and true.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I find the whole “Darwinism” [sic] to Nazism link to be reprehensible. And I don’t need to see the movie to make this statement.
As a Jewish person, Stein’s association of Hitler to evolution is reckless and ignorant and dangerous.
Ben apparently has not read Martin Luther’s abominable and vicious “On the Jews and their Lies” (URL to this doc below). The Germans had 400 years to cook on protestant antisemitism before Hitler ever arrived on the scene. Oh, and the vatican was no slouch either with the inquisition and forced conversion, it took them until 1960 to admit that Jews have a right to exist (search Vatican II “Nostra Aetate”).
Why were so many Jews in Poland during the holocaust? Because the christians (unhappy catholics and protestants alike) sacked their Western European villages and burned them alive in the walled ghettos. Why? Because they thought they were responsible for the plague (accused of poisoning the wells). In reality, Jews had cleaner food habits and they were less susceptible to plague. This is one of the major reasons Jews were driven east to Poland. This is historical fact.
Stein and his crew appear unencumbered by empirical evidence, scientific method, historical accuracy, and ethics.
And Abraham would roll over in his grave if he knew how the 3 major monotheistic religions were behaving today.
Link to Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies” follows. Warning! Make sure you have a strong stomach…
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
April 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Seriously, Darwin was a Christian. He feared the repercussions of his findings in the religious world, both those very religious and those very much not. It personally aches me to see arguments that are dividing this issue even further. The theory of “evolution” or common descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent) allows for a God because who causes the mutation? Who started it all?
There are some that eliminate science and religion from having any connection, but that goes to the Religious folks too. We speak and communicate, but is it immoral to study literature or grammer, or do we just accept the bible as the only thing we can say or read? We sing music, but is it immoral to study how music has come about or how to craft it well? So we plant things, we study medicine and we study species, all things we need in our daily lives and yet it is evil to study them. It is evil to try to understand how it came about and how it has progressed. If this is so, then let me make my final plea, STOP BEING HYPOCRITICAL AND DON’T TRY TO TELL ME HOW GOD WORKS. there is no way you could be an expert because study and knowledge are evil.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
This is so stupid. This country gets dumber by the minute.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Everyone needs to realize that most scientists are being viewed as academia politicians. The general public figures every scientist is in some Corporations pocket, be they big business, political activist controlled, or university type corporations. Al Gore and his “It is true because I say so, and you have to prove me wrong” attitude and the Medias lynching of anyone who disagrees with the darling of the corrupted educational institutes and other leftists who are still counting Florida votes is very blatant to those who don’t run around with Red or Blue tinted glasses. Let’s face it most Americans when asked claim to have a spiritual belief, and all beliefs except the Judeo/ Christian belief is not only tolerated but celebrated. So all I can say to the blasters of this movie is you had your pact of lies spewed across the big screens by Moore and Gore…. (HMMMM Moore, Gore sounds like a train wreck to me). So if all you can do is screech and squall and turn the question around (Prove evolution happened, how it started) and not by extending the time out. First it was 1 million years, then 10 now I think it’s up to 20+ to rationalize the idea YOUR ancestors were short tailed monkeys. Well maybe they were, after watching the way most on the left act, screech, yell, wave yours hands around and refuse any argument that does not support you by refusing to even discuss it…. So now it is our turn to put forth our truth, and it scares you. Let’s face it Atheism is the only way people can act like animals and not have to worry about being accountable for their actions. Sounds a lot like what is the root problem with this country, no one wants to be responsible for their actions.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I don’t think you guys understand — you haven’t been accused of using their video that they created, but of basing your video on their copyrighted work. That would make it a derivative work and, therefore, the property of XVIVO.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
OMG! I can’t believe a notorious Christian Pro-Lifer liked your film!
I figured she would hate it! Perhaps you could’ve gotten Jill to donate her collection of dead fetus photos and had them dance across the screen every time PZ Myers appears on camera! That’d be awesome!
April 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Definitions for LIBERAL from Dictionary.com
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
PROGRESS, FREEDOM, GENEROSITY, FREE FROM PREJUDICE AND BIGOTRY, OPEN-MINDED, TOLERANT, AGAINST MONARCHIES, INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS
I guess there are MUCH worse things to be called.
And I will even be kind enough NOT to create a false dichotomy by saying if you are not liberal, you must be the opposite of liberal. I’ll leave that to the THUMPERS.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“Editor’s Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.”
Shorter producers of Expelled: We find it absolutely inconceivable that copying is a relevant issue in copyright.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
LE,
Please watch this video. I would love to hear your input.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Sorry for the re-post. Didn’t know if you missed it.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Well, I guess even Ben Stein misunderstands science now and again. There is nothing in evolution that requires there to be no God, and even the Vatican accepts evolution as the mysterious way in which He does His work. There is plenty of room for a god in evolution, you just have to believe he might actually work that way. Who are you to say he doesn’t?
Ben Stein, you mention in the big trailer that legislators need to run away from your movie lest they be tarred with the creationist brush… perhaps you can point out who in Congress is openly atheist or agnostic? There will be no freedom of religion in the US until someone can be free of religion and still be electable.
Myself, I am a-gnostic, and if looks could kill, I’d be struck down every time I say the pledge of allegiance with “under God” removed, the way the creator (of the pledge) intended.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
David Ford Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
[Bored on April 11th, 2008 at 6:24 am]”find me a current text that in fact shows it as anything but an example of a scientific blunder”
It was known in Haeckel’s day that his embryo drawings were faked.
See Goldschmidt in
Yes, and??? The point please.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
The Creator is not a magician. The Creator knows all natural laws and abides by then when this world was created. We as mankind have only learned these laws by trail and error over time since the beginning of man. Our knowledge is not yet perfect.
So I laugh at people who believe in evolution and think that it is the answer to oldest question, ‘where do we come from?’
There had to be an Intelligent Design, the probability of evolution is impossible. Its about as possible as a tornado going through a trailer park and creating a Boeing 747. Fat chance of that!!
I love reading the blogs and seeing the videos of scientists in opposition to this movie. They are really pissed off. Its pay back for all those science classes where teachers wouldn’t give me a straight answer, and want you to just go along with there big bang bull crap. I Love it. There have been several videos with people swearing it up in opposition to this movie. I haven’t heard so many curse words in my life on such a meaningless topic. This movie would not have been such a big deal except they are making it one. This movie is just confirming what I already believe.
Big Thanks to Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled. I love all the hipe.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
LETTER TO DAVE R FROM AN EVO-FUNDIE
#34 Dave R Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It is interesting how narrow minded both sides of this argument are. But if it is a fact that people are being removed from positions or denied opportunities simply because of their beliefs, this is a true travesty.
I thought that true academics (which I am not…I am a simple Electrical Engineer) would welcome the opportunity for open debate and challenge. After all if your position is right, open debate and challenge should only strengthen your argument.
Unfortunately we seem to see continued polarization of issues that challenge us and fewer and fewer people are left in the middle to engage in open discussions. This is happening in this issue as well as issues such as global warming where people are claiming that there is no more room for debate (even though we are dealing with 100 years of data for an earth that is millions of years old).
In any event I will personally withhold judgement on this movie (positive or negative) until I actually see it and then look into and think about the data presented.
I believe that would be the proper time to formulate an opinion or make a “judgement”
Cheers
ANSWER
Dave R:
This letter was slipped through my transom (yes they still exist), and fluttered to my floor. I thought it best to share it with you:
Letter from an evo-fundie:
To: Dave R
With: Fury!
Dave:
We read your idiot letter, and we are NOT HAPPY! How DARE YOU even suggest that you are going to actually GO SEE the movie! It is blasphemy! Lies, lies, ALL LIES! Besides, why would you need evidence from both sides? THAT is NOT the way we do things in the former Soviet Union, or Communist China, or Cuba, for Darwin’s sake!
Look, when we have an election, we put up only ONE candidate. That way, the best man wins, every time! Why take a chance on another choice? It just complicates matters. Slows down the revolution.
So Dave, Dave, WHAT are you THINKING? When we present the evidence, we only show ONE side. That way, controversy is kept to a minimum. The few who object and try to continue to think for themselves, they are easily eliminated by peer pressure and ostracizing. We are very good bullies, just like real Brownshirts.
So Dave, Dave, forget your outdated idea of “open discussions,” and room for debate. What silly concepts. We have the corner on truth, and what we say goes.
You say that you thought “true academics …would welcome the opportunity for true debate and challenge.” You thought, you thought! That’s your problem, Dave, you THINK too much! You have to learn just to BELIEVE. WE will tell you what to think!
Therefore we STRONGLY urge you to recant of your silly notions of free speech and free argument and debate. That has all been replaced by dialectical materialism.
What do you think this is, a free country?
Make up your mind BEFORE you see the evidence. THAT is true science.
Otherwise, the Church of the Humongous Universal Assumption will NOT be happy, NOT happy at all.
Signed, a VERY Pizzed Evo
-Conclusion from John:
Well, Dave, as you can imagine, this letter shook me to my core. I just had NO IDEA there were so many hypocrites and bigots walking around loose in our society. I am just shocked!
Do you think these people are cultural commies?
No, huh?
Well, I hope you go see EXPELLED anyway. It is not good to let a bunch of arrogant, ignorant, snotty punks intimidate you.
Cheers.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Expelled editors say: “Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.”
————
Yeah, but Premise Media blatantly copied a video made by XVIVO.
Here’s the actual claim to copyright infringement:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/301_expelled_producers_accused_of__4_9_2008.asp
Here’s a link to an article where PZ Myers compares images from both videos and discusses the reason it’s blatantly stolen:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/about_that_cell_video_in_expel.php
It’s amazing! Just when I thought this movie couldn’t be any worse. First, they are disgusting enough human beings as to compare biologists to Nazis. Then, they expel someone from a movie that they actually thank in the credits (in a movie about people being unfairly expelled). Now, it turns out that they are guilty of copyright infringement on what may be the only scientific segment of the whole movie.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
“Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.”
Excellent: this means you can now explain how it was that you chose the exact same angles to render the exact same sequences of the exact same molecules out of the thousands and thousands of possible structural variations, including choosing to remove all of the different complicating elements exactly as the XVIVO video does!
So when do we get an answer to that? Oh, and what studio did you hire to do the work, so that we can ask them how they did it?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself lol
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7142082734991931331&q=flock+of+dodos&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
April 11th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Ben, I’m deeply disappointed in you. Up until now “Ben Stein” implied serious thought, some in-depth knowledge, some historical consciousness, something beyond “pop” manipulation.
Not anymore.
Those of us who remember the original discussion of intelligent design remember that challenges to Darwin’s theory of evolution are not met with outright rejection. Such challenges are met with invitations for ID theorists to show their evidence; to define their philosophical definitions; to define precisely what “design,” “intelligence,” and “irreducible complexity” mean. They were not faced with rejection. They were faced with counter challenges to define their terms and to show their evidence. Scientists have consistently proved to be open to alternate theories and alternative evidence to evolution. The problem was that, when challenged, the ID theorists couldn’t present any. “Design” degenerated into “irreducible complexity,” the definition of which turned out to be “those very occasional times when God — or something which may or may not be sort of like God — shows up in a currently inexplicable event. When “irreducibly complex” systems were shown to be “reducibly” complex the evidence was deemed “rejection.”
In the same way that Creationists, in response to having their positions disproved, cried “bigotry!” the Intelligent Design theorists are now doing the same thing.
Here in the second generation, Creationist/Intelligent Design (CID) arguments are following a predictable path. CIDs present their argument, scientists prove that the arguments are flawed, the CIDs cry “bigotry!”, “arrogance!”, “atheism!”
Scientists didn’t reject ID out of hand. They rejected it when it proved to be flawed in logic and data. It was only when CID theorists continued to present their ideas as factual and logical that scientists rebelled.
Intelligent Design theorists are mirroring a technique inherited from Creationism. I use the term “mirroring” because they discovered that “Is not!” “is too!” is an effective argumentative technique. The opponent’s effective criticism is countered (rhetorically effectively, but not factually effectively) with “You do the same thing.” When Creationist arguments were answered by demonstrating that they had no evidence to support them the answer was simplicity itself – to reply “You have no evidence.” Now evolution, which is virtually proven by the evidence is countered by the simple assertion “You have no evidence.” Of course such an argument is not effective at all when people have access to facts and effective data-gathering techniques but it’s totally effective for the vast majority of people who have no access to the facts, only access to who presents the argument in the slicker manner.
In the same way a lack of evidence on the part of Intelligent Design theorists is now being countered by “You’re bigots!”
Scientific careers are made by successful challenging of the evidence. Newton successfully challenged Aristotle’s 1500 year dominance of science and established himself as, perhaps the greatest scientist of all history. Einstein challenged Newton’s 500 reign and established himself as a household name. A successful challenge to the Darwinian model of evolution would make a scientist’s career – don’t you think that, if people could come up with a real challenge they wouldn’t do so?
Judging from the teaser ads, your ad hominem argument is shameless. Describing your opponent as “dogmatic,” “clever,” “closed minded,” or, worst of all, necessarily atheistic is manipulative, inaccurate, and humiliating. Not only did the scientists not reject ID out of hand, there are many Christian (not to mention Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist) scientists who accept Darwinian evolution and their religious convictions without discord or contradiction. One has but to read discussion threads in the Chronicle of Higher Education to see that “scientists,” “intellectuals,” even “professors” are not a lock-step world-view bloc.
The danger with a movie such as Expelled is not that the true issues, freedom of academic inquiry, evidence based practice, the scientific method, and open inquiry will be subverted but that they will be perverted; that real inquiry will be stifled by an appeal to rhetorical and political manipulation and that viewpoint will determine right. Might makes right will be replaced, not by truth makes right, but by visual, media manipulation makes right.
When I was in the 8th grade I was expelled. I protested that the teacher didn’t like me, she was a frustrated old woman, she made up the charges. The fact was that she had given me several opportunities to change my ways and do the right thing, but I took the path of justifying my wrongdoing rather than admitting culpability.
See a parallel?
WR Clough
April 11th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Even worse, that wasn’t the link lol ^^^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHCTSOpl1CM&feature=related
April 11th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
“Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a “systematic and ruthless” way at odds with America’s founding principles, the film asserts.” says Jill Stanek.
So mainstream scientists refuse to entertain a debate on the merits of ID? What about the ID debate at the American Museum of Natural History in April 2002? Here’s the transcript:
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=15
I was there, and I felt very sorry for Bill Dembski because Robert Pennock was able to walk all over him (see part 3).
Btw, if the American Museum of Natural History isn’t “Big Science” then I don’t know what is! Of course, you won’t hear the Discovery Institute talking much about this debate, but please stop claiming that ID has not been given a chance.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Has it occured to anyone to stretch their brains in this way: science and theology are not necessarily enemies. They do compliment one another without exception - as long as science is honest and data is true. Why the anger over this? If we all wish to discover the Truth - capital T - then what’s to fear by either side?
April 11th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience are being reborn, and America, oppressed by the intolerance of the left, stands up and cheers! Thank you Ben Stein!
April 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Ya know I wouldn’t be so opposed to the ID folks if they weren’t so drastically opposed to anything else besides ID themselves. Show me an ID supporter that isn’t opposed to also teaching ID ideas that aren’t Christian based only and I’ll might actually join their band wagon.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Well, maybe I missed it, but I don’t see any answer to the question that is truely the most important thing! (at least I think so). Remove the politics, hate, possesions, job, money, opinion, personal importance, hurts, pains, relationships, desires, needs, TV, failues, Movies, pride, anger, and the list goes on. Do you really think that when you look carefully at each and everything you see around you was created by happen-stance? Or why things or you are what they are? At the very least, in the search of truth (Science), until proven otherwise, should be explored. Your comments will help me on my journey!
Thanks, Curious
April 11th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
The central problem that I see is that the public’s preception of the disagreement is so flawed that it is essentially the opposite of the truth.
Myth: “The accidental formation of living things is supported by mountains of evidence, but religious fanatics just want to infuse Christianity into the classroom.”
Truth: ALL evidence leads to Intelligent Design. You will never see a Darwinist providing evidence of life forming by accident because there is none. Nothing at all, except a refusal to believe that we could be designed by a superior intelligence, as the evidence shows. In other words, Darwinists are getting away with infusing atheism, their religion, into classrooms.
The concept that highly complex living things are molecules that just happen to cooperate by complete accident has no bearing in truth. It is a religious (or anti-religious) belief and nothing more.
We need to teach the truth in schools. Teach the evidence, not false conclusions that it was all an accident when there is no evidence that it could be an accident. Leave the conclusions (intelligent design versus random accident) out of it and let the students think for themselves.
Isn’t that the best possible result of education? To prepare and inspire students to go out and solve the many mysteries in the study of life science?
April 11th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
John Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 8:23 am
“Thieves
Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement
SEE this reply:
Editor’s Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.
-The Producers of “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”
ANYTHING to avoid the truth. Unfortunately for you evo-fundies, people will see through your smokescreen, and watch the movie anyway”
I saw the animation Expelled ripped off. It is almost identical to the original.
John is either in complete denial or else he knows that that is complete word parsing weasel bs. But to these fanatics the end always justifies the means. The fact that the producers of Expelled thought they could get away with copying the animation with a few color modeling changes shows how foolish they really are. They claim they didn’t “use” the original which is technically true… they just reproduced it.
My guess is that John is so programmed to believe anything fed to him by the wingnut fundamentalist propaganda machine, he really believes it. But then again he also believes in devils, sorcery and virgin pregnancy.
Christian values strike again.
Pop!
April 11th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I have always enjoyed John Lundy’s clear direct destruction of Darwinism, but he surpasses himself with two posts on this young blog (#26 & 41). Here are some of his gems:
“The true enemy of science is the unwillingness to fallow the evidence where it leads and the persecution of those with other ideas.”
Or…
“The unwillingness of Darwinists and neo Darwinists to openly debate and research the idea of intelligent design is testament to the weaknesses in their own ideas.”
Or…
“Any improvable hypothesis that does not include intelligence will suffice; after all, this is science.”
Or…
“Now, it doesn’t matter how improbably the existence of this universe is we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an un testable, observable or provable mechanism exists to produce as many universes as are needed to overcome the improbability of things like gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electro magnetic forces being at the exact strength needed so that the universe as we know it, can exist.”
Or…
“It matters not that usable, functional, translatable, transcribable information does not come about without the imposition of intelligence; chance, random particle collision and time are all the mechanisms we need for a complexes information system to rise.”
Or…
“After all, it doesn’t matter how improbable this happening is, this is science and the idea of intelligent imposition is unacceptable.”
John, you are exposing the reality of the situation: People posing as “scientists” will accept any pseudo-explanation, no matter how ridiculous or unsupported by evidence - as long as the result is that no intelligence had any part in it.
With that pre-condition, could there have been any other final conclusion? Well, yes. I used to be a Darwinist and I refused to accept intelligent design, but at least I admit when the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. There is no other possibility other than that we were intelligently designed.
The only reason they don’t teach the truth in schools is because they think it is politically correct and Constitutional to indoctrinate children into Atheism.
There is no evidence that we went from a clump of mud to human by a collosal accident. No evidence at all, in fact ALL evidence points in the opposite direction.
But we aren’t allowed to admit that.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
re:Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement…
It should also be noted that Dembski was using the original animations stripped of its original narration for his lectures until he was “discovered”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski
“Harvard University/XVIVO copyright violation controversy
In November, 2007, a graduate student named S. A. Smith brought an apparent case of wholesale academic misuse of unlicenced content to public attention. She noticed that a video used by William Dembski in lecturing was identical to one produced by Harvard University and a company called XVIVO. The audio track giving a scientific explanation was stripped off and the video was used with an alternative narration. The matter has been mentioned to Harvard and XVIVO; they have not yet responded. Copies of the original video and the re-narrated one are available from The Panda’s Thumb[32], an evolutionary discussion group
In response to the allegations, Dembski has claimed that he downloaded the video from the Internet, and added a voiceover narration that he deemed appropriate for his audience. According to Dembski, the downloaded version omitted the opening credits but contained the closing credits, which were shown to the audience.[33] However, Smith later documented several instances where images from the Harvard/XVIVO animation were apparently removed from his book The Design of Life but the related footnotes and references were not.[34][35] indicating that Dembski was already aware that permission had been denied for him to use the animation when he delivered his presentation at the University of Oklahoma.[35]”
The IDrs got all excited because they thought the “designed” look of the original animation somehow proved ID and could be used as propaganda when presenting to the ignorant and uneducated.
It was a clear to everyone including the Expelled producers that they didn’t have permission to use the original so they decided to reproduce it instead.
Just another example of Christian hubris and values at work…
Pop!
April 11th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Boo, it is kind of petty to keep this us versus them mentality about who should get credit for “doing the tests”. Whoever is able to get the funding will do tests, but we are all looking at the same evidence, experiments and observations. We just come up with different conclusions. Yours is based on a refusal to believe what the evidence is telling you.
Boo: “Funny how IDers, not doing any science of their own, are always pouncing on new data coming out from mainstream science”
Actually, “pouncing on” data IS “doing science”.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
So yet more evidence against Darwinism is that the animal kingdom did not start out as an extremely simple organism, but a complex comb jellyfish.
The general Darwinian concept that complex organisms gradually developed over millions of years has never seemed to fit the evidence to me. Weren’t all Cambrian creatures pretty much fully complex organisms? Yeah, mammals came and went back to the sea and some animals took flight, but most of the really hard to explain irreducibly complex stuff happened fast.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I wonder how much of that article in World Nut Daily was hand fed to Stanek by the video’s PR firm… me thinks quite a bit.
And I would love to see the statistics of how many of these theater screenings were pre-bought by churches and religious groups. The producers were making a big push for months:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/grouprates.php
1. Identify your local movie theater’s corporate affiliation (Regal, AMC, Cinemark, etc.) by looking in the newspaper for their ads.
2. Call the corporate headquarters (see the list below) and tell them to book EXPELLED at your local theater (give them your
state and home town.)
3. Visit http://www.expelledthemovie and download a free poster.
4. Call or stop by your local theater and ask for the manager. Tell him that your school, church, or organization wants to see
EXPELLED. Ask about group rates and/or renting the theater for a night. Leave a note with the EXPELLED poster.
We will contact you:
Leave a message on our Group Sales Hotline at: 800-705-0485,
or send an email to groupsales@getexpelled.com
They then show a complete list of theaters and contact numbers.
There is a big difference between a real opening day and a stacked one. But these guys have no problem misrepresenting anything to their followers because the sheep never critically question what is written and posted. They assume it must be the gospel truth.
Also the bs about Gore’s film only opening in 4 theaters… that is a common industry practice to open a movie small for critical review and to build honest momentum based on the content of the film even if the perceived demand is much higher. It has nothing to do with the initial popularity of the film.
Movies studios will open a bad movie in as many theaters as they can on opening day and only preview to known sympathetic and in pocket critics to rake in as much money as possible before the unsuspecting public realizes it has been had. The wingnut fundies will eat it up and feel they’ve done their duty for god and a few other ignorant uneducated victims will unfortunately be swayed by its lies.
I will make a prediction that only a few if any real critics will give this film a positive review on the merits of filmmaking, content and truth value.
That’s because they will write the truth instead of twisting it like Mathis and company.
Pop!
April 11th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
So, you are writing a book on evolution and creationism, and you want to provide both points of view. To be fair, you also ask the IDers for permission to reprint their work. They REFUSE.
And I quote: “Unfortunately, proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism- Stephen Meyer, David DeWolf, Percival Davis, Dean Kenyon, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Walter Bradley, Charles Thaxton, and Roger Olsen–refused, en masse, to grant me permission to reproduce their works. Through their representative at the Seattle based ID think tank, the Discovery Institute, these authors refused permission to reprint readily available material. The major complaint was that the popular books and articles that I sought to reprint would not do justice to the complexity of ID theory. This rationale does make one wonder why such apparently inadequate works were published in the first place, and continue, in many cases to be available on, or linked to from the Discovery Institute’s web site.”
Why refuse a chance to have your views heard? Isn’t this what this whole argument is about?
April 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I had my worries about the neutral objectivity of Wikipedia after reading its account of Intelligent Design, but now they have gone overboard in exposing themselves as having an agenda.
Has anyone here read their “movie review” of EXPELLED? Since when does an “encyclopedia” do movie reviews, let alone one so deeply entrenched into the subject matter, or should I say, ONE SIDE of the subject matter?
Their objective “review” is over 4,000 words and over 150 citations.
It is amazing the desperation that can be seen when funding is threatened, so I wonder what Wikipedia’s interest here is.
It certainly isn’t a neutral reporting of the truth.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
The XVIVO copyright infringement litigation threat will be interesting. IF Expelled’s creators looked at XVIVO’s video, and then modified it slightly, that’s copyright infringement. BUT if they looked at it, and then went back to the US Government funded research graphics, and built their own video from many sources, as XVIVO probably did originally, it might be a different situation. For example, did XVIVO get permission to publish its video, from all the available basic-information sources? Or did it assume, reasonably, that these were in the public sector, because there were so many examples of what they wanted to show, that getting permission was in their eyes, and probably correctly, unnecessary? So if XVIVO’s creators didn’t get permission from their sources to compile publicly-funded information to create a new visual presentation, and if Expelled’s creators were smart enough to “reverse engineer” XVIVO’s presentation, using the same or similar original sources, XVIVO might not have a tenable cause of action.
One of the things that a lot of people are rightfully pissed off about is research that is conducted and its reports are prepared, fully at public taxpayer expense, that get’s “privatized” by copyright-scheming middlemen publishers. The people who are upset are researchers who work in public universities from Hawaii to Florida who cannot afford the skyrocketing subscription charges of privately-owned journals whose content is wholly comprised of publicly-funded scientific reports.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Michael:
“Now what is the pattern here, the criticism of the field of evolution, still from those who continue to believe in evolution, rather than suggesting another concept that might explain something created out of nothing. Now let’s switch that, Dr White becomes a creationist and says the same thing, do you really believe his writings would still be published in science journals? Do you think the scientists who discovered something contrary to their belief that the sponge was first, do you think before this discovery if they became creationists, would have gotten the same amount attention as they have now?”
Let’s be clear here: there is a difference between holding personal beliefs and presenting data to back up coherent hypotheses. If the scientists involved in this research became creationists, or Scientologists, or Dr. Who fanatics, or whatever, as long as they had ACTUAL DATA BACKING UP VALID HYPOTHESES, they’d have as good a shot as anybody at getting published.
Now if they said “God says that this is so, therefore it’s so” as creationists do, without presenting data, they would not get published. At least not in science journals. You see? Science journals are for science. As ID has yet to produce a single testable hypothesis, there is no way to do any ID research, and hence no ID data to publish in science journals.
There are an awful lot of Christians who manage to get published. Again, it’s cause they’ve got data. No data, no publish. It really is that simple.
Do you get that the ID “controversy” is never going to move beyond where it is today? Consider that a testable prediction. ID will never, EVER, progress beyond the current state. Sure, they’ll keep retitling the latest campaign, from ID to “teach the controversy” to “Critical Analysis of Evolution” to “Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution” to whatever their feverish little brains manage to evolve next, but each one will be the same in essence. They will persuade the occasional school board or even whole state to go along, but they’ll just get slapped down in the courts. They’ll keep on whining about conspiracies and whatnot, and PZ and whoever else comes along will keep making fun of them. One thing they ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT EVER DO is publish any data whatsoever in support of ID assertions. They’ll just keep on whining about THE CONSPIRACY to keep them out of journals, instead of, say, calling the bluff by publishing whatever “studies” they may have directly on their own websites for all the world to see and critique. And they’ll fail to do so for the simple reason that they are not and never will be in the business of doing actual research into ID hypotheses. For the simple reason that they have absolutely no intention of ever even trying to develop such hypotheses. (And what exactly would one look like, anyway?)
So, as you witness the “controversy” over evolution (completely political, not at all about science) over the coming months and years, think back to my prediction on occasion, and ask yourself if the “controversy” has ever moved on in any way, aside from repackaging the latest ID PR effort, from where it is now. I guarantee you it won’t. It’s not designed to.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
In response to the claim that Expelled is the new Galileo, I thought it would be good to remember another of Galileo’s quotes.
“By denying scientifc principles, one may maintain any paradox” - Galileo Galilei
April 11th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
THE REAL GENESIS STORY or…
HOW TO GET RID OF ALL GODS IN 7 DAYS.
I want to write a story that establishes my god as the one true god and makes all the other gods meaningless. So, I need to make my god the most powerful. Let’s see if I can do it.
Day 1. Let there be light. My god just vanquished all the pagan gods of light and darkness. Not bad for a day’s work.
Day 2. Separate water and sky. My god just vanquished all the other sky and sea gods. This might be easier than I thought.
Day 3. Make the earth and plants. My god just vanquished all the earth and vegetation gods. Yee haaaaa.
Day 4. Make the sun and moon and stars. Now my god has power over them. Astrologers…be damned.
Day 5. Make critters. No more divinity from animals. Sacred cows…don’t make me laugh. Instead, I will make you all sheep.
Day 6. Make man. Now my god has power over kings and pharaohs. But because man is made in my god’s image, all humans are divine, unless they screw up. And because my god needs ALL power, you know that is going to happen.
Day 7 Rest and be thankful that the man who writes this story has listened to the people around him. He has listened to all their stories of their gods, and he is creative enough to make a story that makes me look better than them.
Taaa daaa.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Shameless lies by shameless liars…
“…highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles Darwin’s 150-year-old theories about the origins of life.
-Lie.
Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a “systematic and ruthless” way at odds with America’s founding principles…
-Lie
On March 20, two Darwinian defenders, who accepted payment to talk like buffoons on the film, tried to bust into a private screening in Minnesota.
-Lie
“These uncivilized spectacles caused a liberal mass meltdown.”
-Lie.
“This is not a scientific battle; this is a worldview battle,” “Expelled” producer Mark Mathis
-Lie
“What’s driving it is Darwinism is a foundational principle – scientific validation of secularism, atheism, liberalism – and that it strikes at the core of who they are,” said Mathis.
-Lie
“They are very concerned that if this monolith cracks, then the whole thing could crash.”
-Lie
Not only is Darwinism foundational to atheism, it is foundational to eugenics, the other reason for the left’s apoplexy against “Expelled,”
-Lie
“Planned Parenthood is a direct outgrowth of Darwinism,”
-Lie
That Hitler and Nazism drew from Darwinism is irrefutable.
-Lie.
One complaint Darwinist scientists interviewed for “Expelled” have not lodged is that the filmmakers applied Michael Moore cut-and-paste editing to make them look bad.
-Lie
April 12th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Travis Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Seriously, Darwin was a Christian. He feared the repercussions of his findings in the religious world, both those very religious and those very much not. It personally aches me to see arguments that are dividing this issue even further. The theory of “evolution” or common descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent) allows for a God because who causes the mutation? Who started it all?
There are some that eliminate science and religion from having any connection, but that goes to the Religious folks too. We speak and communicate, but is it immoral to study literature or grammer, or do we just accept the bible as the only thing we can say or read? We sing music, but is it immoral to study how music has come about or how to craft it well? So we plant things, we study medicine and we study species, all things we need in our daily lives and yet it is evil to study them. It is evil to try to understand how it came about and how it has progressed. If this is so, then let me make my final plea, STOP BEING HYPOCRITICAL AND DON’T TRY TO TELL ME HOW GOD WORKS. there is no way you could be an expert because study and knowledge are evil.”
Great post Travis!
It such a pleasure to see a Christian on this blog appeal to reason and truth instead of fear and ignorance through lies and misrepresentation.
While I am an atheist, I have complete respect for your position. I know many Christians including friends and family who think like you do and I hope that your view ultimately prevails in the Christian community in this great country of ours.
I resort to a mix of satire and facts on this blog to provoke reactions in an attempt to reveal the absurdity of the lies and deceit of a dangerous wingnut agenda bent on taking control of our schools and government.
If only your post would evoke a thought filled reaction from the same, but I hold out little hope they will respond reasonably if at all. You do not fit into their predetermined view of what a “real Christian” is, and that says so much about their true nature.
Best of luck to you.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:14 am
“Everyone needs to realize that most scientists are being viewed as academia politicians….” Says Shakes his head slowly…
Where on Earth did you come to this conclusion? No, the public doesn’t believe all scientists are connected to a large company. You been watching too many BP tv ads…lol Many believe scientists are connected with government schools like colleges or private colleges and the government like NASA.
Let me tell you something about “academia” which is unrelated to the topic of Evolution vs Creationism for the most part but related in another way. One of my relatives went to a college for a degree in teaching. In one of his classes there were two public school teachers. One had 17 years experience, and the other had about 15 years of teaching experience in the field. Do you know the professor the one with the DR in front of his name, how much teaching experience he had in the field? The answer is, NONE (but had tons of hours of research experience). The professor did not allow these experienced teachers to speak in class or to share their teaching methods in general which means just reading, writing and math. My relative wondered why? He checked the two teachers out, and they had good records, they were successful teachers at their particular public schools who wanted to get even better so what was the problem? Why did this professor censor these teachers who could have helped future teachers with their experience? Generally professors thrive on research, because this is where the money is like government grants, not experience in the field to do the actual work with kids. The professor of his class taught there is not real right way of teaching, and he believed in stats, well these stats reveal this, so let’s go with type of teaching…In another words teaching was one big experiment. This public college is horrible as indicated 7 years ago when nobody was getting hired as a teacher from that school…lol…They changed their studies, and today only 5 percent of the public schools teach what the school professors are trying to instill into future teachers…
You see, the academia problem is just more than Intelligent Design vs Evolution, it’s widespread in other areas as well.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Shakes his head slowly Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Everyone needs to realize that most scientists are being viewed as academia politicians. The general public figures every scientist is in some Corporations pocket, be they big business, political activist controlled, or university type corporations. Al Gore and his “It is true because I say so, and you have to prove me wrong” attitude and the Medias lynching of anyone who disagrees with the darling of the corrupted educational institutes and other leftists who are still counting Florida votes is very blatant to those who don’t run around with Red or Blue tinted glasses. Let’s face it most Americans when asked claim to have a spiritual belief, and all beliefs except the Judeo/ Christian belief is not only tolerated but celebrated. So all I can say to the blasters of this movie is you had your pact of lies spewed across the big screens by Moore and Gore…. (HMMMM Moore, Gore sounds like a train wreck to me). So if all you can do is screech and squall and turn the question around (Prove evolution happened, how it started) and not by extending the time out. First it was 1 million years, then 10 now I think it’s up to 20+ to rationalize the idea YOUR ancestors were short tailed monkeys. Well maybe they were, after watching the way most on the left act, screech, yell, wave yours hands around and refuse any argument that does not support you by refusing to even discuss it…. So now it is our turn to put forth our truth, and it scares you. Let’s face it Atheism is the only way people can act like animals and not have to worry about being accountable for their actions. Sounds a lot like what is the root problem with this country, no one wants to be responsible for their actions.
>>>>JESUS H CHRIST, we are just tired of hearing the same crap for the last 90 years with creationism and nobody still adding anything to solving it. I’m not an atheist, I just don’t believe in your God who wrote the Bible or any other Holy book on the face of this earth for that matter. We celebrate other Religions?? Only if your ignorant. Why would any good Christian celebrate a faith that says there Jesus is B.S. (not divine) Does that really make since to you? Are we coming into your churches, Christians schools and houses forcing you to read, understand, and swear your allegiance to Darwin? I don’t think so. It’s not atheist that have changed this country for the worse sir, it’s good Christians who have become so use to stepping on our rights and trying to tell us all the RIGHT way to live that it has become any good Christians second nature sir.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:18 am
A frog without lungs…very interesting.
http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/science/2008/04/10/Indonesia.Lungless.Frog/
April 12th, 2008 at 8:14 am
GREAT MORAL COMPASS
There is also the story of the sale of Joseph by his brothers for twenty pieces of silver (Genesis 37:25-28) and the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt and their liberation by the the hand of God in the Exodus, led by Moses, who was himself born a slave.
“And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.” (Leviticus 25:39-43)
“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.” (Exodus 21:2-6)
If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years; and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, and out of your threshing-floor, and out of your wine-press; from that which the Lord your God has blessed you, you shalt give to him. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14)
“And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.” (Exodus 21:7-11)
“And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.” (Leviticus 25:44-46)
In the course of war, it was permitted to take slaves: Deuteronomy 20:11-14 “If they open the gates and surrender, they are all to become your slaves and serve you”, subject to the other rules relating to the treatment of slaves.
This was expanded in Exodus with the guidelines for Jewish soldiers who went on a quest to look at men to war in foreign lands and saw a beautiful woman who they wished to marry. Women captured by Israelite armies could be adopted forcibly as wives, but first they had to have their heads shaved and undergo a period of mourning. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
“If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.” (Exodus 21:28-32)
A slave was entitled to a day of rest on the Sabbath. The Shabbat rules applied equally to a slave owned by a Jew, whether the slave was an Israelite or not. (Exodus 20:8-10 and Deuteronomy 5:12-14)
“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:12)
“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be avenged; for he is his property.” (Exodus 21:20-21)
“And if a man strikes the eye of his male servant, or the eye of his female servant and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he knocks out his male servant’s tooth, or his female servant’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.” (Exodus 21:26-27)
April 12th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Soon the American people will be well armed to take back the tax funded activities of science instruction, taxpayer funded grants, and effect a rebalancing of the constitutional relationships through teh legislative process.
Perhaps Expelled is a supernaturally inspired and enabled awakening, perhaps a purely sociopolitical and philosophical, purely secular attempt to rescue science from itself.
And of course there’s always hope that a 378,000 Africanized bumblebees will simultaneously swarm NCSE HQ,Minnesota and Gas Bags trailer house.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:56 am
HEY!!! We NEED this in the St Louis area!!! There’s no theaters listed in St Charles County. Don’t make me have a government program created so that it shows in Dardenne Prairie Wehrenberg Theaters at taxpayer’s expense. We might be victims, deprived of our “right” to see this movie (sort of like school lunches and prescription drugs).
April 12th, 2008 at 9:58 am
The wonderful aspect of this movie is that it bypasses the liberal American public education system where most kids don’t pay attention or care anyway and goes directly for the popular entertainment/educational jugular,which is ironic in itself… The only downside to this film is that it will probably require more sequels than the friday the 13th series…. And the problem with that is???…
April 12th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I am amusingly disgusted at the postings here by reactionary, fundamentalist, unconstitutionally established ideological religionists claiming that the animation in the film is “plagiarized.” A comparison of the two films shows the animation is NOT plagiarized from the Harvard animation!
Only a warped irrational mindset that FEELS that their established ideology of Scientistic Naturalism somehow OWNS the actual biological matter on which the animations are based could claim otherwise–no, GOD owns the cells which are animated in both films, not the Scientistic (vs. scientific) ideology. The hubris of these reactionaries is amazing–to claim to own the world and all pictures made from it. . . .
April 12th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Sorry, late night of posting.
In post 72 I forgot to quote my source, (I guess I had an Expelled Producer moment) It is from a book entitled Evolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie Scott.
The sad part is that I typed it all out, only find it later on the web. Yes, I actually have the book and I am currently reading it.
While it does seem to have an evolution slant, it does present information from both sides, and information is ALWAYS good.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:57 am
John wrote: And please excuse me from reposting this entire tirade
“Dave:
We read your idiot letter, and we are NOT HAPPY! How DARE YOU even suggest that you are going to actually GO SEE the movie! It is blasphemy! Lies, lies, ALL LIES! Besides, why would you need evidence from both sides? THAT is NOT the way we do things in the former Soviet Union, or Communist China, or Cuba, for Darwin’s sake!
Look, when we have an election, we put up only ONE candidate. That way, the best man wins, every time! Why take a chance on another choice? It just complicates matters. Slows down the revolution.
So Dave, Dave, WHAT are you THINKING? When we present the evidence, we only show ONE side. That way, controversy is kept to a minimum. The few who object and try to continue to think for themselves, they are easily eliminated by peer pressure and ostracizing. We are very good bullies, just like real Brownshirts.
So Dave, Dave, forget your outdated idea of “open discussions,” and room for debate. What silly concepts. We have the corner on truth, and what we say goes.
You say that you thought “true academics …would welcome the opportunity for true debate and challenge.” You thought, you thought! That’s your problem, Dave, you THINK too much! You have to learn just to BELIEVE. WE will tell you what to think!
Therefore we STRONGLY urge you to recant of your silly notions of free speech and free argument and debate. That has all been replaced by dialectical materialism.
What do you think this is, a free country?
Make up your mind BEFORE you see the evidence. THAT is true science.
Otherwise, the Church of the Humongous Universal Assumption will NOT be happy, NOT happy at all.
Signed, a VERY Pizzed Evo
-Conclusion from John:
Well, Dave, as you can imagine, this letter shook me to my core. I just had NO IDEA there were so many hypocrites and bigots walking around loose in our society. I am just shocked!
Do you think these people are cultural commies?
No, huh?
Well, I hope you go see EXPELLED anyway. It is not good to let a bunch of arrogant, ignorant, snotty punks intimidate you.
Cheers.”
So John,
First of all, if you substitute religion for science in your tirade, I think you were RIGHT ON. Some examples,
Ther