Maybe Ben struck a nerve or two.

re: #1 MandyManners

:)

Let us now pause for a moment of Science!
Paging Killgore...

I have yet to see the film, but the premise that educated and degreed Creationists who have been discriminated is something that should be investigated.

Science is based on discussions and not blocking ideas.

It's a pretty elaborate site. I wonder how many hours were put into it.

I was REALLY disappointed in Ben Stein when I heard about this film.

I used to respect him. All respect now has gone out the window.

I just read that the leftosphere is totally blocking this movie at every turn. It isn't being reviewed, it's being excluded from online databases, etc.

For once, I don't particularly mind. The film is utterly wrongheaded. He has no clue.

re: #6 zombie

I was REALLY disappointed in Ben Stein when I heard about this film.

I used to respect him. All respect now has gone out the window.

I just read that the leftosphere is totally blocking this movie at every turn. It isn't being reviewed, it's being excluded from online databases, etc.

For once, I don't particularly mind. The film is utterly wrongheaded. He has no clue.

Why did he do it?

I wasn't planning on seeing this movie, but if it's creating such a fuss, maybe I will.....

If mainstream science declines to accept intelligent design, it is the fault of the intelligent design advocates, who have not performed the research and theory-building demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise.

This is a Catch 22 situation, if a researcher was found to favor intelligent design, he is kicked out of the lab...

Ergo no research, no paper...that favors intelligent design.

Get what I mean?

It's a good idea to read some of the fact-checking articles they've posted about claims in the film. For example, Richard Sternberg:

Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.

re: #4 Psaturn

I have yet to see the film, but the premise that educated and degreed Creationists who have been discriminated is something that should be investigated.

Science is based on discussions and not blocking ideas.

Yes, based on discussions, and facts. What Stein is promoting is the standard anti-knowledge line: Since we don't know for sure, supernatural explanations are a possibility!

Fine for religious instruction. Not fine for science class.

Next sacred cow of the National Center for Science Education:
Neo-Lyshenkoism aka Global warming aka Climate Change
... along with the discredited Malthusian population hypothesis.

Wonder if similar institutions put in the same effort in debunking the lies and half-truths of Farenheit 9/11, Jesus Camp or Taxi to the Dark Side

re: #8 Sharmuta

Ditto- I liked the commercials on it also- in fact- I'm going to the 7:15pm show tonight! HA

re: #9 Psaturn

This is a Catch 22 situation, if a researcher was found to favor intelligent design, he is kicked out of the lab...

Ergo no research, no paper...that favors intelligent design.

Get what I mean?

You can't scientifically prove the supernatural -- by definition.

You will NEVER be able to prove creationism in a lab.

Creationism is essentially the act of throwing in the towel and ceasing to search for answers.

Watching the Red Wings. Whats happening?

re: #4 Psaturn

Science is based on discussions and not blocking ideas.

Just don't tell the global warming crowd.

Oh Charles. You KNOW where this thread is going.

re: #13 Fenway_Nation

Wonder if similar institutions put in the same effort in debunking the lies and half-truths of Farenheit 9/11, Jesus Camp or Taxi to the Dark Side

That's a different situation. Those movies are just political claptrap and lies. Barely even worth discrediting. Creationism is an assault on the nature of scientific understanding.

god, what a joke.

well, at least he isnt claiming the world is 12,000 years old.

re: #5 MandyManners

It's a pretty elaborate site. I wonder how many hours were put into it.

I haven't seen the movie, not sure if I will - but you're right, it is an elaborate site, and looks like perhaps someone was working on this before the movie started being shown? Anyway - I wonder what it is these folks are afraid of.

re: #6 zombie

Zombie, maybe you should see the film first before making an opinion? Maybe check out why Ben Stein would take this position?

I do understand that you are pro evolution and all that...

But maybe there is something to the idea of Intelligent Design?

I am a Creationist by the virtue that I believe the Jewish Bible...who said that G-d created the Heavens and the Earth and all living things.

I actually found it was harder to believe life could arise from nowhere and then evolve to the way it is...

And I am scientifically trained all they way to Berkeley...

It doesn't matter whether they "expose" Ben Stein or not, the evolutionists are still afraid of even acknowledging anything whatsoever about a creator....PERIOD!

re: #18 joncelli

Oh Charles. You KNOW where this thread is going.

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

re: #6 zombie

I was REALLY disappointed in Ben Stein when I heard about this film.

I used to respect him. All respect now has gone out the window.

I just read that the leftosphere is totally blocking this movie at every turn. It isn't being reviewed, it's being excluded from online databases, etc.

For once, I don't particularly mind. The film is utterly wrongheaded. He has no clue.

re: #7 MandyManners

Why did he do it?

I'm guessing too many people won Ben Stein's money.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

I'm with you, zombie.

re: #24 zombie

Actually, I find creationism and ID pretty embarrassing. It gives people the impression that all conservatives are anti-science, and in fact it's all predicated on misunderstandings and twisted logic. I just wish conservatives could get past this.

re: #19 zombie

Creationism is an assault on the nature of scientific understanding.

So is global warming and that has nothing to do with religion. In fact- global warming makes certain scientists look like a cult themselves.

re: #22 Psaturn

Zombie, maybe you should see the film first before making an opinion? Maybe check out why Ben Stein would take this position?

I've read enough about it to know what he's proposing.

I am a Creationist by the virtue that I believe the Jewish Bible...who said that G-d created the Heavens and the Earth and all living things.

I actually found it was harder to believe life could arise from nowhere and then evolve to the way it is...

That's a somewhat different issue. Believing in the supernatural ultimate origin of life is...borderline...understandable. Disbelieving in evolution post-creation is not.

re: #6 zombie

I was REALLY disappointed in Ben Stein when I heard about this film.

I used to respect him. All respect now has gone out the window.

I just read that the leftosphere is totally blocking this movie at every turn. It isn't being reviewed, it's being excluded from online databases, etc.

For once, I don't particularly mind. The film is utterly wrongheaded. He has no clue.

You disrespect him because he has the unmitigated audacity to question evolutionist dogma?
How dare he do that!
/HOW DARE HE!

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

OK, so I believe in the evolutionary process, AND I also believe that at the very very beginning of all things, there was a power, God, who created that which makes evolution and the intelligence of human beings possible. So, what does that make me?

re: #31 reine.de.tout

I believe that's what is called Intelligent Design.

re: #11 zombie

Yes, based on discussions, and facts. What Stein is promoting is the standard anti-knowledge line: Since we don't know for sure, supernatural explanations are a possibility!

Fine for religious instruction. Not fine for science class.

But note that in science we do not know how life arose from non living matter...

We do not even know how "evolution" occurs.

We do not even know how or why gender exists, and why it is so prevalent in sexual propagation as opposed to asexual propagation. There is so much energy expended in sexual propagation...someone should ask the question how evolution explains sexual propagation...yet I get silence...everyone assumes someone knows...

In the Torah, G-d creates male and female.

How does evolution explain male and female again?

re: #32 Sharmuta

I believe that's what is called Intelligent Design.

And so how is that anti-science?

I believe in de-evolution

re: #31 reine.de.tout

Pretty much like me; I believe that there was a first cause, and I believe that evolution is the mechanism it uses.

re: #22 Psaturn

In the middle ages they though Rats came from straw, and flies from raw meat. Today we think people like that are crazy. How do you get something from nothing without a creator?
dinged ya for your comment. ;-)

The PROOF section of this anti-Ben Stein website makes me cringe ... like I am listening to an Al Gore Slide show ... NOTE the use of the word CONSENSUS ... repeatedly as though CONSENSUS = PROOF of evolution.

There is no PROOF of evolution. Mutation of species, adaptation to environment ... of course - no argument. But PROOF of interspecies evolution ? NO.

Have we found the "missing link" ?

Have we recreated the formation of life from primordial ooze ? Done the experiment of creating life ... In the laboratory ?

NO.

Consensus is for cowards.

re: #15 zombie

You can't scientifically prove the supernatural -- by definition.

You will NEVER be able to prove creationism in a lab.

Creationism is essentially the act of throwing in the towel and ceasing to search for answers.

zombie, I know you are always quite busy.....but, in some time you might be able to carve out, would you take a look at this? It's about Israel.....

re: #27 joncelli

Actually, I find creationism and ID pretty embarrassing. It gives people the impression that all conservatives are anti-science, and in fact it's all predicated on misunderstandings and twisted logic. I just wish conservatives could get past this.

I agree with you 100%. It is the Achilles Heel of conservatism in this country.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

No, you're not alone -- I've never made a secret of the fact that I'm not a fan of intelligent design or whatever it's being called this month.

I still respect Ben Stein a lot for his great pieces on the heroism of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I agree that he jumped the rails with this ID promotion.

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?
Who or what created the Big Bang?

Why can't we ask these questions in a science class?
Why?

What are the evolutionists so afraid of?

I just don't believe "Science!" has all the answers. It's great, it's made huge advances in life for all of us, but it can't explain everything.

Maybe it's why it's called the Mystery of Life.

re: #29 zombie

That's a somewhat different issue. Believing in the supernatural ultimate origin of life is...borderline...understandable. Disbelieving in evolution post-creation is not.

I do not disbelieve in evolution post creation...

That is the issue, we are dealing with origins issue, where we come from...

Evolution as observed today is a given...

It is the application of today's observed evolution to the past, to explain the origins of species, that is a totally different subject.

This is the confusion today, we are talking about two different subjects: The origin of species and the origin of life.....versus the observation of life today.

re: #31 reine.de.tout

OK, so I believe in the evolutionary process, AND I also believe that at the very very beginning of all things, there was a power, God, who created that which makes evolution and the intelligence of human beings possible. So, what does that make me?

a theistic evolutionist

/which in some cirlces is considered an oxymoron of sorts

re: #28 Sharmuta

So is global warming and that has nothing to do with religion. In fact- global warming makes certain scientists look like a cult themselves.

You are correct as well. Global Warming is a complete fraud, and essentially cult.

But attacking global warming in no way resuscitates the accuracy of creationism.

People get very upset with me when I say I am not an evolutionist. They practically go berserk. Smoke starts flowing from their nostrils. They seem offended, dismayed and aghast.

I wonder why they care? What difference does it make to them?

/ but it's not a religion

Hi, mama....you okay after the earthquake? :)

Without the public school system, this wouldn't even be a problem.

You send your kids to a school of your choice that you paid for. They choose whether or not to teach creationism/I.D., and each school's records for turning out successful students stands on its own.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

Relax. A true scientist doesn't take heresay over observation. The one you will be bumping up against is Louis Pasteur, who was an observer par excellence.
There is a reason he is unknown to today's generation. His entire life's work remains an inconvenient truth.

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?

Did it just come out of nothing!?

I have no doubt that academia suffers from all sorts of human foibles, just as the rest of society.

However, Stein's work here is, no doubt, better labeled as "polemics" than investigative journalism.

Nevertheless, there is some (considerable) hypocrisy amongst the intelligentsia in attacking Stein's movie.... since many of them so openly embrace Michael Moore's movies (which are also polemical and not serious journalism.)

I'm going to have to come down on the side of the evolutionists. As soon as folks start talking about vast conspiracies, I toss them in/out with Teh Troofers. Unless evolution can be accepted as God's working method for intelligence design, Ben and friends might as well be talking about silver saucers and X-files, in my humble opinion anyway.

re: #48 Ma Sands

Hi, mama....you okay after the earthquake? :)

Oh I'm good - it was so weird tho to feel that in Wisconsin. I thought the dog was jumping on the bed. Except the dogs were over at my daughter's house.

So then I just went back to sleep :)

Google Marget Sanger eugenics then get back to us. See what she had to say about the need to limit the population of people with limited potential.

The site left quite a bit to be desired.

Also the question of who/what created life still remains unless you have a religious background.

Stein already mentioned this on Medved's show -- it's sheer rubbish. They haven't debunked anything...see the film for yourself; this site is trying to get people to stay away from the film, and just listen to them (Stalinists anyone?).

Most stunning is Dawkin's own admission that life could not have arisen by chance; he says it's possible aliens seeded the planet! And they say ID proponents are nuts.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

Nope.
Thing is - one can be scientist and a Christian, without being a Creationist ...

Many creationists understand that there is micro evolution and adaptation...

they do not accept macro evolution, ie species change

IIRC

re: #51 DesertSage

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?

Campbells, silly Sage. Campbells.

I be more impressed if the National Science Center had actually done something to improve the state of science education in schools.

(As far as I'm concerned, Stein jumped the rails when he hosted the reality show, "World's Most Smartest Model". He's an easy target. Actually fixing the educational system, and teaching kids science---now that would really be impressive.)

re: #41 Charles

homology

generations

malaria

malaria generations

human generations

re: #56 Richard Romano

Stein already mentioned this on Medved's show -- it's sheer rubbish. They haven't debunked anything...see the film for yourself; this site is trying to get people to stay away from the film, and just listen to them (Stalinists anyone?).

Most stunning is Dawkin's own admission that life could not have arisen by chance; he says it's possible aliens seeded the planet! And they say ID proponents are nuts.

Where did the aliens come from?

re: #28 Sharmuta

So is global warming and that has nothing to do with religion. In fact- global warming makes certain scientists look like a cult themselves.

I see we are going to make this into a science-fest...

Scientists are fully capable of cult-thinking... like every other person.

However, man made/enhanced global warming is very well founded in basic science and is itself not "cult" like. The body of scientific knowledge accumulated over the last 5 centuries is what it is... an accumulation of observations and ever increasingly accurate theories.

An education society.

I laugh.

re: #59 MandyManners

Campbells, silly Sage. Campbells.

Ughh....who created Campbells?

Scientific American recently featured a great article entitled, Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...about intelligent design and evolution

Maybe a past 'Global Warming' created evolution?

re: #6 zombie

Zombie- You run a nice site showing the obnoxious behavior of the far-left. Darwinism is in essence the philosophy that motivates these fanatics.

'Expelled' is about academic freedom to challenge speculative dogma on the origins of life. As a scientist who has published over 30 peer-reviewed articles, I am a bit offended when people argue that you can't be a scientist and challenge Darwinism.

You should at least see the movie before you pass judgment you might be surprised.

re: #59 MandyManners

Campbells, silly Sage. Campbells.

But I haven't seen it on shelves for a while. Didn't taste all that good either.

I want to ask one question.

What difference does it make? Seriously?

That's EXACTLY what Intelligent design suggests. It doesn't overturn or reject many of the obvious and direct observations of evolutionary forces.

I think many people continue to confuse ID with some goofy sort of Bible literalism wherein you must believe the world was created in 7 planetary rotation days.

It is nothing of the sort.
re: #53 ducktrapper

re: #30 DesertSage

You disrespect him because he has the unmitigated audacity to question evolutionist dogma?

Yes! I do.

And it's not dogma if it's based on 300 years of accumulated data. It's scientific theory.

And the concept of "scientific theory" is mankind's greatest achievement.

re: #65 DesertSage

Ughh....who created Campbells?

People who wanted soup.

re: #66 gmsc

OK, since you're jumping on the anti-Stein bandwagon, why don't you answer my question-

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?

Huh?

It's not that creationists were expelled, it's that they've flunked.

Intelligent Design makes zero testable claims, and its entire premise is based on arguing "from the gaps" - which is identical to the tactics used by 9/11 truthers.

Evolution has over a century of scientific scrutiny, and each new biological discover only further confirms Darwin's descent with modification. Evolution has even anticipated and predicated new fossil discoveries, which is simply amazing.

Pope John Paul the II even endorsed evolution in his address "The Truth Cannot Contradict Truth".

re: #62 MandyManners

Where did the aliens come from?

Mexico. It was before the fence.....

re: #69 JeremyR

But I haven't seen it on shelves for a while. Didn't taste all that good either.

No Campbell's soups in your grocery store?

re: #31 reine.de.tout

OK, so I believe in the evolutionary process, AND I also believe that at the very very beginning of all things, there was a power, God, who created that which makes evolution and the intelligence of human beings possible. So, what does that make me?

That's a reasonable position. I have no argument with that.

re: #75 laxmatt1984

Evolution has over a century of scientific scrutiny,

Zombie says its 300 years.

re: #70 mama winger

I want to ask one question.

What difference does it make? Seriously?

None. Its just another tool to teach, like the Jesus Video.

re: #72 zombie

But a "theory" is just that- a theory.

re: #57 yma o hyd

Exactly. I had a physics professor at Virginia Tech who took just that position -- science and belief in God need not be incompatible. He also pointed out that most early scientists proudly considered themselves to be carrying out the work of exposing God's plan for the edification of mankind.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

You're not alone Zombie. :)

It's always been my position that creationism is theology and belongs *only* in a religious instruction class.

re: #76 JeremyR

Mexico. It was before the fence.....

Who created the fence?

re: #78 zombie

That's a reasonable position. I have no argument with that.

Why argue at all? Seriously? What difference does it make to you what someone else believes?

crap I'm out of pop corn

What does one do when one believes G-d created Evolution?

Ben Stein (or BS for short) is almost certainly funnin' with suckers on both sides of an issue that is somewhat difficult to resolve. If you take Ben Stein too serioulsly or too literally you will literally be making a serious mistake. Up until now the promotions for the movie had not registered in my brain, but now that I know Ben is throwing stuff at the fan it moves up to must see.

re: #32 Sharmuta

I believe that's what is called Intelligent Design.

No, that's not Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design posits that that there was no evolution by natural selection. And that God guided each step in the history of life -- rather than simply create the universe and the rules within it and let it run on its own.

re: #77 MandyManners

No Campbell's soups in your grocery store?

Sure we have Campbells, just none of their Primordial Soup. Tomato, and Chicken noodle are both big hits arround here.

re: #72 zombie

Yes! I do.

And it's not dogma if it's based on 300 years of accumulated data. It's scientific theory.

And the concept of "scientific theory" is mankind's greatest achievement.

After 300 years of accumulated data, you'd think that they would have figured out where the primordial soup came from....but they haven't. Until they do, it's just a "theory". Theories are not fact. I deal in facts.

#55 Perplexed

Good point.

I believe in evolution, but I also believe that the Eugenics Movement, back in the early 19th to mid 20th Centuries had an unhealthy influence on it, and the way it was taught. And I think the eugenics movement's cruelty towards what it considered the "unfit" and eagerness to meddle in marriage laws (the progressive movment of the time was actually quite happy to see government in the bedroom), was the real reason behind the original split between evolutionists and many religious believers.

Curse you Charles for starting this thread!

I was already overwhelmed with things to do today, and now you've got me caught up in this!

re: #70 mama winger

I want to ask one question.

What difference does it make? Seriously?

One difference is in purpose or conversely lack of purpose, accident.

re: #46 zombie

You are correct as well. Global Warming is a complete fraud, and essentially cult.

But attacking global warming in no way resuscitates the accuracy of creationism.

Creationism is silly & easily defeated.Man & the dinosaurs never lived together.Carbon dating tells us that dinosaur fossils are far older than the first evidence of man.
The whole thing was not made in six days.
But unless,I totally misunderstand Intelligent Design, there is no reason why it is not compatible with evolution.
Am I missing something?

re: #90 JeremyR

Sure we have Campbells, just none of their Primordial Soup. Tomato, and Chicken noodle are both big hits arround here.

I wonder what Primordial Soup would taste like.

re: #89 zombie

Well- I'm with reine.de.tout.

I also don't believe in gravity. Hence, my chest will always stand at attention.

re: #84 MandyManners

Who created the fence?

The Bekaert wire company in Rome Georga.

I have watched Killgore Trout defend scientific method and evolution frequently. Folks have made up their minds and decided what camp they are in. I will say I'm surprised at the number of folks who are Creationists in Texas ( I live there). I am not a Creationist or Young Earth believer. I can allow room for someone to suggest Intelligent Design as a theory. That's it. My children attend public school and I check what is in the science books and ask questions. So far no conflicts.

Micro evolution is well established science.

Abiogenesis and common descent on the other hand explain everything and explain nothing. Neither can be observed or reproduced. Just don't dare question them or your career is over.

I wanna' know what happened to unicorns.

a review from Answers in Genisis

re: #98 mama winger

I detect, um....an undercurrent? :)

re: #99 JeremyR

The Bekaert wire company in Rome Georga.

Who created wire?

re: #102 MandyManners

I wanna' know what happened to unicorns.

And pixies!

re: #62 MandyManners

Where did the aliens come from?

Code Pink

One day I decided to Google search "Intelligent Design", in order to learn what it was about. After a couple of hours I came up with the conclusion that there is no there, there. ID is a dumbass way for conservatives to attempt to present an alternative to evolution. It fails. Any conservative who attempts to go with ID is going wind up embarrassed.

I haven't seen this movie and I am not sure what the fuss is about but I will say there are plenty of "objective" scientists who completely discount any other explanations.
It takes all kinds, I guess.

re: #82 joncelli

Exactly. I had a physics professor at Virginia Tech who took just that position -- science and belief in God need not be incompatible.

Agree... there is no necessary contradiction in the two.

He also pointed out that most early scientists proudly considered themselves to be carrying out the work of exposing God's plan for the edification of mankind.

Arguably the greatest of scientists, Isaac Newton, has had a large part of his life history redacted by modern writers of textbooks; after founding the essential heart of classical physics he spent quite a bit of effort analyzing the Bible....

re: #94 paint-right

One difference is in purpose or conversely lack of purpose, accident.

that is true.

I believe life was created with purpose, intent, and as far as humans go, with inalienable rights originating from its Creator.

re: #81 Sharmuta

Wow, you completely misunderstand the meaning of the word "theory". A theory is not used in the sense of a grammar school science project - that is, an idea, but rather something that unites and explains facts. A theory is more than a mere fact, it is something that explains natural phenomenon.

These 6 things Scientific American posts are just trivial garbage. Not one of these 6 things address the core message of Ben Steins film. Not one of these 6 things actually discusses or refutes the tenants of Intelligent Design.

It is more like a catty Paris Hilton whiney he-said, she-said hissy fit.

I would expect better from Scientific American

Kinda makes me wonder what sort of "scholars" have taken over such a venerable publication.

re: #66 gmsc

Is sickle cell anemia an incomplete adaptation at resistance to malaria?

re: #106 Sharmuta

And pixies!

The Bible does mention unicorns.

re: #96 MandyManners

I wonder what Primordial Soup would taste like.

I hear it tastes like chicken.

re: #33 Psaturn

But note that in science we do not know how life arose from non living matter...

We do not even know how "evolution" occurs.

We do not even know how or why gender exists, and why it is so prevalent in sexual propagation as opposed to asexual propagation. There is so much energy expended in sexual propagation...someone should ask the question how evolution explains sexual propagation...yet I get silence...everyone assumes someone knows...

In the Torah, G-d creates male and female.

How does evolution explain male and female again?

I will not waste my time with these questions which have been answered in detail a million times before.

The mere fact that we do not know how life arose from non-living matter does not mean that it necessarily has a supernatural explanation.

Caving into, and celebrating, our current state of ignorance is not a valid scientific principle.

#62 MandyManners

Well, yes, that does raise some interesting questions, doesn't it? Such as where did the aliens come from, how did they get there and why has every vestige of their presumably superior civilization vanished without a trace, and how did they evolve, or did somebody just seed them, and, if so, who seeded the seeders, and does Dawkins actually expect us to believe such a load of hooey? Let's face it, this is sillier than believing in any sort of creation myth.