Ben Stein’s Introductory Blog

Ben Stein Add commentsShare This

I’m Ben Stein – many of you know me from the classic film, “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” or from my Comedy Central show “Win Ben Stein’s Money”. Still others of you may know me as a speechwriter, for presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. You may even have read my books, attended one of my lectures at The American University, Washington DC, or seen me on the talk shows.

I’m glad you found this site, because I want to share with you my thoughts from time to time here about a subject that is very near and dear to me: freedom. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world’s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.

America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.

A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.

Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.

This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.

Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.

Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.

Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.

Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.

They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters near you in February 2008. To learn more, check out my blog here often … and explore the rest of our site for new developments, or to volunteer to help spread the word.

Sincerely,

Ben Stein

1692 Responses to “Ben Stein’s Introductory Blog”

  1. Rob Says:

    Actually, Einstein did not believe in a personal God and would abhor this sort of political strongarming of religion into the classroom. Take note:

    The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]

    I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. [Albert Einstein, in a letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein]

    I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. [Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]

    People like the opportunistic Ben Stein would do well as to understand the scientific method. Evolutionary biology has been under the microscope and studied rigorously for 130 years. ID, and its precursor creationism, has not even bothered to produce anything in terms of research.

    Perhaps Mr. Stein would benefit to ask some serious questions of his ID proponents. Here are some suggestions:

    1) Give a comprehensive statement about what ID is. What does it mean?

    2) What predictions does ID theory make?

    3) What principles and standards are used to evaluate evidence?

    4) What recent discoveries have ID researchers made?

    5) What features of ID theory are subject to modification? What kind of observation, if it were seen, would change ID theory? What criteria is there for accepting a change?

    6) How does ID explain the evidence produced by conventional science?

    I highly doubt any of this will be addressed. This is going to be one of those fawning, self-congratulatory “documentaries.” by the right to reassure how great they are….

    “Aren’t you smart! All those smarmy professors think they’re so great, but you figured it out and they’re wrong!”

    “Christianity is under assault! Everyone is against you but you’re so strong for believing still! It must be so hard when you have hundreds of millions of friends!”

    “You’re a martyr! Every one of your problems can be blamed on a single group of non-believers/scientists who are making ‘Merika awful! Oooooh! They’re so mean and arrogant!”

    Pathetic.

  2. Russell Hunter Says:

    Ben,
    I am very impressed with your willingness to take up such a contentious issue. As you note, and the links on your site establish, this issue of Design in nature is heavily persecuted within the academic institution. But the persecution and ridicule transcends the so-called bastions of intellectual inquiry into the media and even the arts. Your starring in this documentary will not only get you expelled by the academics but the good’ol regular folk who recieve their indoctrination further down the line. You are going to go from, “Yeah Ben Stein, that hilarious guy from Ferris Bueller and comedy central…” to, “that Ben Stein is just a religious fundamentalist bigot who hates science and the establishment clause…guy” But to others like myself, you are taking on the role of public-intellectual-freedom-fighter.

    Thanks Ben.

    T. Russ

  3. Firemancarl Says:

    So, lemme get this straight. You equate two of the greatest scientists ever and their need to get backing ( money ) so they had to pander to the church. Never mind that they were one step in the “god of the gaps” philosophy. If it can’t be explained, “god did it”. Thus a gap in knowledge is filled by god. And every scientist that has come along after them has improved upon their ideas and succeeded where they failed. Can you imagine Dr Saulk saying that god created polio and therefore, we don’t need a vacination against it? If creationists want to be accepted as “real” sceintists, they should pony up real and I mean REAL scientific proof that there is a creator. So far they haven’t and they can’t. To quote Prof. Richard Dawkins “If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can’t do it. You are a fake.”

  4. Orac Says:

    Ben, Ben, Ben. I’m truly disappointed to see you involved in this misguided project.

    I always liked you; I used to love to watch Win Ben Stein’s Money. That’s why it truly saddens me to see you lend your name to such intellectually bankrupt and vacuous twaddle. And, yes, Ben, it is idiocy. You parrot every creationist talking point, from science supposedly “suppressing” intelligent design to that jaw-droppingly dumb thing you said in one of the trailers about scientists “not even being allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”

    Come on; give me a break.

    Stick to politics and economics, Ben; you clearly have little understanding of science.

  5. Thom Says:

    Hey Ben, the Pope called. He said, “Ben Stein is an absurdity.”

  6. Orac Says:

    Hey, Ben, why’d your webmaster delete the comment I posted about 20 minutes ago? It showed up right away; now I come back to see if anyone else has commented and it’s gone.

    For someone complaining about scientists “censoring” intelligent design, that seems rather hypocritical, don’t you think.

  7. Nullifidian Says:

    This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.

    Everyone has that ability. They just don’t have the ability to force other people to believe them, and that’s a very good thing since we see quite clearly what happened when the theists you support had that kind of power to abuse.

    Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.

    This is an assertion rather shot to pieces by Einstein’s own statements regarding the place of a creator-deity in his cosmogeny:

    “To assume the existence of an unperceivable being … does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.” - Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

    “I don’t try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.” - Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154

    One hopes that the film will be more accurate than this screed is.

    Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

    No, I didn’t, and I find such an assertion highly suspect. Being an intelligent design advocate is not, per se, something that unfits one from being employed in any capacity. I’m sure that an ID supporter can run an autoclave, for example, as well as any non-ID supporter. I would probably look at this person askance when looking for a research assistant, however, because anyone who couldn’t torpedo the ID arguments below the waterline is frankly not that knowledgable in biology. Furthermore, since the ID advocates have shown an inclination to try to shore up a conclusion they’ve already reached with evidence, rather than the other way around, anyone who believed that this backwards approach has any utility would be someone who could also come to his unshakeable conclusions on other matters and manipulate the evidence to reach the desired outcome.

  8. Hipple, Rev. Paul T. Says:

    Dear Brother Ben Stein,

    I have prayed for many years for the rehabilitation of your Soul, and now I awake this morning from my night of Visions to find that He has answered our prayers!!!

    Praise Him!!

    May I be the first to welcome you and give you praise Under the Glory of God, for using the obvious talents He has given you to proselytize for His Good Deeds in this Universe that He has given man to oversee as His Dominion.

    And speaking of Dominion, I will pray to God that you seek His Glory in the representation of Rep Tom Tancredo as our next President of the United States Under God, and NOT Sen. Sam Brownback, who is like the demon in an angels clothing, but not exactly.

    You see, in addition to many other policies Rep. Tom will enact a 100 Day Policy that will include not only planting land mines on our borders to Stop Illegal Immigration and roaming packs of mexican rape squads, but also, on day 62 if I am not mistaken, as President, Rep. Tom Tancredo will put an end to Political Correctness.

    So I am really looking forward to your new movie, as I am certain it will energize the Tancredo for President campaign, maybe even more than the recent slaughter of Negro American Citizens in Newark by a pack of illegal mexican death banditos!!!

    Yours in the Glory of His Name and Country
    RPTH

  9. Winnebago@usa.com Says:

    ..and Ben Stein joins “Liars for Jesus.”

  10. moops Says:

    Oh golly, I am sure looking forward to seeing your film! I know you will really skewer those fundamentalist evilutionists with the proof of intelligent design. Thank you for making this film, I know the FSM supports you in this noble cause.I plan on wearing my pirate finery to the opening night.
    Ramen!

  11. Greg Says:

    Sorry Ben, but you’re completely and utterly wrong. The recent legal case in Dover, for example, did NOT deny the teaching of creationism in the schools. It said that there was no evidence for intelligent design and that ID does not meet the criteria to be considered science and therefore should not be taught in school SCIENCE classes.

    The judge ruled (correctly) that the only arguments that the ID folks were able to put forth were either “Straw man” fallacies where they misquoted what evolution was in order to shoot it down, or they were “false dichotomy” fallacies. i.e. “If Science can’t explain this (or more likely if the ID proponent’s knowledge of science is not sufficient to explain it) then the alternative must be ‘God did it’”. That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not science.

    The judge in the case specifically left open the possibility of ID being taught in a class on religion as a cultural influence or in a class which surveys various religious beliefs. Also, the judge was not a liberal activist judge but a conservative judge appointed by GW Bush himself.

    Sorry, but your facts and premise are completely wrong.

  12. Ryan Says:

    There is no controversy. ID has no theory, no predictions, no data. It is not science, therefore the scientific community does not address it. This trite film is an example of the desperation of the ID movement. ID will can never be taken seriously because they believe that they may claim the authority of science while refusing to submit to the very rules that allow that authority to exist.

  13. Hipple, Rev. Paul T. Says:

    ps
    I forgot to mention, that Rep Tom Tancredo, on Day 33 of his 100 day plan, will put in their place once and for all those evilutionists who just a go about persecuting Good Christian Scientists and Philosophers as if they have a Soul so darkened by the Demon, that no light ever will escape.

    So your movie clearly will have certain economies of scale and synergies with the Tancredo for President campagin and I strongly urge you to contact their representatives. By all means, DO NOT answer the phone if someone from the Sam Brownback for President campaign calls you–they cannot be trusted any more than you would trust an elite secular progressive college professor.

    -rpth

  14. factician Says:

    EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

    Where do I get this thought-detection device that you are referring to? Where do I get the ban stick? Where are these people being banned from? May I have a list? Are they not allowed to do experiments? To gather data?

    My dear man, science is not done by press release. It is done by gathering data. The reason intelligent design is mocked is not because there is anything inherently stupid about the idea. It is because there is simply no data to support it. And yet its supporters continue to howl “But we wanna be scientists!”. Go ahead. Be a scientist. Gather data. Prove that you’re right. Until then, good luck.

  15. 7zcata Says:

    What a disappointment. Freedom is God given? Why doesn’t God give freedom to all the people of the world? Are we going to discount the blood spilled and lives sacrificed by so many over the years to win that freedom?

    Ben, scientific discoveries and innovations can’t be squelched forever by the establishment. If there is indeed some conspiracy of thought control on the part of “big science” (and I can’t imagine why there would be) then merely through plodding along, doing good science, Intelligent design backers will be shown to be right all along. Dr. Behe has a successful career, writing books, doing science, etc. If his science is good, then it will speak for itself.

  16. J. Patrick Says:

    Wah? What an IDiotic premise!

    Ben, you should feel ashamed - pandering to the IDiots. Freedom is NOT being suppressed by the scientific community! ID has nothing to show. ID is all smoke and mirrors for the credulous, it is not science, because it is not testable. ID and it’s lying backers may not admit it, but ID is all about getting the Bible and Creationism back into American schools. It’s a pipe dream backed by theocrats, and BTW - it’s illegal too, thanks to the Constitution.

    I suggest you and your religious morons that back ID move to Iran if you want to live in a theocracy. Have a good time there.

  17. Nathan Daniels Says:

    This movie will be a travesty. It will not make money. It will be ridiculed everywhere. This will go down as Ben Stein’s folly. Why don’t you read a biology book instead of pandering to the right-wing nutjobs?

  18. mojoandy Says:

    Not falsifiable. Not science. See ‘Sober, Elliott. “What is Wrong with Intelligent Design,” The Quarterly Review of Biology: March 2007.’

    Can anti-ID types be shrill and strident on the issue? Sure. So can pro-ID types. Doesn’t have any bearing on the truth or worth of their statements.

    The issue is: can the potential involvement of a designing force be proven or disproven in the scientific arena? The answer is no.

    Further, any approach that says “Can’t understand; God must’ve done it,” hinders scientific inquiry, feeds anti-intellectual sentiment and further erode’s America’s admirable advancements in science and technology. Also see ‘Charles P. Pierce, “Greetings from Idiot America,” Esquire Magazine: November 2005.’

    Ben, think of your country. I mean it: think. Being great with trivia is one thing, but come-on, THINK.

  19. Dan Says:

    Come on, Ben. You’re a smart guy, let’s stop pretending that there is anything scientific, rational, or even honest about intelligent design.

    Do you seriously want our children to be taught the myopic tautology that “god did it?” Do you not realize that science is a meritocracy? Do you not realize that science is also about open inquiry, and that it is intelligent design and religion that are doctrinally opposed to open inquiry?

    We’re talking about the difference between empirical validation (science) and authoritarian validation (religion). It’s that simple.

  20. Doug Says:

    Of course universities and scientific institutions discriminate, that’s why science does. If a person makes a claim and can’t back it up with research then it is rejected. Creationists can’t present any science to support their myth so they aren’t published. Universities have the old saying, “publish or perish” and that’s what happens to creationists.

    Why should the rules be any different for creationists? We give special treatment to retarded people so the creationists are just demanding that we treat them like retards. Well, that sounds fair enough.

  21. Chris Says:

    Those who claim the universe was created by an “intelligent designer” need to 1) prove the existence of such a designer using the scientific method and 2) explain who created the designer. If they fail, their “hypothesis” should be discarded and they should indeed be expelled. This mockumentary surely must be a joke!

  22. Donald Wheeler Says:

    Ben,

    The problem with your ‘arguements’ here is, quite simply, that they are fallacious. The only ’suppression’ occurring is that scientists are asking the pseudo-scientists to actually have some demonstrable proof, or even experiments that can be conducted, to validate their points of view. This ineivatably leads to the “they’re picking on me arguement!!” by those individuals (namely, *ALL* intelligent designers.

    Science is tough. You must always, always, always be ready to prove what you’re saying and why you’re saying it - merely stating that *you* don’t believe it doesn’t mean a thing. Prove it. Demonstrate it. Put something behind your words other than nefarious intentions, snake oil, and misplaced ad hominem arguements. Become the teacher that you played in Ferris Bueller.

    But I doubt that you will. And neither will so many others that only listen, think and do what their priests, bosses and leaders tell them and never think for themselves. You’re incorrect in so many ways but one is particularly striking - your comment, “Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement”. Do you know one thing that’s even more basic? The ability to think for one’s self - otherwise, Gallileo would have blindly accepted the church’s statements and continued on (odd how even back then, it’s the religious ‘thinkers’ of the time supressing thought, eh?)

    Donald Wheeler

  23. Bad Says:

    Question: Kenneth Miller is a prominent biologist who wrote a whole book about God. He has not, to my knowledge, been fired or disciplined in any way. In fact, he’s one of the most prominent and well respected biologists in the field. There are numerous other examples of openly religious biologists and scientists working today, many of whom have written extensively about their faith. The worst most of them have endured is criticism, to which they responded in kind. That doesn’t seem to square very well with the thesis that scientists are routinely banned from working just because they are openly religious.

    Couldn’t it be that the particular scientists you highlight in the film have something more in common about their work or their conduct than merely that they were religious?

  24. Reg Nullify Says:

    You know Ben, if the intellegent design community would quit whining and do some, you know, science they just might get a little more respect. BTW, loved the way you kicked the crap out of that strawman. I hope that the move is better than your arguements.

  25. Tony Feiertag Says:

    I can not wait to see this movie. Finally someone will stand up to those crazy proponents of ID “theory.” Even if it takes unintentional satire to do it. Thank you Mr. Stein.

  26. A Hermit Says:

    What nonsense!

    Anyone can say whatever they want; but if you’re going to propose a scientific theory, or publish a paper in a scientific journal you have to back it up with actual research, including empirical observations, statistical analysis and, you know, facts and stuff….

    No one is being censored for talking about God; but they ain’t gonna get published if they can’t back their ideas up with something substantial. It’s called having standards; the Right Wing in America should stop whining and learn what that means.

  27. Hadas Says:

    Dear Mr. Stein,

    Science (unlike you, apparently) needs evidence to believe something is real. Bring evidence for ID and we’ll be happy to examine them.

  28. Ted Manky Says:

    Two words- Dover, Pennsylvania.

  29. Blenster Says:

    While I am generally a fan of both your acting and, often enough, some of your political statements (though not all) I am flabbergasted at this notion you present that Intelligent Design represents “freedom” from institutionalized thought or has had anything to do with the developments of knowledge and technology science has granted us. History shows quite clearly that the involvement of religion has repeatedly hindered science and the development of society. Using the argument that “God did it”, as Intelligent Design does, effectively removes the questions and inquiry you reference. Additionally I have known many scientists and biologists and none have ever remarked that their thoughts are censored regarding religion. Contrarily the Intelligent Design movement often forces their supporters to sign a statement saying they will ignore all evidence that does not fit into their world-view. That is not science. That is limiting inquiry. And that is why I am astounded that you, a very intelligent man, can possibly make these claims. They are directly opposite of the reality of the situation. Thank you for your time and attention.

  30. Alex Caro Says:

    Wow Ben you’re so cool, trying to mask your religious views as Science and yourself as a rebel (perhaps you should read a little about the history of Science and free inquiry in Europe?). No, you don’t get “banned” for suggesting that God may have done something. Most theistic scientists probably believe that God directed evolution. I’m disappointed that you don’t know that Science isn’t something meant to confirm your religion–or anyone else’s religion–but I shouldn’t expect any more from someone who cares more about creating propaganda than they do promoting actual free inquiry.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Caro
    High school freshman

  31. travc Says:

    I’m terribly sorry you have wasted so much time and effort (and money?) creating this film if this is really your premise. I’m an evolutionary biologist and I believe in God and that the universe is a divine creation… Had no problems with the thought police so far.

    What is not “allowed” as a scientific explanation is “God did it”. That has no explanatory or predictive power since God could do whatever whenever… pretty useless for creating technology or predicting what may happen. If Newton said “the apple fell because God made it”, then we’d have no Law of Universal Gravitation since God could make something fall or not at his whim. I hope you get my drift.

    There are at least thousands of scientists who believe in a divine creator and still manage to not resort to “God did it” or the equivalent “magic happened” when they do their work. These scientists have no problem publishing, getting tenure, or enjoying a beer with atheist colleagues.

    Oh, one more thing. Just ask yourself, “what is the ultimate divine revelation: the Bible, or the Creation itself?” It basically boils down to trusting the authors (and translators) of an old book with at least partially questionable origins, or the evidence provided to your own senses and reason. Seem pretty like a pretty obvious choice if you believe, as I do, that God created the universe and granted us the ability to at least partially understand it.

  32. Dennis Says:

    Ben,

    I’m not going to accuse you of intentionally misleading your audience, because I’m no mind-reader and I have more respect for you than that, but just judging from the trailer for this film and from your initial blog entry, it looks to me as if the end result is misleading — intentionally or not.

    Your blog and trailer seem to rely on scare tactics and also seem to overstate the intentions of some fringe minority. I hope that’s not your intention. I expect better of you. Perhaps I’m just reading into things. But as I said, that certainly *seems* to be the case.

    Case in point: one of the most respected evolutionary biologists working today is Dr. Kenneth Miller, who was key to the anti-Intelligent Design case in Dover, despite being a devout and very open Christian. There isn’t a single person trying to keep him from expressing his religious views. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him give a single talk in which he didn’t state up front his religious beliefs. But he’s quick to point out that his faith — while not contradicted by science — also isn’t supported by it. If it were, it would stop being faith, wouldn’t it?

    Therefore, I feel your assertion that some Darwinian orthodoxy is suppressing religious expression in the scientific community is overstated. Name one person in the scientific community trying to stifle Miller. Just one.

    Furthermore, I think you’re using the words “Intelligent Design” in a manner different from which most biologists and the like understand it. There’s no doubt that Kenneth Miller believes in a creator. What he and many of us fight against is the political movement dubbed “Intelligent Design,” spearheaded by Michael Behe and William Dembski and the like at the Discovery Institute. The objection to “Intelligent Design” isn’t an objection to genuine inquiry as to whether or not there is evidence of design in nature, but rather the sneaky, underhanded, deceitful and obfuscatory tactics practiced by Behe and his ilk in trying to further their political agenda.

    Seriously, Ben — religious freedom is one thing, but don’t confuse an effort to keep bad pseudo-science (and bad theology) out of the classroom and scientific journals with an effort to suppress religion. And don’t rely on semantical tricks in your efforts to expose the so-called Darwinian Orthodoxy.

    You’re way better than that, my friend, and far too intelligent to get caught up in this steamroller of deceit.

  33. Jasen Bradley Says:

    How about an economic theory based instead of on observation of markets and causal relationships, but rather one espousing it’s at the whim of a monetary fairy. Once there is evidence for a god, one of the thousands currently worshipped, we can start discussing what it can and cannot be capable of.

  34. Charles Bailey Says:

    The problem with creationist “inquiry” is that it’s not free inquiry at all. They begin with preconceived ideas and try to “carve the foot to fit the shoe” by cherry picking evidence and using it to bolster their preconceptions. This happens quite often in the fringes of science (pseudoscience). Basic scientific inquiry - the development of hypotheses and theorems - requires an open mind. This is why evolutionary theory is such a messy business. It is constantly changing (evolving) as new developments occur.
    I’m not much of a writer so I’ll let more qualified people speak my mind.

    Isaac Asimov sums it up:
    “Science is a process of thought, a way of looking at the Universe. It consists of the gathering of observations that can be confirmed by others using other instruments at other times in other ways. From these confirmed observations, consequences and conclusions can be reasoned out by logical methods generally agreed upon. These consequences and conclusions are tentative and can be argued over by different people in the field and modified or changed altogether if additional, or more subtle, observations are made. There is no belief held in advance of such observations and conclusions except that observations can be made, that consequences and conclusions can be reasoned out, and that the Universe can, at least to a degree, be made comprehensible in this fashion. (If these assumptions are not true, then there is no way of using the mind at all.)

    Creationism, on the other hand, begins with a strong and unshakable faith to the effect that all the words of the Bible are literally true and cannot be wrong. The function of observation and logic is then confined to the confirmation of the literal meaning of the words of the Bible. Any observation, or any course of logic, which seems to argue against those words must then be false and must be dismissed. Any conclusions of science that seem to argue against those words must also be false and must be dismissed. To find some excuse to do this without seeming entirely arbitrary, creationists do not hesitate to distort scientific findings, to misquote scientists, and to play upon the emotions and prejudices of their unsophisticated followers. Whatever creationism is, then, it is not scientific.”

    Unfortunately, Mr. Stein has chosen a path that condones pseudoscience over science.
    “Pseudoscience often strikes educated, rational people as too nonsensical and preposterous to be dangerous and as a source of amusement rather than fear. Unfortunately, this is not a wise attitude. Pseudoscience can be extremely dangerous.

    Penetrating political systems, it justifies atrocities in the name of racial purity
    Penetrating the educational system, it can drive out science and sensibility;
    In the field of health, it dooms thousands to unnecessary death or suffering
    Penetrating religion, it generates fanaticism, intolerance, and holy war
    Penetrating the communications media, it can make it difficult for voters to obtain factual information on important public issues.” -Rory Coker

    To turn Stein’s own words on himself:
    “Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.”

    Mr. Stein, if we had relied on religious based thinking to advance scientific knowledge none of your advances would have occurred. In fact, if the past teaches us anything at all - it is that religion does more to quell freedom of inquiry.
    You seem to think that there is a conspiracy of scientists and educators to deny God. Not true. It has been my experience to find that many or even most of these folks believe in some form of deity. They also believe that science is under attack.

    Patricia J. Princehouse wrote:
    “People ask me, Why pour so much energy into protecting science education? Why not fight for literacy generally or any of a thousand other educational issues? I have two answers. One is easy: I know about evolution, so it makes sense that I would work on what I know best. The second is harder to grasp. And that is that freedom of religion is the bedrock foundation of liberty in this country. If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to religious views their parents don’t hold, if we allow them to spout outright lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have left? If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about anything.

    Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg or, as the creationists put it, the leading edge of “the wedge.” The wedge they are seeking to drive through the heart of American democracy. The lies about science are not limited to evolution. Every day more lies about science seep into public consciousness. Lies about stem cell biology, lies about global warming, about clean air and water, lies about sexuality, about conception and contraception, lies about the effects of hurricanes on metropolitan infrastructure.

    The war on science is a war on democracy itself. And the special weapons and tactics are rhetorical. The enemies of democracy use the language of tolerance to attack it from inside. Why, they ask, are we “censoring” the evidence for “intelligent design”? Why do we deny our teachers the “right” to use their “academic freedom” to teach “critical analysis” of evolution. Isn’t it only fair to teach both the evidence for and against evolution? All these clever ploys play well in the media on this issue and many, many others, and we will see these word games more and more in coming years. I call it the “orange is the new pink” strategy; every time the public cottons on to a catch term like “creation science” or “intelligent design,” they change to a more neutral-sounding term like “critical analysis” or “evidence against.” But defenders of American freedom are learning to stand up and say no, it really is fair to forbid teachers to lie to students, to prohibit school boards from using the power of the state to convert children to other peoples’ religions. Tolerance requires judgment.”

    True freedom of scientific inquiry demands that all theories are testable. This is the basic tenant of the Enlightenment traditions that brought about modern scientific epistemology.

    -Charles Bailey

  35. skyotter Says:

    is this serious or a parody?

    i ask because Mr Stein seems far too intelligent to fall for ID’s claims about “discrimination” or “censorship” within the scientific community

  36. Darwin Says:

    Wow… You seem to be WAY off

    It’s not that Science is not allowed, it is that there is very little evidence to support Intelligent Design! What little “evidence” there is, it A: comes from a book that has been modified, rewritten, and translated many times, and being slightly changed each time the current version may have no similarity to the original, or B: is just some of the holes in Darwinism.

    Darwinism on the other hand has fossil records. It has carbon dating. It has studies. It has a multitude more evidence than ID.

    Stop whining that scientists aren’t taking ID seriously. If you want people to consider ID, find EVIDENCE!

  37. Rich Says:

    “This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.”

    It sounds like philosophy to me Ben, not science. You are perhaps confusing the two. Science is concerned with natural world:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

    If God exists then surely it is outside of the physical universe?

    Also, I don’t thin you understand what ‘hypothesis’ means. In scientific terms, it doesn’t mean belief:

    “A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.”

    Did they test their hypothesis? Did it become a theory?

    People are of course free to believe what they would like. Science is actually evidence based, and ID has none - it is simply an argument from incredulity.

  38. Kat Says:

    You of all people should truly should be ashamed of yourself. I thought you were a smarter man than this.

    There is nothing to this ‘intelligent design’ business but wishful thinking on the part of god botherers. Elite scientists have looked at what evidence there is and have rejected this nonsense out of hand — it’s not that they will lose their jobs or grants and so on — it’s that they’re rational, thinking, people who understand science. Plugging “goddidit” into areas we don’t yet understand isn’t science. It’s childish thinking.

  39. Alex Taylor Says:

    You, sir, are quite possibly the most misguided propaganda hound I have ever encountered. ID ‘theories’ are rejected not out of hand, merely because the concept of a creator is somehow offensive, but simply because they are not theories. A hypothesis has two main attributes neccessary to qualify it as a hypothesis and not merely speculation;

    1) the hypothesis must predict a result - ie, I hypothesize that if I eat something when I am hungry, I will no longer be hungry… or, more abstractly, I hypothesize that the lack of food for a period of time can cause hunger. Thus predicting that a) if I eat, my hunger will subside, and b) if I don’t eat, my hunger will appear or get worse

    2) a hypothesis must be falsifiable, able to be proven false. example, if I hypothesize that if I am hungry, and I drink water, my hunger will subside. I then proceed to drink water and my hunger remains, thus proving my hypothesis false, I must then create a new hypothesis that accounts for this new information, ie, I must eat food to satiate my hunger.

    ID theories contain neither of these elements - one cannot disprove the existence of a creator, therefore it is not a hypothesis, merely an unfounded belief, superstition, or opinion - as the creationist faction has a tendency to say, it is wrong to teach an opinion as a fact.

  40. Ford Denison Says:

    There are hundreds of papers published each month with new data on evolution by natural selection, versus close to zero per year on intelligent design (see link). If intelligent design crackpots had the data, they’d submit it for publication. If they had evidence of discrimination, they’d sue. They don’t have either, so they whine.

  41. Robert Bell Says:

    In science, if you want your ideas about the natural world to be treated as a valid hypothesis, let alone a valid theory, you must present empirical evidence that verifies your idea.

    Intelligent Design, as it is written about by authors such as Michael Behe, and championed by organizations such as the Discovery Institute, struggles in its effort to qualify even as valid scientific conjecture, as some of the foundational premises ID guesswork sees near uniform dispute by nearly every credentialed scientist in the pertinent fields, including some who personally hold deep religious beliefs, and subscribe to the notion of a creator deity.

    Everyone who believes in a creator deity essentially believes in “intelligent design,” broadly defined. Although atheists and other non-religious individuals are disproportionately represented in the sciences, there is no reason to assume a conspiracy is responsible for the disparity, and there are still many religious people working in the academia and the sciences.

    It should not be surprising that funding for the idea that nature is directly influenced by an unobserved, unobservable entity is not always readily forthcoming from traditional sources of scientific research grants, given that the first step in science is to OBSERVE. It should not be surprising that so-called scientists who are either ignorant of the scientific method or willfully ignore it are denied tenure.

    It is a sad state of affairs that a celebrity intellectual like Ben Stein has decided to come out on the side of the enemies of science and obfuscate the truth.

    Galileo and Einstein are invoked, stating that they “operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.”

    While Galileo did believe in an intelligent creator deity, he did not see any need to inject his faith into his practice of science. Galileo said that “The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.”
    From this I believe that Galileo would disapprove of a “god of the gaps” philosophy invading the domain of scientific inquiry.

    You statements about Einstein’s beliefs are even more egregiously misleading. Einstein himself has explicitly stated that he did not believe in a personal god and what he refers to God with figurative language, he is essentially talking about the laws of nature, never indicating that he believes there is any sort of sentience or intelligence.

    Science is not a democracy. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s not a celebration of multicultural values. It’s not about emotion, intuition or desires. Science, essentially is a meritocracy of ideas, where doubt and skepticism are (ideally) institutionally and methodically applied with the greatest possible degree of rigor. This means that bad ideas, ideas that are inconsistent with the evidence, have no direct evidential support, or have no predictive power/utility are generally discarded as irrelevant and non-scientific.

    The sooner you understand this, the better off you’ll be.

  42. Rich Says:

    Here’s how the ID community handles censorship / different viewpoints:

    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46cc995ed927ee59;act=ST;f=14;t=5141

    Thanks.

  43. mf Says:

    B.S.: “This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.”

    Inquiring about a “higher power” is not science, it involves the supernatural. The supernatural doesn’t belong in the science class because by definition science does not deal with the supernatural because it is beyond nature. You may as well ask why the supernatural is not discussed in economics class. There are classes were the supernatural should be discussed those classes are theology and history. Regardless, saying that a “higher power” is involved in the universe is not helpful, it answers absolutely nothing and has been a stumbling block for past and present religious scientists. http://youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0 *

    B.S.: Einstein’s god

    Einstein’s god was the god of Spinoza, it was simply a metaphor for that which we do not yet know. He wasn’t referring to an old man with a beard in the sky and that is clear from his own records.

    B.S.: “EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.”

    And how do you explain all of those religious scientists working today? There are plenty of people like Francis Collins that are doing quite well. Obviously they do not ALL keep it a secret and we would certainly know if ALL of them were banned/fired. But wait, first you say that a scientist “would” be banned, and then a little later you say that it “can happen.” You went from “would” to “can”. Nice switch there. http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html

    Seriously, when does it end? Should chemistry class be supplemented with alchemy class? Should astronomy class be supplemented with astrology class? R. Feynman famously said, “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.”

    * = Description: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Beyond Belief Conference, 2006. “Among other things, Tyson asserts that the religiosity of some of history’s greatest scientists and their willingness to invoke the philosophy of intelligent design limited the scope of their inquiry into the natural world, to the detriment of scientific progress in general.”

  44. Erasmus Says:

    Can’t wait to see the movie. I’m sure it will blow the socks off those evilutionists who deny the all=mighty purposeful hand of god who has clearly invested a lot of his(her?) time in designing the phalluses of katydids and tinkering with the chimpanzee genome to fool materialists.

    Athiest darwinist materialists have held the pulpit for too long, with their evidence and predictive power. The tide is turning in churches and homeschooled classrooms across the globe, upholding the observation that all true science is given to us from God and is an exploration of his glory and omnipotence. Only fools demand evidence to believe something.

    Additionally, with the growing impetus behind Intelligent Design (including a real science journal and lots of internet weblogs that thankfully don’t worry about the opposing views to their arguments) soon we can be sure to finally see some real ID research from the growing number of ID labs in the United States. All Science So Far!!!

    Stifling dissent is unamerican and unchristian. Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, there are even atheist pleasurians in the fold. In short, it is all about the maths.

    See here for more about censorship and Darwinism.

    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46cc9be3d9ac55c5;act=ST;f=14;t=5141

  45. Jack Hardin Says:

    Greetings Ben - thanks many times over. When Carl Sagan famously said ‘This universe is all there ever was,is or ever will be’ (or something like that), he wasn’t making a scientific case but a philosophic one because there is no way he could possibly know that! Yet all orthodox science today is founded on that principal of blind naturalism. And they think IDers are the deluded ones! Gotta go, thanks again, take care, Shalom & L’Chaim

  46. frank Says:

    So, somebody has enough balls to expose what might just be science’s biggest hoax.

    Groovy.

  47. Physis Says:

    “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
    Carl Sagan

    Have you perhaps considered that mere ostracization is far more indicative of idiocy than it is of conspiracy or malice?

  48. Steve_C Says:

    The reason an “intelligent designer” isn’t considered is because there’s been NO EVIDENCE for one.

    How do you test a theory of a “god” designer if you can’t show “god” exists? And if you could (and you won’t), science would ask how did the “designer” do its work?

    Plenty of scientists serparate their belief in god from their work as scientists.
    They understand that they hold an irrational faith. They also understand it would be pointless to assume a god in any hypostesis they test. Any modern scientist who fails to understand that duality, probably isn’t a very good scientist.

    How many good geologists think the earth is 6,000 years old?

    Good luck with a movie that shows how little some religious people understand science.

    Many of us will have a good laugh. It’ll be alot like “Jesus Camp”. Well, maybe not quite as scary,

  49. Michael Patton Says:

    Kudos Ben. Thanks for putting this together. I linked to it at my blog. We all anticipate much from this. Let’s hope that it has the impact it can.

  50. Mikki White Says:

    Its about time that this issue got addressed. Its beyond the fundemental issue of God versus primordial soup; its about the fredom of expression, the freedom to think, the freedom to choose.

  51. Eric Holmberg Says:

    Go Ben! Very encouraged by what you are doing and will do all I can to get friends and family to see your new doc. opening weekend.

    Thank God for men like you!

  52. Joe Shmoe Says:

    Ben,

    As a longtime fan of yours I must say that I feel more than a little betrayed and offended by your involvement in this project. I felt from reading of your history and your politics that you were someone who would be able to see through the shroud of ignorance and false mysticism of the so-called “Intelligent Design” movement.

    I am particularly disturbed by this sudden and ironic attack by ID proponents on real working scientists. All that you’ve said in this blog and all that’s been said in defense of Intelligent Design is the real affront to free inquiry. It was proven in a court of law (Dover, PA) that the Intelligent Design movement is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to suppress genuine scientific inquiry.

    I’m glad to see in your blog that you’ve abandoned the pretense that ID is not a religious movement, but you’ve only gone halfway into the light. Now you must also abandon the intellectually bankrupt position that Intelligent Design has anything at all in common with real science.

    I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do hope that interest of the free exchange of ideas you would allow this comment to remain on the site for all those that would see the other side of this issue.

    A fan(EXPELLED)

  53. David Says:

    Ben,

    I’m excited about this project, and can’t wait to see what you’ve got cooking. I’ve doing my own small part to wage the debate for intellectual freedom, and to point out that evolution itself is based on unprovable and untestable assumptions about the unrepeatable, unobservable past, and therefore just as much of a philosophical belief (religion?) as creationism or intelligent design.

    I do hope you will make a distinction between intelligent design and creationism? ID is totally compatible with modern-day evolutionary theory and merely asserts that some Intelligent Designer got the ball rolling. Creationism assumes that God created, and that He created roughly six thousand years ago.

    Your voice is a favorite among many conservatives, and many will be glad to get your perspective on this important issue.

    Thanks for reading, and for making the project!
    Dave

  54. aiabx Says:

    What a sad, sad fate for one of the conservatives I used to respect. Do you really believe that there are no scientists who believe in god? I’m sorry to see you acting as a catspaw for the religious right, and their bogus ideas of what science is all about.
    I won’t be watching reruns of Ben Stein’s Money anymore. It would make me sick to see you on screen and think what a pathetic failure of intellect I was watching.

  55. Quinton King Says:

    Science, by definition, is restricted to the investigation of measurable natural/physical phenomena and cannot invoke a supernatural explanation. The “intelligent designer made it” is not a fruitful theory in that it does not allow for predictions as no one knows when and where the entity in question will strike again. Furthermore, science does not preclude the existence of an intelligent designer, but merely places this supernatural entity beyond the scope of legitimate natural investigation. Here in Montana we say, “Trust in God, but tie up your horse”! While many in the academic arena feel one’s personal beliefs should not impact their career, if their personal beliefs are at odds with the foundational research within their field, they might expect their beliefs to be trumped by the weight of evidence. Would a Holocaust denier make an appropriate professor of WWII history? Should a class spend valuable time debating such a “controversy”?

  56. Firemancarl Says:

    I guess this movie shoots down the notion that ID is a secular idea huh? Bwwwwaaaahahahahahaha

  57. Yelena Says:

    Dear Ben,
    Thank you! Finally we have some real media attention to bringing the Bible back to school! It’s the way that America was designed, I hate that these atheists want to take our faith out of schools and bring in their own. They have been chipping away at our beliefs, one by one.

    While encouraging healthy debate about Creationism versus evolution is wonderful, I strongly encourage you to cover all the other facets of science that try to undermine our Faith, including heliocentrism, ‘carbon dating’ the earth to 5 billions years old, and the Big Bang. For the bible says:

    Psalm 93:1 ‘The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.’

    96:10 ‘Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.’

    Chronicles 16:30 ‘Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.’

    Psalm 104 ‘Bless the Lord … Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.’

    Ecclesiastes 1:5 ‘The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth’

    Thank you,
    Yelena

  58. Billy Hirst Says:

    “In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”

    Newton could not explain a certain motion of the planets and so ascribed the effect to God. Einstein came along and knocked poor God out of the box.

    You offer very little to support your claim. Your logic is also self-disputed by the fact that Einstein did both publish his works in America and get grants in America. The straw man argument for Galileo and Newton will remain just a weak supposition.

    Ben….did you really write or sign your name to this screed? It doesn’t sound like you at all.

  59. H. Elizabeth Keyes Says:

    I am eagerly awaiting this release. If it delivers what it says it will - I look forward to finally having an open debate on the facts and the merits of Intelligent Design. Which I find believable and compelling.

  60. Suricou Raven Says:

    You confuse oppression with rejection. The ideas proposed by ID are not ignored because they are threatening, but because they are not scientific - refusing to allow ID to be taught as serious science is no different to excluding astrology, tarot-reading or feng-shui. Academic freedom does apply, and it ensures that proponents of ID have the right to speak their ideas - which they do, as this movie does. But freedom to speak is not a requirement for others to listen, and ID will never have serious scientific credability so long as its core arguments remain as flimsy as they are.

  61. Bill Snedden Says:

    This is a joke, right? Please tell me that this is a joke. ..

    If not, Mr. Stein you should know that you are being used by some rather unsavory and unscrupulous characters. Their mendacity is legendary; they have no shame. People should be AND ARE completely free to believe whatever they want and even to pursue research to prove whatever beliefs they have, however odd or unusual they may sound. But that’s not what’s happening here. So-called “Intelligent Design” advocates are attempting nothing less than the overthrow of the scientific method in favor of religious doctrine. Read the Wedge document, Mr. Stein. Educate yourself about what these people really want.

    Science works by method, not by PR or popular vote. When Intelligent Design proponents put together an actual theory and start doing real research (in other words, actually doing SCIENCE), then the scientific community will begin to take them seriously. So far, they have put forth vague ideas and poor arguments, all of which have been examined and found wanting. But instead of working diligently to patch the holes and strengthen their arguments, they cry “victim!” and mount massive PR campaigns. Please Mr. Stein; I believe you to be a man of integrity. Don’t allow yourself to be used by these people for their anti-science, anti-human agenda.

  62. eric Says:

    I’m curious how the producers of the movie explain that they interviewed some people for a movie called “Crossroads” and it’s now called “Expelled”?

    Just wondering.

  63. Mario A. Lopez Says:

    Hello Mr. Stein,

    I am glad to see that you have joined in the battle against the Darwinian Gestapo. The great thing about all of this is that they have already admitted to the “appearance” of design in nature, and better still, lack the mechanism to account for it.

    These are exciting times.

  64. James Stein Says:

    Speaking of censoring and suppression - why was P.Z. Myers* interviewed by your associate producer under false pretenses? Is there a reason you need to lie?

    *http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

  65. Ray S Says:

    How about instead of wasting money making this movie, you use the money to fund actual research - research you claimed can’t get funded otherwise. The Templeton Foundation, supporters of connecting science and religion, could find no actual ID research to fund. It would seem that the problem is not losing jobs, suffering ridicule or being banned from the lab, the problem is there is no actual ID research. Just like there’s no cold fusion research and no perpetual motion machine research.

  66. Fr. Bill Says:

    Oy vey! This is going to be Most Interesting.

    As a constant observer of the Neo-Darwinian machine (and the Paleo-Darwinian machine before it got retooled into its present version), I found the trailers on this site exactly what I was hearing 30 years ago in my undergraduate days. My children report that the script hasn’t changed a whit, though (perhaps) the machine is updated.

    I’ll be very, very interested to see how you develop this project.

  67. In Defense of the Faith Apologetic Ministry » Blog Archive » EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Says:

    […] I’m re-posting Ben’s first blog entry from yesterday. Hope you enjoy reading […]

  68. pikachamp Says:

    I thought I’d throw this response in:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/you_have_got_to_be_kidding_me.php

  69. Kyle Miller Says:

    This subject has been a passion of mine in just the last year. I am elated that someone, especially an icon like Ben Stein, is standing up for what’s right. It is highly unlikely to see celebrities standing up for religion or to try to radically change what has been embedded in us for years as students. As a college student i am geared and ready to go to fight for as long as i have to to get people to at least acknowledge the fact that another possibility besides Darwinism exists. I applaud Ben Stein for taking a stand and am looking forward to helping out in tremendous ways to help this film succeed. I am so looking forward to being…EXPELLED!!!

  70. Mike Haubrich, FCD Says:

    So far I am not impressed, but merely amused at the lengths that the ID’ers will go to to be oppressed. Scientists are merely asking for a theory that can be tested, and until then the idea that Intelligent Design can be proven by misstating theories of evolution is what they are laughing at. They are not granting tenure to professors who have demonstrated that they will distort facts to make their case.

    Until Intelligent Design can demonstrate how it can make the supernatural as demonstrable as a natural phenomenon (which is how science works) it will be laughed at and not called science.

    The whole idea that thoughts are being suppressed is a bit of overblown rhetoric, don’t you think?

  71. Brian Says:

    Science is discriminatory, not against age, race or gender but against nonsense. Evolution occurred, we can see the evidence that life on earth started simple and has become more complex over time. There is still discussion over the mechanisms through which it worked but it did happen. Creationists are people who put a set of ancient myths before modern science. As even they recognise that science is pushing their dogma further into a corner they have tried to re-label that dogma as “intelligent design” and claim that it is science. Don’t get upset that we can see through the charade.

  72. joel hanes Says:

    Many practicing scientists are devout Christians, and are accepted and respected by the scientific community at large, as are scientists of many other faiths. The people who Ben Stein wants to conflate with this larger class of Christians, the creationist subset of Protestant Americans, are however pretty much ignored by practicing scientists. For good cause.

    Creationists are not scorned and ignored because they believe in a Creator.
    Creationists are scorned and ignored because with rare exceptions they do not do science, and because they sometimes fight to suppress actual science that contridicts their religious convictions.

  73. Mitch Nance Says:

    “They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. ”

    This is a flat-out lie. Plenty of scientists believe in a divine creator, yet have no worries about losing their jobs. One of the more prominent ones, Ken Miller, is actually on the “anti-ID” side. The people who get persecuted are the ones that pitch a fit when their pet ideas are shown to not stand up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny.

  74. Russ Riediger Says:

    I’m glad to hear about the film, and I’m glad you’re involved in it, Mr. Stein.

  75. kc Says:

    “This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.”

    This is true, but stated in a misleading way - what is basic to science is the ability (and a method) to inquire (about anything, at any time). To be clear and precise, this definition of the realm of science is not only basic, but also requisite: if an inquiry cannot be undertaken using the scientific method, it is not science (beyond this, the question of an inquiry’s validity is not a question for scientists - it could well be a valid philosophical/metaphysical/ legal/political/ ethical/moral/religious inquiry).

    Whether the scientific inquiry is about the operation of the universe, the complexity of the bacterial flagellum, or the winners of the lottery next Tuesday, the scientific method is the same: propose an hypothesis, accumulate data (NOTE - one CANNOT do science without this step), assess the hypothesis with reference to the data, and repeat. Note: hypotheses are sometimes referred to as “predictions”, but I prefer to call them “expectations” about the fit between the “real” (=measurable) world (the data) and the hypotheses (the model).

    All one need do is state the hypothesis(es) re: the intelligent designer (and, by preference, though not required for science, some suggestions about where and how relevant data might be collected), and then we’ll wait for the data collection and analysis to follow.

    Hypotheses unsupported by data, whether contrary OR MISSING!!!, are of interest to science, but we should not dwell on them in science education, particularly at lower levels. There are enough well supported hypotheses (and supporting data) to fully occupy those developing scientists and others, without dwelling on the fringes of our scientific knowledge.

  76. Toast Says:

    Wow. I could sorta understand you shilling for discredited right-wing economic theories, but *creationism*? Seriously? What a complete and utter tool.

  77. leukocyte Says:

    So… Christian mythology (the same puritanical, party-crashing, prohibitionist, “won’t somebody please think of the children”, wet blanket that has been sucking the fun out of life for 2000 years) is the “new” REBEL?? on the block. Puh-lease. How many times is Creationism going to repackage itself and come back for another round - still without a shred of evidence? And we wonder why kids in this country are failing at science…

  78. tinyfrog Says:

    Hi Ben. I was just wondering if someone is moderating this blog. And, if so, do you think it is hypocritical to argue for free speech, but prevent critical comments from showing up on this blog?

  79. Ben Stein - “Expelled” pro-ID movie « Tiny Frog Says:

    […] also noticed that Ben Stein has a blog post up at the movie’s website. Expecting my comment to be moderated (and it was held for […]

  80. Nick Says:

    Ben - I enjoy your Sunday NYT contributions, especially your emphasis on the treasure of friends and family.

    You make an extraordinary claim in the Expelled post above. What scientists have been fired and lost tenure and grants for mentioning the possibility that god or a higher being created the physical laws of the universe?

  81. Dan Says:

    I think this is a big ‘put-on’ everyone knows its OK to investigate but, when your ideas have proved vacuous people no longer want to fund them. Read Kitzmiller v. Dover for more info. I think Stein and company may actually be duping the religious fundies behind creationism/ID. I can’t wait to find out for sure

  82. SLee Says:

    Don’t hold back–give names. Whose career got ruined for being creationist scientist? As for Galileo–this stupid jeezus movie completely misread the meaning (of course). Namely, he had scientific PROOF (do creationists have proof outside “cause it’s in the Bible”?) which clashed with the established belief (based on an old book written by camel herders), and was forced to recant.

  83. RHill Says:

    Bravo! Yes, public institutions, supported by our tax dollars, are actively marginalizing descenters while supressing free inquiry and open debate in the field of science. What are the darwinist so afraid of? Those who have studied the issues think they know the answer. Darwinism does not rule modern biology because of “overwhelming evidence”. It rules primarily because of philosophical prejudice amongst a self appointed intellectual elite.

  84. Jeremy Says:

    Ben,

    I hope your project gets much needed attention. Can’t wait till it comes out.

  85. JKM Says:

    My, how wrong one can be:

    To quote:
    “Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.”

    They worked under their belief, not any “hypohtesis,” as do probably the majority of evolutionary biologistts today.

    Another errant line from the blog:
    “In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”

    Completely false, and a bit bizarre. Indeed, I would help the first Intelligent Design researcher with a legitimate, testable hypothesis, to get their hypothesis tested and published. Alas, I’ve asked this for many years and have not a single taker.

    Failed attempts to discredit evolutionary science, by the ICR, AIG, DI, and others, must take a serious turn … and actually do science, replete with hypotheses and hypothesis testing, before the scientific community can take them seriously.

    Until then, they are just random and unguided voices in the wind.

  86. The Bad Idea Blog Says:

    Ben Stein in Hot-Pants for Intelligent Design

    Expelled, a slick-looking documentary which looks to put a shiny new gloss on the Intelligent Design movement is due out this coming February. Though it went public a little while ago, the news that the Intelligent Design movement is going the Michael…

  87. Toast Says:

    public institutions, supported by our tax dollars, are actively marginalizing descenters

    Actually, the descenters are the majority in this “debate”.

  88. AmesG Says:

    What a freaking moron. Come see RationalWiki for reasons why he’s wrong.

  89. Ken Says:

    Mr. Stein,

    Wow! I originally presumed that this film was a spoof, and thought it might be entertaining as such. I even thought the opening blog was very funny… until I later realized that you were serious.

    Did you use freedom a dozen times on purpose? It’s like it was written for a Bush speech? Pandering to the uninformed that don’t know and don’t want to know.

    I used to think highly of you, Mr. Stein. I actually thought you were intelligent, whatever you’re political leanings. Either you’ve been painfully misinformed, deluded or just plain losing your ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.

    Do you know anything of science? Not only is ID not science, the movement as a whole is anti-science and based fully based in religion.

    The ID movement deserves the same ridicule from science as does astrology. Is your next project going to be about getting astrology seen as science? You’re advocating a step back to the dark ages.

    Here’s a tip… Do some of your own research. You might learn something and save yourself much embarrassment, although I think that’s too late.

    Ken

  90. Cal Says:

    As a member of the media I have been following the ID issue for a long time. I am looking forward to hearing your point of view. I sincerely hope it will advance fair and rational coverage of the debate.

  91. javascript Says:

    I get a kick out of some of these typical, tired old knee-jerk, pre-rehearsed responses that clearly indicate the majority of the people responding so far have barely skimmed this site. I read nothing about religion on here, nor do I see crosses or scriptures or the word faith or religion even mentioned. Yet many of those posting seem to jump to the conclusion that this movie is religion based and that Ben Stein has flipped his lid and become some kind of evangelist for the creationist’s cause. He sounds like the same guy who wasn’t afraid to take the unpopular stand for the African-American Civil Rights Movement or one of the last know supporters of Richard Nixon to me. Say what you want about Ben but a “puppet” he is not and anyone who tries to imply as such must be that missing link you hard core evolutionists so desperately seek.

  92. Ken Chorost in Buffalo Says:

    Well, nice to see the fanged monsters already blogging out over this. See the movie before judging. Read the evidence. Allow a thought inside your heads that might possibly, maybe, sort of, kind of, shed even a slightly different light on your entrenched secular worldview. Show a little tolerance and open-mindedness. If you dare.

  93. AmesG Says:

    Put another way, issues like this are dealt with here:

    http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Intelligent_design

  94. 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Says:

    Um, I thought all those ID supporters testified in Dover, under oath, that Intelligent Design “theory” was SCIENCE, and did NOT, repeat NOT, have anything to do with God, Jesus, the Bible or Religion. . . .

    Were they just, uh, lying to us when they testified to that . . .?

  95. The World Wide Rant » Blog Archive » Breaking News Says:

    […] Also: Ben Stein, despite having kept much of his money for himself on his game show, isn’t very bright when it comes to science. […]

  96. AmesG Says:

    Lenny Flank (#94), they were in fact lying. Judge Jones found as much in the Kitzmiller trial. Get a hold of the case file and look to the following quote: “One consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID…. We disagree.” Judge John E. Jones III, Republican, in Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, n.7 727.

  97. Wonders for Oyarsa Says:

    I was excited when I heard the news, although perusing the site made me somewhat less so. This debate is just too important, and too interesting, to get locked and loaded into yet another culture war issue.

    If this is about how scientists have been treated unfairly for their views on intelligent design in the academy, I am all for it. Everyone should have a problem with this. But if its about the fight to get it in High School classrooms, I am less enthusiastic. Student textbooks should not be determined by political battles (I know, what sort of dreamworld am I living in?)

    What I worry about is that, with this billed as a culture war issue, people will simply make up their minds based on whether they are red or blue, and not by fairly looking at what’s going on. Oh well…what else is new?

  98. High Priest of Purposelessness Says:

    It isn’t very likely that chimpanzees typed out Shakespere’s complete works. But we have it, so they must have. Alas, this is incomplete. Helicoptering them half-way up Mount Improbable by giving them computers and such. First they need to accidentally produce an industrial revolution, followed by a accidental technological revolution, followed by an accidental personal computer with accidental software so they can then accidentally type Shakespere’s complete works, and then accidentally explain it to us because its value resides in its context. It only has the illusion of design. How foolish you anti-darwinist boobs. The truth plain for any open minded (scientific) person to recognize. If you disagree with the Great God of Purposelessness and his true prophet Darwin or even his pet poodle Dawkins, your ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, general conservative naughtiness –and all other forms of venal ad hominem that can be conjured– make you suspect.

    Best wishes
    Glerb from the planet Deltroib

  99. Emphyrio Says:

    Will the film present the ID explanation for men having nipples?

    Or why whales have pelvises that serve no function, since they don’t walk?

    Ben, you’re so smart. You may look back in embarrassment one day for letting these folks flatter you into this.

  100. Christian C. Says:

    Hey Ben. Is it true that your production company misrepresented the film you were making in your interviews with Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers? Thanks!

  101. Kseniya Says:

    Ken Chorst in Buffalo, you’ve made quite an assumption there. You’re more wrong than you could possibly know. Most of these monsters have tentacles and beaks, not fangs. I hope you feel properly chastened, and that your bias against the tentacled is less extreme than your bias against the fanged.

    Oh yeah, also, many of them have already spent years studying evolutionary biology and intelligent design creationism, and know a fraud when they see it. Yes, sir, you presume much. Oh, you mention secularism? Why? Many commenters seem to be claiming that this movie has nothing to do with religion - in fact, the post immediately preceding your own claims exactly that. Are you calling that commenter a liar when you place the content of this film in opposition to secularism?

    Now. Where was I? Ah yes, the freedom to choose, THE ALMIGHTY FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. I can choose to believe that an acquired immune deficienty syndrom is due to an imbalance in my humors or to the vengeful stroke of an unforgiving deity, and not due to the debilitaing effects of a virus on my immune system, but dangit - I’d be wrong! But I’d defend to the death my right to be wrong!

  102. Rob K. Says:

    I love it!!!!!!!!!!! Ben you definately touched a nerve to have so many anti-ID guys responding so quickly. What the heck are they worried about? If the idea of ID getting more attention didn’t bother them so much they would just ignore it. Many people posting act like your claim that college students, professors and scientists can’t express their views is bogus. Maybe they should talk to Guillermo Gonzales who was denied tenure despite being vastly over qualified in comparison to what is the minimum expectations to receive tenure. This was simply due to his connection to ID. Truth be told most of the above hostile posters probably secretly applaud the denial of tenure but wouldn’t admit it publicly because they know in their heart that this kind of censorship of ideas is WRONG.

  103. Steve Martin Says:

    I look forward to the movie. I’ve researched this issue from several angles and it is clear that we are not even close to answering the big questions with respect to the history of life on Earth. How did it start? Scientists are clueless. How did it develop? We have fragments of pre-historic finds that we try to weave a theory through.

    Evolution? Then why did all the distinct body plans found on earth appear basically at the same time (The so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ duringthe Cambrian time period)? One thing that is clear from our current interpretation of the data is that life did NOT slowly develop from a cell into a fish, into a lizard, into a bid over many millions of years. How do systems with 50+ distinct parts and functions slowly develop, when if one piece/function is missing it serves no purpose?

    Intellegent Design? Yes there is seemingly evidence of design, but, besides it’s philisophical implications, so what? What are Scientists going to do differently if they accept this as true?

    I look forward to the movie, because, the most troubling aspect that I’ve seen in my investigation is the lack of open-mindedness, especially on the evolutionary side. I find it a total joke when I hear someone say “I don’t believe in evolution, I now it’s true like the earth going around the sun”. How do you “know” it is a fact when the evidence is very circumstantial at best with the ‘big events’ in life history? Yes, it can explain how a bacteria changes its resistance or how a bird’s beak size can change over time, but, it is sorely lacking in describing how one gets from a cell to a human.

    At least there are some evolutionists that are willng to admit that this is a weakness in their theory and are trying to sure their theory up. I would recommend anyone to the budding topic of ‘evolutionary development’ or ‘evo-devo’ for short.

  104. Zeno Izen Says:

    Hahah. People who believe in god are wasting their lives.

  105. Rheinhard Says:

    Considering that the producer of this film arrived at most of his interviews with eeeeeeevvvil biologists and scientists by OUTRIGHT FRAUD (providing a false name for the movie, a false description, and false credentials) I am looking forward to seeing the deceitful Mr. Stein be grilled about this if he appears on talk shows. I don’t think his fake persona as Mr. nice genial professorial guy will survive long once people see what a fraud he is and how he is associated with such a deceptive production.

    Click my website link in my name for direct testimony from one of the interview patsies, who ironically would have been more than happy to grant an interview if the film producers had been up-front about their intentions, but who isn’t keen on being used in a phony bit of creationism agitprop.

  106. philos Says:

    I am looking forward to the movie . . . as the movie’s purpose states, it will address the concerns of silencing ANY scientific questioning of Darwinism (as long as proper scientific methods and journaled papers are followed) which is unhealthy in any liberal education and absurd to think otherwise.

    I don’t understand the hysteria among the Darwin camp, of which I am one. The Pope even supports evoultionary theory. Chill. Let nature crystallize into theory. Darwinism is like arithmetic, it makes sense, but in the details - we’re just getting started. Let’s look at this further, let’s study it from all angle, with awe.

    After all, nature is cleverer than we think.

    Note to fanatical atheists: Remember, Dawkins is a 6.8 agnostic, not even an atheist.

    Oh and speaking of atheists, such as PZ Myers. It’s a shame he was out-witted by Dilbert, even worse that the brilliant scientist was conjoured into ‘taping’ for this movie, but priceless for the gut-twisting he’ll go through in being sued, however lame the suit is; the fat-mouth deserves it. Maybe now he’ll be a bit more civil, unlike I.

  107. Theo Says:

    I am another who got onto this website from the article on Dawkins site about how Myers was tricked into providing an interview for this movie.

    *http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

    This says a great deal about what has gone into this movie, this site and the opinions they try to espouse.

  108. Jonathan Abbey Says:

    Ben, I’m a great fan of your thinking and your insight in your financial column, as well as an admirer of your past movies and such. You’re smart and very likable, and I would love to get to talk with you, I think it’d be incredibly enjoyable and informative.

    I do hope this movie you’re doing doesn’t cross beyond its basic thesis. If the movie is a polemic against intellectual prejudice and discrimination in academia, fine, let’s have it. But soliciting interviews under false pretenses (as with PZ Meyers) does not speak well to the intellectual honesty of the undertaking.

    An honest, open debate would be very illuminating, but it doesn’t appear that this is what your movie is about.

    I’d have expected better from you.

    Yours sincerely,

    Jonathan Abbey

  109. Hipple, Rev. Paul T. Says:

    You see, Ben! You are absolutely right! Do you see how all these secular progressives seek to persecute you, to dishonor your good name, and to censor your activities??!!

    All these scientist elitists can do is resort to name calling and derision, because they know the ‘theory’ of evilution cannot withstand the scrutiny of Intelligent Design and the Lord our God.

    And when Rep. Tom Tancredo becomes President of Our Dominion, I wouldn’t be surprised if he closes the doors to all Liberal Universities by his 96th day, or earlier!!

    The Sweet Justice of Lord Baby Jesus fills me with a Spirit that makes me Drop to my Knees in Thanks!!!

  110. America Atheist Says:

    Creationism is wishful-thinking, just like all the other aspects of religion. As with all creationist, Stein has nothing to work in his favor to benefit this pseudoscience nonsence.
    This film will only help to make people who want creationism to be real, look just like those who think they have been abducted by Aliens from Alpha Centauri.
    Here they are again, those creationist, trying to make a case without any evidence. All the evidence availiable works in the Sceientist and Atheist favor. Are we going to go through the Eye thing again or wing crap that Science/Biologist have already beat creationism up with?
    Why ignore the evidence that clearly shows EVOLUTION HAPPENS and continues to happen? Creationist might as well beat their head against a wall.
    God is just as imaginary as Santa Clause, Fairies and Unicorns.
    I should be surprised about the nasty little trick those creationist played on Meyers, but I am not shocked at those tactics of Scheming and lying…as usual.

    There is no god and you know it.

  111. Steven Carr Says:

    ‘There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry’

    Yes, and they were all created by people who realised that they would get nowhere without divine intervention in , for example, the design of air conditioners.

    And now such ideas are to be expelled!

    Fight back, people. Fight back against the hypocrites who decry ideas of divine intervention yet still use the internet which was inspired by religious beliefs.

  112. Matthew Skinta, Ph.D. Says:

    This seems similar to the “debate” over global climate change - politically motivated conservatives have noticed that when it comes to their religio-political issues, scientists are both uninterested and write their ideas off as disproven. Who needs science when we can use public opinion to confuse the masses? Intelligent design is ignored, not because of supression, but because it adds nothing to current biological theory in explaining reality, and interjects quite a few unrelated and difficult-to-prove hypotheses. The preview comments that every generation has a rebel - Ben Stein doesn’t appear to have met that rebel yet.

  113. Laura Says:

    “# Nathan Daniels Says:
    August 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
    …Why don’t you read a biology book instead of pandering to the right-wing nutjobs?”

    Because he is a right wing nut job, sad to say.

  114. Geo Patton Says:

    I agree with disagreeing scientists and scholars that this really is a fulcrum issue for society. Where is the evidence pointing? How do we know what we know, to what level of certainty–and what role can science play?

    Even if Ben Stein has adopted opinions along the way, I admit–I’m curious to see this film
    –IF it takes a gander at some real physical evidence, and IF the final cut accurately shows a representative sampling of competing perspectives.

  115. Stuart (Australia) Says:

    I started reading all the posts with much interest and I can see alot of mentally blind people around bagging somthing they haven’t yet seen..(but that’s the same with alot of things even science)..but the title alone causes their blood to boil. Some of these people haven’t examined both sides of the debate and that is obvious by their crude uneducated comments spouting forth Dawkins and others like a well trained parrot. Shouldn’t science keep an open mind to all things (dare I say even God). It seems funny to me that even when science stumbles on its own laws and boundaries as long as the answer agrees with darwinisum it’s accepted. If you don’t agree with me please answer how science explains the second law of thermodynamics in relation to evolutional THEORY. I’ll save you some time it can’t. But the FACT that it is a LAW of science doen’t stop evolutionists ignoring it. Face it evolution is as much a religion as the Christian, Muslim or any other religion.

    Ben, I’ll reserve judgement until I see the film…I do hope it’s comming to Australia….I’d love the debate it will obviously cause judging from this blog.

    As to all you blogsters….peace, good will and love to you all.

  116. eric Says:

    This is inspired by empty-headed amoral power grabs and propaganda moves by people who don’t much care for other people. If I didn’t worry about my nephew’s future and the future of his friends I suppose I could join you in this horrible charade.

    Ben Stein is a creep.

  117. EdwinHarbor Says:

    It is amazing how vile and nasty those on the anti-ID side are. To be honest, I don’t have a position yet, but I do know that I don’t want to sit down and have a cup of joe with those nasty guys.

    Maybe I’ll just wait for the movie, watch it and decide if IT is done well or poorly. Either way, I promise I won’t jump off one side or the other of the topic purely based upon a flick!

    And hey, Ben, you hang in there…always good to see someone take on a tough topic with a bit of humor.

  118. Cubist Says:

    What, *exactly*, IS this “theory of Intelligent Design” which is supposedly being suppressed by a Dogmatic Scientific Orthodoxy (TM)? ID supporters, as a group, are quick to complain “No, *that* ISN’T what ID says”… but somehow, for all the “not This, not That, not The Other” verbiage they generate, ID supporters never quite get around to explaining what the heck ID *is*.
    So, again: What, *exactly*, IS this “theory of Intelligent Design” thingamajobbie? From what I’ve been able to glean from the IDist literature, ID “theory” can be summed up in seven words: “Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something”. And *that* is what ID supporters claim is being unjustly suppressed? Yeah, right.
    Now, I’m sure that ID supporters will complain that my 7-word summary is inaccurate, that it distorts ID, yada yada yada. Well, maybe so… but if my summary *is*, in fact, inaccurate, how about explaining where, *exactly*, it goes wrong?
    What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “somehow” — what tool(s) and/or technique(s) did the Intelligent Designer(s) use to do whatever It/They did?
    What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “somewhere” — in which location(s) did the Intelligent Designer(s) *do* whatever it was It/They *did*?
    What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “somebody intelligent”, other than the bare assertion that It/They *is/are* intelligent — is there only one Intelligent Designer, or is there more than one?
    What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “something” that the Intelligent Designer(s) “did” — what action(s) did It/They perform, for what purpose(s), using what resource(s)?
    Hopefully, nobody out there will disagree that anything as vacuous as “somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something” is *not* a scientific theory; the only point of disagreement should be whether or not “somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something” is an accurate summary of Intelligent Design. So how about it, ID supporters? What *does* ID actually say? How *does* ID ‘theory’ differ from “somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something”?
    Bueller? Anyone?

  119. Wiggy Says:

    I’m sorry but there is no grand conspiracy to eliminate alternatives to the theory of evolution. Academics around the world are not foolish enough to conspire to repress new ideas in science.

    The fact is, IF someone were able to provide any solid evidence for an alternative theory to evolution they would be as celebrated in the scientific world as Einstein. The beauty of scientific inquiry is that you CAN become wildly famous by DISPROVING an accepted theory. There is no dogma in science.

  120. DrFrank Says:

    Well, you never know, maybe the movie comes to the sensible conclusion that ID is a vacuous mask for Biblical Creationism, and that is has absolutely no foundation in science.

    *hollow laughing sound*

    Seriously, about the only Creationist canard I haven’t seen so far on this thread is “but if we evolved from monkeys where are there still monkeys?!!!”.

  121. bluerondo Says:

    Boy, judging from some of the negative comments from folk who feel so threatened by and antagonistic to the ID view (in America, the home of the free; that is, if you think like us:-), I’d say you folks just ate up Michael Moore’s “Sicko” and “Farenheit 911″, typically mindless liberal gospel that it is. I’m comforted by the fact that “Farenheit 911″ is now in the $6 DVD bin where it belonged from the day of it’s release. Oh, the myth of neutrality…

  122. David Morning Says:

    Considering the fact that Galileo was executed for his teaching of the “heretical” idea that the universe isn’t geo-centric, I’d say he’s probably not the best of people to put forward as a supporter of your cause. Also, Einstein believed in a pan-theistic deity, that is a deity who controls things but does not interceed on anyone’s behalf. He was, of course, duly derided for believing such blasphames

    That said I want to make something else clear, ID is not science. In order to be a scientific theory it must first be a hypothesis, the first requirement of which is falsifiability. ID does not have this, and is therefore not science, it is philosophy.

  123. Jeremy Says:

    Wow… No need for the film, Ben. All these nasty comments are proving your point. I guess you’ve been “expelled” from the internet realm. Yikes…

  124. Matt Says:

    So why did this film invite interviews from prominant scientist under false pretenses?

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

    Were you aware of this dishonesty Ben?

  125. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    Ben Stein:

    Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.[ ]A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.

    I’m not a US citizen, but it seems easy to note that the US constitution and the relevant 1st amendment doesn’t base itself on rights given by any particular gods or even gods in general.

    The constitution is founded by the people for the people:

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    And freedom of individuals is founded on separation between state and religion:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator. Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.

    Well, aren’t you ignorant of the history and inner workings of science! Any description which isn’t based on a mechanism isn’t predictive and cannot be trusted. This is why “design”, “creators”, et cetera has never become a part of science - they were put aside when the project started to take off because they were shown to be fallacious at best and not working at worst.

    As comment #1 notes, while science can give all the answers we demand of it, socio-political creationism such as ID isn’t interested in that. It is based on the false premise that any hypothesized successful criticism of a particular science would mean creationism is automatically the remaining alternative. Even worse, the proposed alternative isn’t a working choice.

    A Media Corporation promoted Premise based on the fallacy of false choice must be EXPELLED as there is No Intelligence Allowed in it.

  126. FrasH Says:

    “Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”

    I seem to remember a Michael Behe working at Lehigh University. Or does he not think about ID anymore?

  127. hokeygrandma Says:

    I don’t have time to read all of the posts above but I have noticed that many posters are opposed to the thesis of this movie.

    I really just want to ask what the opposers think science is and what it is they think scientists are trying to do.

    Do they think that their family physician is a scientist? What about police detectives?

    If you don’t think either of these two groups should be classified as scientists, why do you think that? And what other label would you suggest that would fit them better?

    I ask because I know that virtually no one thinks that doctors are scientists. This is why medical undergraduates usually have to sit through a lecture titled something like, “Medicine: Is it a science or an art?”.

    And yet what doctors do in order to diagnose an illness (so that they can prescribe the correct treatment) is precisely the same sort of process that (macro)evolutionary biologist types go through when they’re trying to explain how we got to here from nothing at all. Personally I don’t think what the macroevolutionary people are doing is science. But then I think of science as the effort to describe, in generalisable terms, how repeatable natural events occur.

    I don’t think that the word “science” properly describes the process by which a philosophically pre-determined idea (i.e., matter is all there is) is used to try to convince everyone alive that, indeed, matter is all there is. That sounds more like “propaganda” to me. See Lysenkoism.

  128. JoeBuddha Says:

    Cubist: I pretty much agree, but you forget the most important part: How do you know? Even the ID folks seem to agree that “the bible said so” isn’t really a scientific explanation, so the real question is: What methodology did you use to come up with this theory, and what experiments / observations / scientific procedures can I use to come to the same conclusion. I don’t know about you, but I’m perfectly willing to be shown that I’m wrong on this; I just need to see for myself. That’s science, isn’t it?

  129. If this comes out on my birthday I’m going to be pissed… « Laelaps Says:

    […] around the site already points to the overall lack of research and downright stupidity employed by our “hero” Stein in trying to scare conservatives into believing him. From the site’s blog; Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no […]

  130. improvius Says:

    It’s a shame that someone who used to stand for knowledge is now the champion of ignorance.

  131. Marc (South Africa) Says:

    All the vitriole being poured out against this movie makes me think of Muslims who riot and cause injury to people and property when someone suggests that Islam is involved in violence. If they are representaive of the movers and shakers in academia, they are proving the point. Let’s watch the movie.

  132. X-Evolutionist Says:

    I am really looking forward to this movie. After believing the brainwashing on origins I received in school for decades, I finally found out there is no proof to what I was taught, just suppositions and conjecture.

    Yes, true science is being supressed. Anything that does not prove the preconceived “truth” is rejected.

    You go, Ben Stein!

    Sincerely,

    X

  133. Jeremy Says:

    Ben,

    I don’t know much about ID theory, and what evidence is use to prove it, but I do believe God created us. I believe in God, and I use the bible as my proof. The bible is a history book. It’s history, and many of the people in the bible have been provin to exsist. The writings, from where the Bible comes from, have been around for hundreds for years. Alot longer than any of our history books for our country, but people believe in George Washington, but can’t believe in Jesus. It sounds to me like they don’t want to believe, because it would make them accountable for their actions. I hope your movie does well. Your blog along is proof that there are people out there trying to shut us up. They can’t stand for someone to have a different opinion or theory. Keep Believing.

  134. Graculus Says:

    “Some of these people haven’t examined both sides of the debate”

    Actually, we have. Every time an ID/Creationist yells “persecution” the pro-reality community goes to work digging up the facts. Long experience has taught us to never accept any such statement on face value, as ID/Creationists have a long history of misrepresentation. The stories of the “expelled” have been discussed in much detail elsewhere, a qwuick Google will bring the facts to light.

    Oh, such brave rebels the film makers are, obtaining their interviews under false flags so as to avoid any of that “confrontation” that they advertize. This would be a good time to remind them that “What the Bleep…” is involved in lawsuits over their rather “creative” editing of their interview subjects.

    Read Disco’s Wedge document, in which the tactics and goals are laid out. Read about how they want “To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life”….”To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.”…”Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory”

    That isn’t a scientific program, that’s theocracy.

    And Ben Stein thinks that’s a good thing. Do you?

  135. Ian Says:

    This is good… Ben Stein who isn’t a scientist who isn’t a relgion expert of any sort is the judge and jury for the intelligent design. Great.

  136. AndySocial Says:

    Second Law? Seriously, Stuart? You don’t understand the concept of “closed system” do you?

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. So, the Second Law doesn’t apply. If EVERYTHING had to be constrained by the Second Law, including open systems, you’d never be able to bake a cake. Can’t go around decreasing entropy, even on a local basis.

  137. Jason Failes Says:

    Looks funny,

    but what I’ve never been able to find is the actual research the ID proponents are conducting (perhaps I don’t have access to those journals or I am using the incorrect search terms).

    For example, there is a lot of debate going on in cosmology right now, because the universe appears to be accelerating, we are finding old stars when we look out 13billion light-years into space, and some other findings that the Big Bang model has trouble explaining. So, because of these findings, there is significant debate in the cosmology community of late, even a “Crisis in Cosmology” conference or two.

    However, there seems to be no similar research in ID; no one is finding problems with evolution, no one is even looking, literally. Behe’s extended arguments from incredulity depend upon on him not reading the many research articles that contradict his every point, and count on his audience not reading them either. Indeed “The Wedge Document” and B. Forrest’s research make it clear that ID is primarily a social, rather than a scientific, movement concerned with creating a constitutional alternative to “creation science”.

    If there is no research and no findings that call into question evolutionary biology and uniquely support ID, it is not science. It is a philosophy, and given the religiousity of America, it is a philosophy we have all heard before, often indoctrinated into in the name of a “the one true faith®”. How is that appropriate for public school science classes?

    I’m sorry for all the “persecution” these people are facing, but academic failure is the price of intellectual dishonesty. Or do you propose we should set up a sort of “affirmative action” to give equal time to geologists who will skew the facts to support Noah’s flood, or biologists who spend all their time, and their university’s money, trying to jam the square peg of Genesis into the round hole of the actual facts?

    Remember, we are competing in a global marketplace now. You could be terribly successful, sway public opinion, win the culture wars here, remove any mention of evolution from universities and public schools, and teach pure “creation science” to children from kindergarden, and none of that would make evolution less true, nor would it stop other countries from using evolutionary biology to do new research and develop new technologies to their competitive advantage.

  138. John Sturgeon Says:

    These seven words,I cannot argue with you,seem about what the IDers are saying.But you are missing the main point of the intellegent design proponents. The main point being,if Neo Darwinists cannot explain pathways that would have led to the evolution of such things as DNA,the complex molecullar machines in cells,and things that seem to be irrreducibly complex( such as the bacterium flagellum/motor), then maybe there is no evolutionary answer for these things.
    Any one familiar with the scientific literature would know that famouse scientists expressed doubts about evolution. The theory of Panspermia ( life was seeded by aliens ) was believed by some, including Francis Crick, a nobel prize winning scientist who worked with DNA.They believed Panspermia because because thought life could not have originated on Earth.
    Now what IDers are saying is that Design,information,and specified complexity could not have arrisen by natural laws and chance.They are saying an intellegenct designer is the obvious answer.

  139. Rich Says:

    Stuart from Australia. G’Day.

    Classic creationist SLoT argument. Earth isn’t a closed system, it’s powered by the sun. Acorns grow into trees, so emperically your arguments are wrong.

    Tell us about the ‘theory’ of ID, its experiments, its predictions.

  140. Kanugalihi Says:

    Errrm, ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion or God. It has to do with defeating materialism, which is anti-religion and anti-God. See it doesn’t have anything to do with it.

    And it’s all science so far!!! the Explanatory Filter can identify design, except in cases where it doesn’t, and your credit card number either has Complex Specified Information in it, or it doesn’t. You just have to ask the right IDist and be prepared for the definition and talking points to change.

    And it is completely compatible with evolutionary theory, except in cases where it isn’t. Depends on who you ask in the BIG TENT of Intelligent Design. Some are young earth creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis), some are Old Earth Creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis) and some (one) are atheist pleasurian polymaths, and many many many many more (the rest) are just regular old bible-believing plain folks that don’t have time to wade through facts and the logical structure of propositions. Science=Democracy! All Science So Far!!!

  141. Aaron Allison Says:

    PZ Myers blogged about appearing in the movie as a result of being duped into the role by the movie’s producers. You can read about that in his blog which is easily found online.

    I wonder why an intelligent person such as Ben Stein is associating himself with such an immoral and dishonest group of people. I’m afraid he’s been duped as well. He makes this seem like an issue of freedom which it is as much as fighting to teach alchemy in chemistry classes, astrology in astronomy classes, or the stork theory in reproductive biology classes are issues of freedom. The U.S. (my homeland) is second to last on the list of acceptance of evolution among 34 industrialized countries (with only Turkey falling behind) and it’s because of rampant religious fundamentalism. The ID movement takes advantage of the lack of science understanding this fundamentalism has caused. I can’t see it as anything but harmful to our country and the world.

  142. notyou Says:

    So, lemme get this straight: Your producers lied to interviewees about the movie which you were making, and you people are supposed to be the MORAL ones.

  143. Tokyojim Says:

    Wow! I applaud your courage to take on such a contentious topic! Most of these people already know they are right and so they ridicule you before even seeing the film. I think you are going to lose a lot of fans and make a lot of enemies, but judging from the amount of ridicule and negative comments on this site already, I think there are an awful lot of people who need to see this film. Unfortunately, I bet many of these people will not watch the film for themselves. It is easier to just parrot the critics who do see it and continue to attack Intelligent Design. I do believe there are some who seriously believe that evolution is right. They are ignorant of what is happening and when they see this movie, I’m betting it will cause them to question things. It is worth it to make this film for all these who have been unkowingly brainwashed and duped into placing their faith in chance and natural processes, and blindly trusting Big Science. I’m looking forward to the film. Hopefully it will be shown in Japan so I can see it.

    tj

  144. Steve_C Says:

    Here’s the theory of ID in a nutshell.

    God did it.

    Not very scientific is it.

    The god of the gaps is an old old idea.

  145. Glenn Says:

    Suricou Raven wrote, “…[R]efusing to allow ID to be taught as serious science is no different to excluding astrology, tarot-reading or feng-shui.”

    Intelligent Design is completely different from astrology, tarot-reading and feng shui:
      1) Astrology, tarot-reading and feng shui do *not* claim to be
        scientific models. ID does.
      2) Astrology, tarot-reading and feng shui *do* make claims and
        predictions that can be tested and
    potentially falsified…like any
        scientific hypothesis. ID does *not* make any claims or predictions
        that can be tested or potentially falisfied.

    In this latter respect, astrology, tarot-reading and feng shui are more sensible scientific models than ID.

  146. Paul Humber Says:

    Super job, Ben! Someone above referred to Kenneth Miller of Brown. If someone would like to read my interactions with Kenneth Miller, go to my website and send me an email. I can send the article about it as a “pdf” attachment. Dr. Miller needs to be able to see “new information” evolve, but his efforts to support this notion were feeble. I also discuss with him his apparent theological confusion. www.CRMinistriesPhilly.com.

  147. Glenn Says:

    Ben Stein apparently wrote, “Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”

    How do you explain, then, that about 40% of working scientists believe in God? Are they all forbidden to think about their intelligent creator? See:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v386/n6624/abs/386435a0.html

  148. kellbelle1020 Says:

    Yeah, you know what else is being suppressed in science classrooms around the country (and even the world!)? Phrenology, phlogiston, geocentrism, alchemy, homunculus theory of conception, the four humors, rotating aether spheres, and countless other scientific theories that Big Science doesn’t want you to know about!

    I hope, now that the Truth has been revealed to you, that you fight for the freedom of these ideas to be expressed, discussed, and taught as fact in schools too. Because, as you say, FREEDOM is what makes this country great! And if we don’t have the FREEDOM to teach anything we want as valid science, our country will surely be destroyed.

  149. Chris Says:

    Wow ben, what a sell out. Look forward to ignoring your future endeavors.

  150. Scholar Says:

    Indeed, the Bible is the only truth that science needs. Jesus spent much of his life on Earth burying and hiding fafossils so that devil worshipers would have something to keep them busy.

    Just look at Ben Stein’s turkey gullet and that is sure evidence of a Designer. A turkey gullet like Ben Stein’s could not have formed by chance. I hope the movie is not as boring as all of Stein’s other work.

    To all the Christians who think evolution is not a fact: You are fools.

  151. Nullifidian Says:

    “Rob K”:

    Many people posting act like your claim that college students, professors and scientists can’t express their views is bogus. Maybe they should talk to Guillermo Gonzales who was denied tenure despite being vastly over qualified in comparison to what is the minimum expectations to receive tenure.

    For a unique definition of “vastly overqualified” which actually means “doesn’t do original research and couldn’t attract a grant if his life depended on it”. In contrast to the other U of Iowa physicists, who attract, on average $1.3 million each in grants, Gonzalez didn’t attract a single major grant in all his time in Iowa, and only attracted a little over $22,000 overall. This is not purely an abstract consideration. In research universities, the professor is the primary investigator (PI) and is supported by a phalanx of grad students, postdocs, etc. whom she has to pay out of her grant money. No grant money, no research assistants, means no research, which means nobody will give you precious telescope time, etc. It all ends in not being able to be the productive researcher that a university likes to see.

    Far from being overqualified, he was underqualified.

    Truth be told most of the above hostile posters probably secretly applaud the denial of tenure but wouldn’t admit it publicly because they know in their heart that this kind of censorship of ideas is WRONG.

    I don’t secretly applaud the denial of tenure in this case, I openly do so. Academia has enough unproductive hacks with tenure, so we shouldn’t be pushing people with a spotty record of attracting grants into new sinecures. This is not a censorship of ideas; if anything Gonzalez is now more free to publish his ID speculations without having to fake his way through the appearance of teaching or doing real research.

    “Steve Martin”:

    I’ve researched this issue from several angles and it is clear that we are not even close to answering the big questions with respect to the history of life on Earth. How did it start? Scientists are clueless.

    Contrast with “…Progress made in the last few years has added to this early work and brings us closer to a satisfactory solution. In this article key results, old and new, and some ideas as to how further progress is likely to be made are discussed. There are reasons for optimism. Substantial progress has been made on the synthesis of purines and ribose, phosphorylation and polyphosphorylation. …”

    Zubay G., Mui T. (2001) “Prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides.” Orig Life Evol Biosph Feb-Apr;31(1-2):87-102

    And that’s from six years ago. Progress since then has only increased. Perhaps the “next angle” you research this from should be reading what actual scientists in the field have to say.

    How did it develop? We have fragments of pre-historic finds that we try to weave a theory through.

    And biogeography, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genomics, etc. Why is it when creationists want to talk about evolution, all they can seem to discuss are the fossils? Perhaps it’s my bias coming from a background in cell biology and biophysics, but I don’t think there’s evidence for evolution that’s better than the genomic evidence. This is very well explained for the layman in Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata’s Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent.

    Evolution? Then why did all the distinct body plans found on earth appear basically at the same time (The so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ duringthe Cambrian time period)?

    They didn’t. If creationists have to discuss fossils, I have a word for you to learn and love: vendobionta. These are the fossilized creatures from the Vendian, the era prior to the Cambrian. At one time they were thought to have been an evolutionary innovation that died out entirely, but subsequent research both into the Vendian and the Lower Cambrian has shown that there are clear patterns of descent from the Vendian through the Cambrian.

    Secondly, not all phyla appeared in the Cambrian or even the Vendian. This is particularly true outside the animal kingdom, but even within it. Bryozoans don’t appear until the Ordovician, ctenophores until the Devonian, nematodes, nemertines, and echiurans until the Carboniferous.

    The entire plant kingdom didn’t exist, as far as we can tell from the fossil record, before the Silurian, so all its phyla emerged in the Silurian or later. Creationists need to reconcile this with their arguments about the Cambrian in order to remain intellectually consistent. After all, if the Cambrian “explosion” is to be taken as an instantiation of the divine creation of animals, what are we to make of the fact that no plants appear at all until two geological epochs later?

    One thing that is clear from our current interpretation of the data is that life did NOT slowly develop from a cell into a fish, into a lizard, into a bid over many millions of years.

    Congratulations. Perhaps you’re on you’re way to understand that evolution does not take place in the singular: it deals with populations over generations.

    How do systems with 50+ distinct parts and functions slowly develop, when if one piece/function is missing it serves no purpose?

    Or perhaps not.

    The problem with the argument you’ve outlined above, beyond its plain inaccuracy, is that it assumes that evolution is a predestined stepwise ascension to the final product, therefore by removing “parts” you can retrace the path of evolution. It’s using teleological thinking to argue against conventional biology in order to make a case for teleological thinking. This self-contradiction at the core of your argument torpedoes it below the waterline before we’ve even gotten started discussing specifics.

    If you want specifics, however, they’ve been discussed for decades. See, for example, Thomas H. Frazzetta’s book Complex Adaptations in Evolving Populations.

    For a more (relatively) recent case of the evolution of such a system, try:

    Copley, SD. (2000) “Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach.” Trends Biochem Sci 25:261-265.

    Intellegent Design? Yes there is seemingly evidence of design, but, besides it’s philisophical implications, so what? What are Scientists going to do differently if they accept this as true?

    They had better be doing something different, otherwise the ID approach must be content-free. That’s the thing about science. It’s not just enough to say “I have another way of looking at this”. Instead your theory must either make divergent predictions from the prevailing theory which are then confirmed or it must encompass a broader set of phenomena than the prevailing theory.

    What strikes me is that you have at least heard of evo-devo, which is very much a current discipline (only having really gotten off the ground in the past twenty-five years) and yet you don’t know about sources of information which are ancient by the standards of the sciences and yet still refute your claims. Granted, this is not completely your fault, because ID proponents do their best to ignore the data and muddy the waters, but don’t you think you owe it to yourself to actually learn about what scientists are saying about your questions before asking them? It’s not like we’re a particularly secretive bunch.

    “Stuart (Australia)”:

    It seems funny to me that even when science stumbles on its own laws and boundaries as long as the answer agrees with darwinisum it’s accepted. If you don’t agree with me please answer how science explains the second law of thermodynamics in relation to evolutional THEORY. I’ll save you some time it can’t.

    Here’s a particularly egregious example of what I’m talking about. There’s a whole branch of thermodynamics called non-equilibrium thermodynamics which has very definite applications in the field of biology (see, for example, Statistical Thermodynamics of Nonequilibrium Processes by Joel Keizer, a pioneer in computational cell biology).

    However, in brief, organisms derive their energy from the surrounding environment in a variety of ways. Hydrothermal vents on the sea floor are subject to entropy, as is the sun, which gives off lots of entropy far and wide. A small portion of this energy is turned into biologically useful energy (e.g. the way chloroplasts use sunlight with carbon dioxide and water to synthesize sugars). This provides energy for the organisms which become the base of the food web. The other creatures in the food web eat the former and each other and gain energy. These creatures also give off entropy (this is why you radiate body heat). In fact, there is no physiological process known which is 100% efficient. Like the little old lady anecdote in A Brief History of Time, it’s entropy all the way down.

  152. Teno Groppi Says:

    The detractors in here prove Mr. Stein’s premise. He hints that evolution should be critically examined and the evolulus gnash at him, fangs bared. That is invariably the reaction. It seems as if cowardly evolutionists are so afraid of light being shined on their religious theory that they result to ad hominem insults to frighten off challengers.

  153. DaveB Says:

    Hey Ben,
    Looks like you are on to something!
    Anytime someone is called Bozo the Clown, an idiot, a catspaw for the religious right, a liar, a freaking moron, a fraud, a right wing nutjob, an empty headed creep, and a pathetic fake by so-called “sane, intelligent scientifically minded seekers of truth”, it draws my attention.
    Something is awry, when someone’s professed belief elicits that kind of hatred and vitriol from those who do not hold that belief. That kind of name calling is usually reserved for those who are frightened, covering something up, or trying to defend their own turf.
    For instance, I don’t believe in a flat earth, and so I don’t frequent flat earth web sites, nor do I read flat-earther books or articles. The belief in a flat earth in my mind, is beyond the pale, it is a non story, and because it is so preposterous to me, I do not, I cannot, get excited about the fact that some people do believe in a flat earth. Because of that, flat-earther’s do not upset me, nor do they scare me with their belief’s. I don’t call them names, and I don’t froth at the mouth over their beliefs. I simply ignore them, because what they believe is demonstrably, scientifically falsifiable, and so I leave that fight behind for people who have much more time on their hands than I do. I have never lost a minutes sleep over it.
    The point is, if ID is so “out there”, so preposterous, and so easily proven false, and it is truly a belief that is only held by the “Bozo’s” and “Moron’s” of this world, why all the fuss?
    Could it be that the Bozo’s and Moron’s are on to something?
    I cannot wait to see the movie!

  154. Rich Says:

    I don’t think Ben Stein will be answering any of these questions. He’ll hope we all go see the film and he’ll take his cut.

  155. Paul Humber Says:

    My item #144 above does not seem to work when you click on my website. Don’t click on it, therefore, but just type it in separately. It should work for you then.

  156. Nullifidian Says:

    “David Morning”:
    Considering the fact that Galileo was executed for his teaching of the “heretical” idea that the universe isn’t geo-centric, I’d say he’s probably not the best of people to put forward as a supporter of your cause.

    If we’re going to demand standards of accuracy of the IDists, I think it’s only fair to point out that Galileo wasn’t executed. He was forced to publicly recant, wear the yellow “cross of infamy” (which implied social ostracization or imprisonment) and be subjected to house arrest for the rest of his life. It’s not quite as extreme as execution, but it’s hardly cheering for Ben Stein, the presumptive author this ignorant screed.

    On the other hand, Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for heresy for, among other things, speculating that humans evolved from non-human ancestors. Maybe when Ben Stein sees that happening in academe, then he’ll have a case.

    “Andy Social”:
    Second Law? Seriously, Stuart? You don’t understand the concept of “closed system” do you?

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. So, the Second Law doesn’t apply. If EVERYTHING had to be constrained by the Second Law, including open systems, you’d never be able to bake a cake. Can’t go around decreasing entropy, even on a local basis.

    I can see what you’re saying, but it’s a mistake to say that the second law just applies to closed/isolated systems only. It applies to all systems, but the isolated systems are the ones that yield easy freshman physics equations. In the case of open systems, it still applies, but in a far more complex way which is called non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The Belousov-Zhabotinsky chemical oscillator is one of the most celebrated cases in non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

    However, your general point is accurate. In open systems, local decreases in entropy can drive the formation of local “order” at the expense of greater entropy dispersed elsewhere. Although “order” is a tricky qualitative term in thermodynamics too, which is why I put it in scare quotes. For example, a layer of oil on a layer of water is more orderly than when it’s stirred up together, but the former is more entropically favorable.

  157. carterbabel Says:

    This film is a horrendous attempt to promote ID masquerading as a fight for freedom. It is a cheap shot at exploiting America’s 0bsession with the term freedom (even tho few of us actually stop to consider what this term actually means).

    I think kellbelles comment above makes a very strong point… you don’t hear him fighting for their cause do you. How pathetic. Come on Ben, grow up!!!

  158. Scott Chapman Says:

    Do you actually think this documentary ISN’T going to be utterly ripped apart by anyone who can think for themselves?

    Nice career move….

  159. RBH Says:

    Cubist asked what the actual theory of intelligent design is. I’ve read Dembski, Behe, Meyers, and their colleagues, and I can say with knowledgeable confidence that the theory of intelligent says no more nor less than this:

    “Sometime or other, something (or some things) designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured it in matter and energy, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process, the manufacturing process, or the presence (or even the existence) of the designing and manufacturing entities,”

    Now test that, you uppity scientists!

  160. Peter Ashby Says:

    Hey dude, just heard that the production ‘company’ for this crock of propanda misrepresented themselves, the name of the production company and the nature of the film to PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins and others. Since when has lying been a good xian behaviour? By their fruits shall you know them is I think what the piece of ancient meanderings you lot pander to says.

    So, you people are going to hell, if it exists. Now there is a nice warm thought to think.

  161. Steve Says:

    What “confrontation”? You people lied through your teeth to get a few interviews with prominent scientists under completely false pretences.

    This is the letter they sent to PZ Myers for example:

    [quote] Hello Mr. Myers,

    My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.”

    At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment.

    We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.

    Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time.

    I look forward to speaking with you soon.

    Sincerely,

    Mark Mathis
    Rampant Films
    4414 Woodman Ave. #203
    Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
    www.rampantfilms.com[/quote]

    What a bunch of deceitful cowards. Are your arguments really so weak that you have to fake a “confrontation” with scientists - this is just lame propaganda - Stalin and Goebbels would be proud of you.

  162. Amanda Says:

    Stein, your diatribe here is embarrassing. You, a presumebly thoughtful human being, is suggesting that in not acknowledging every last creation myth and every last deity ever conjured in the unimaginative yarns spun by our uneducated ancestors we are somehow taking away people’s freedom. I’m assuming then that if you had your way we’d continue to teach alchemy, divination, rune-casting, astrology and all the other infantile forms of bullshit that our gullible predessesors employed to “understand” the universe. People like you should be stripped of your credentials.

  163. D. DuVal Says:

    Wow, did you ever hit a nerve with this one! I am astonished at how many Darwinian Fundamentalists signed on to repeat the same tired drivel that has been repeatedly refuted. They just seem to stick their fingers in their ears after a point and proclaim the discussion is over, rather than actually acknowledge the rebuttals and attempt to answer them. I’m not sure who you have helping you on this, but I do hope that you will make sure your facts are exactly right, because Darwinists will pick on any error, no matter how immaterial, while littering the thought-scape with their own. I’m sure many qualified scientists would be willing to help, since some anti-darwinian web sites go so far as to list arguments in favor of their position they think should not be used and why.

  164. Jeb, FCD Says:

    Ben,

    If you want to live in a theocracy so badly, please move to Iran.

  165. Dave Mc Says:

    Ben,

    I’m sure you’re not going to read this so I don’t know why I’m bothering. And I don’t know you personally so I’m sure my opinion of you will not affect you very much. However, I just wanted you to know that I’ve lost all respect for you. I’m certainly not going to resort to calling you names, as others have done, but I would like to repeat this as I think it is important…I’ve lost all respect for you.

    You are a brilliant guy, especially when it comes to economics and investing. I mean that. I’m looking past Ferris Bueller and Win Ben Stein’s Money. I’ve learned a great deal from those articles you have written regarding management of personal finances. Now what am I supposed to think? This was coming from a guy who clearly doesn’t understand the scientific method.

    You have become the dumbest smart person I know.

    Dave Mc

  166. Lone Ranger Says:

    The atheist doth protest too much, methinks.

  167. Steve_C Says:

    So Bush must be doing a FABULOUS job because so many people call him a disaster?

    That’s an interesting way at looking at the world.

    Backwards. But interesting.

  168. Chris Says:

    Just at a glance it seems anti-ID vastly outnumbers Creationists et al (ya know-those of us dumb enough to actually believe in God?) and yet we are still here! Praise God!

    With the amount of resources devoted to undermining the authority of the Bible isn’t it peculiar that it still remains? I guess there must be a force more powerful than money or science or humans to provide this outcome. I think something like that is called “supernatural”. Isn’t it?

    No matter how “advanced” our (homo-sapien) science progresses, there will still be questions unanswered. The last scientist on Earth (and one day there will be a last) will still have unanswered/unproven theories. Dare I say that the last question on their HEART will most likely be “why?”. This alone necessitates and points to a force outside of our realm of understanding. Therefor there will ALLWAYS be, by definition, supernatural.

    Either camp DEMANDS faith. Go Ben!

    Chris

  169. Tom Says:

    If anyone in Vegas has a line on a Stein vs. Pagan Left match, my money (all of it) will be on Stein.

  170. Reynold Hall Says:

    Teno Groppi said:

    “The detractors in here prove Mr. Stein’s premise. He hints that evolution should be critically examined and the evolulus gnash at him, fangs bared. That is invariably the reaction. It seems as if cowardly evolutionists are so afraid of light being shined on their religious theory that they result to ad hominem insults to frighten off challengers.”

    Just a few problems with that statement: It’s flat-out wrong. Evolution has been under the microscope for decades, and it’s passed every honest test thrown at it.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    You may also want to check out the transcripts and the judges decision from the Dover Trial.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

    Bottom line, both the claims of evolution and ID were examined, and ID’s claims fell apart under cross-examination, while the evolutionary claims have stood.

    Not very honest to claim otherwise, and not very smart to do so when all the evidence is public record! For another example of the dishonesty invovled in this film, check out how they got PZ Myers to interview them!

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php#more

  171. lizvelrene Says:

    Hey Ben, do you know why people who appear in your movie Expelled thought they were being interviewed for a movie called Crossroads?

    That seems a little shady.. and possibly some sort of breach of contract. I wonder what sort of editing tricks will be employed in order to fit them into the theme of your movie. But don’t worry, the internet has a long memory, and we won’t let anyone forget what sorts of underhanded trickery you had to pull to get credible scientists to appear in your work.

  172. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    Stuart:

    answer how science explains the second law of thermodynamics in relation to evolutional [sic] theory [Emphasis removed.]

    There is no need - you grow up from a fetus to an adult without problems with thermodynamical laws.

    If you are curious how systems like snow flakes, crystals, computers or life makes “order” out of disorder, they do so by dumping their entropy elsewhere. The whole Earth radiates and dumps it further, as long as the sun heats it.

    AndySocial:

    The earth is not a closed system. So, the Second Law doesn’t apply.

    Your argument is essentially correct, but a problem is that a common formulation of 2LOT (seen for example in Wikipedia) is too restrictive. 2LOT applies in all systems, but it is easiest to express for closed systems. Nullifidian in comment #154 explains further.

    [I can perhaps add that gravitation and cosmology adds further complications. Since gravitational systems attracts (spontaneously “order”) and energy in general relativity is only locally uniquely defined, you can have trouble to apply 2LOT simply or at all for gravitational systems and cosmological scales.

    Then again, AFAIK de Sitter universes can be shown to yield nicely to treatment. In any case, science is never as simple as religious dogmatists of the ID kind is lead to believe.]

  173. BW Says:

    Wow, the Darwinistas are already out in full force!

  174. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    hokeygrandma:

    I don’t think that the word “science” properly describes the process by which a philosophically pre-determined idea (i.e., matter is all there is) is used to try to convince everyone alive that, indeed, matter is all there is.

    It doesn’t look like you know what science is, but this happens to be exactly correct - science does nothing of that.

    Or can you tell us where in biology or other sciences is there an assumption of “matter is all there is”?

    Kanugahili:

    Errrm, ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion or God.

    ID is a socio-political movement, and it is revamped creationism - the court in Dover vs ABE was forced to establish that because of its proponents threatened to take its religious ideas into science education. You can easily find the court transcripts on the web.

    Note especially how the clumsy rewriting of ID’s seminal text Of Pandas and People made it possible to prove this to the courts satisfaction.

  175. Reynold Hall Says:

    Ah yes, I forgot to talk about some of the likely examples of persecution that will likely be in the movie.

    For the real story about why Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure, you may want to check out this:
    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/tenure_and_the_id_persecution.php

    Sadly, maybe it takes some cartoons to get the message across?

    http://www.nmsr.org/davetoon.htm
    http://www.nmsr.org/cese0507.jpg
    http://www.nmsr.org/idtoon-1.GIF

    and more.

    The singular difference between people like Newton, Galileo and the ID people: Those guys were shot down by the christian church and their work was supressed. The ID people? The scientific community is waiting and waiting for them to come up with any actual evidence for their theories. So far, they’ve come up with none. No predictions, no research projects, no experiments, nada.

    As the Dover trial showed, the few claims that they have made are all based on a selectively-screened out version of the existing data so as to make evolutio look weaker than it really is (ex. check out the judge’s decion and the court transcript itself about the blood-clotting cascade problem!)

    Well, maybe another difference between Newton and the ID people is that the ID people are quite childish in their defeat. Dembski made a flash animation of Judge Jones complete with farting noises!

    http://richarddawkins.net/article,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-Dembski

  176. Walt Says:

    Rob, RBH, Rich, Steve_C, Ryan and others,

    I’m wondering if you can state an actual theory of evolution, and give an example of an repeatable observation which supports it to the exclusion of other explanations which include a designer or creator. I doubt this is possible, since you have only the present in which to make observations.

    When you can do this, though, you can say that ID people have “no theory” and feel superior for having one.

    The truth is that the evidence and facts (observations made in the present) are the same for everyone.

    Interpretations and inferences are what are up for discussion in science, once the observations have been replicated, and certain interpretations of this same evidence are being censored.

    Ben, I hope you are able to carry through on this film! I look forward to seeing it.

  177. Ken Says:

    The only way to identify truth (a supposed goal of science) is through freedom. Areas of thought where debate must be squelched are always, without fail, areas where certain types or groups of individuals can’t or won’t allow freedom lest the “debate” be over… which means, simply, that the debate never really existed in the first place.

  178. javascript Says:

    …and the typical rhetoric continues to spill forth. I still get the impression very few bloggers are really reading much up on this site or the articles it links to. I don’t hear much in the way of support for the scientists who want to study new evidence but are being stifled by the media and Big Science. I just hear scared little minds afraid someone might find something that will rock their evolutionary worlds. Who cares what the scientist thought the movie would be called when they were interviewed? You mean to tell me they would say something different if they were being interviewed for a movie called BLACK instead of WHITE? These guys are authors on their subjects and write volumes of stuff on web sites and blogs every day… If there’s anything they love to do is wag their tongues to anyone who will listen. “Underhanded trickery”…Give me a break! They should be thanking Ben for the thousands of their books their interviews in this movie will sell for them.

  179. J Myers Says:

    RBH, I assume by “Meyers” you mean Stephen C. Meyer. The mispelling “Meyers” could easily be thought to refer to PZ Myers, who (as you’re probably already aware) is as fierce a critic of ID as there is. (No, I’m not related; it’s just a very common name).

    Your formulation of the ID “hypothesis” is spot-on.

  180. improvius Says:

    # DaveB Says:

    >>The point is, if ID is so “out there”, so preposterous, and so easily proven false, and it is truly a belief that is only held by the “Bozo’s” and “Moron’s” of this world, why all the fuss?
    Could it be that the Bozo’s and Moron’s are on to something?

  181. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    Steve M:

    How do you “know” it is a fact when the evidence is very circumstantial at best with the ‘big events’ in life history?

    Since Nullifidian answered you at length I will only add this:

    Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary biology, which concerns evolution of already existing populations. If we find a plausible and coherent explanation it would make a nice annex. But biologists already know mechanisms predicting the observations we make on populations.

    Biology is in fact the science that has the best precision of all of them, on exactly the question you ask. Very few phylogenetic trees of the astronomically possible trees fits evolutionary patterns (nested hierarchies) that comes from observing the phenomena of common descent.

    The standard phylogenetic tree, from single cell life to man, is decided to better than 38 decimals. (As an uncertainty.) And combining 75 studies from different researchers one has a degree of combined statistical non-confidence of p <<-300.

    At least there are some evolutionists that are willng to admit that this is a weakness in their theory and are trying to sure their theory up. I would recommend anyone to the budding topic of ‘evolutionary development’ or ‘evo-devo’ for short.

    I would recommend people to study more of modern evolutionary theory too, especially such parts that venture into new areas as evo-devo, showing the soundness of the basic theory.

    It is a common mistake to confuse the main strengths of science, that it is improvable and also continuously improving, from the weakness of dogmatism and its reliance on old and in time falsified beliefs of ‘perfect truths’.

    Science is a human endeavor, it admits it strengths and imperfections straight up. Religious dogma, not so much.

  182. BiLLy BloggZ Says:

    Why was the latest blog-post by Deacon-blue deleted? Was it because of the comments?

  183. Firemancarl Says:

    Rev Hipple.

    Wow, thats some great stuff. More whinning about being “persecuted”. Funny innit? That all science asks and has ever asked is for IDers and religionists to offer up firm scientific proof of a creator. You haven’t done it so far, and I don’t think you ever will. Don’t blame the forces of light. ID is crackpot work and doesn’t even deserve the name “science”.

    Say, about those wonderful figures of science past who would be “kicked out…” I wonder, are you forgetting about the $3 Billion that Dubbya has given his “faith based initiatives”? Me thinks ye doth protest too much. Finally, since Ben Stein implies that just for think about religion gets professors the boot I have to wonder where the thought reading machine comes from. 1984? Big Brother? If they can read thoughts, we’re all in deep shite!

  184. Bryan Says:

    Ask yourself this question:
    Have you ever had a sense to do something for somebody else and then not done it? Think about it. Have you ever seen a child or anybody cry and felt to help? Have you ever thought you ought to open a door for someone, or allow someone to merge into traffic, or smile at someone, or, or, or…think about it.

    Now. Analyze the question. Test the hypothesis. Do a survey. Be objective. What is your answer? I have asked this question to people of various races, socioeconomic classes, cultures, mental abilities, education, around the world and have yet to hear anyone answer “NO” to this question.

    What are the implications of that? Think again. If I have a sense to do something for someone, and I choose not to do it, what must I do to relieve myself of the burden, clear my conscience, make myself feel better. Do I blame the person I felt to help, remind myself of my own afflictions and problems and why I can’t help them. This is no more than justification.

    What does this have to do with this debate? Think about it. Study it. Use positivist science, or naturalistic inquiry, to discover the facts about it. Where can we trace this sense to? Is it merely from our environment? Is it from our culture or genetics? It undistbutably exists in every human being who is not comatose. We cannot see it in animals, we can watch thier instincts, but we can’t feel thier emotions or understand thier logic, or reasoning. What, then are the implications? It exists, but explaining it is like trying to tell someone what salt tastes like. Could such a sense evolve? Did Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon mothers leave thier children there on the ground and somehow by an act of instinct begin nurturing them like any animal? Was there no reason, no emotion, no intelligence?

    Einstein said, “not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” Darwin, believe it or not, was a Christian. He traveled teh world and saw patterns in nature. These patterns strengthened his convictions about some type of creator. Many of the ideas of scientists have been distorted in order to appease another’s agenda. For example, Maslow didn’t come up with the heirarchy of needs. His ideas of actualization were spiritual before they were ever physical. In fact, Maslow’s science actually turns the well known and often taught heirarchy of needs upside down. Are we too lazy to do the homework and find out the original intend of many of the scientists who we now use thier names in vain?

    What is the purpose of this life? How convenient and shallow an answer to assume that it is merely to get all we can and die. Where did we really come from? Where does this sense to do for others come from? Start asking intelligent questions? Think about your thoughts. Ask, ask, ask, and don’t take my word or anyone elses word for it. Do the work necessary to find out for yourself or you will be blown by every idea, flavor of the month, and remain suspended in indecision and relentless discomfort about the deeper issues of your heart.

  185. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    Very few phylogenetic trees of the astronomically [sic] possible trees fits evolutionary patterns

    Very few phylogenetic trees of the astronomically large number of possible trees fits evolutionary patterns

    one has a degree of combined statistical non-confidence of p

    Format problems.

    One has a degree of combined statistical non-confidence of p << 10^-300.

  186. Steve_C Says:

    Hey Chris.

    The science camp demands evidence.

    The Jesus camp does not.

    There’s nothing intelligent about creationism. It’s an idea based on a myth for which there is no evidence.

  187. Firemancarl Says:

    Hey, with passages like Ezekiel 23:3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. & 23:20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

    And

    Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

    Or maybe even

    From the “Song of Solomon” or Song of Songs depending on which book you read….Notice how it’s one of two books in the bible that don’t mention god???
    5:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him
    5:5 I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.
    5:6 I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, and was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.

    Since the “bowels were moved for him” I’m guessing this is tacit approval of anal sex????

  188. jb Says:

    Interesting how the apologists for academic orthodoxy have distinguished themselves in this very blog thread as being the inquisition witch-hunters the documentary aims to expose. Very educational!

    Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.

    Not a one of ‘em has seen this film, but when PZ Myers says, “Jump!” the dogs dutifully jump. Amazing that he’d have his peanut gallery come here to prove - in writing! - the very premise of this film. Neodarwinism is the tool of metaphysical materialism, used to evangelize scientism to other people’s children, protected by law and authoritarian orthodoxy from any alternative thinking or theorizing.

    Fortunately, it is fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science, and that’s what these die-hards are really afraid of. It’s why Dawkins and PZ and the gang have given up science for their ‘New Atheist Movement’, a purely philosophical/metaphysical battle to be fought in the sociopolitical arena. Which is where this film will debut.

    Meanwhile, science marches on. Teleology in life - in its forms, its processes and its evolution - is something we could fruitfully employ for our own practical purposes. Which is what science is all about. It need not be truth, and doesn’t pretend to absolutes. It just has to work. FAPP [For All Practical Purposes]. We can do more with design than we can ever hope to do with randomness.

    They won’t call it “Intelligent Design,” and they won’t be quantifying any gods or anti-gods. That’s okay. That was never science’s job description in the first place.

    I look forward with interest to your film, Ben!

  189. Firemancarl Says:

    Hey, with passages like Ezekiel 23:3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. & 23:20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

    And

    Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

    Or maybe even

    From the “Song of Solomon” or Song of Songs depending on which book you read….Notice how it’s one of two books in the bible that don’t mention god???
    5:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him
    5:5 I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.
    5:6 I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, and was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.

    This bible sounds like a really hott book to read. Who needs porn????

    Since the “bowels were moved for him” I’m guessing this is tacit approval of anal sex????

  190. Glenn Says:

    The problem is neatly illustrated by the contrast between Nullifidian’s post at #151 (careful, factual, well-documented, long, thought-provoking) with Teno Groppi’s post right after that at #152 (facile, glib, content-free, short, emotionally appealing). The ID “argument” is consistently superficial and easily digested, and any serious scientific response takes a little work to understand. We’re doomed.

  191. Reynold Hall Says:

    For the heck of it, more information about another ID martyr:

    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php

  192. Michael Says:

    People who think evolution is not a proven, rigorously tested scientific theory should be given last years flu shot.

  193. A.R. Matthew Y. Says:

    I’d say that some of the people who’ve been making comments here have an incredible ammount of growing up to do, because you’re behaving like five-year olds. “MY WAY OR NO WAY!” That’s what I see coming from you here.

    Intelligent Design may have no certain proof, but nobody here seems to consider that Evolution could be a form of said design. You’re too busy attacking the people who dissagree with your views.

    Since when did the United States become the land of “My Way or the Highway!” Last I heard, EVERY citizen of this nation was entitled to their OWN BELIEFS. They do NOT have to agree with the established community. It’s a part of faith to believe in that which may nto be possible.

    That’s why they call them miracles.

    But anyway… folks, I’ve been through college, and I hate to say it, but what Mr. Stein believes, from what I’ve seen, is true. One of my professors did NOT like the idea that I believed in the possibility of an Intelligent Creation.

    He was nice enough not to affect my grade because of it, but he made my life difficult because of it.

    Name-calling won’t do a thing, folks, but if the people who believe in Evolution are going to be busy doing it, then there’s no point in having this conversation.

    Intelligent people don’t talk to self-serving, self-righteous brats with the attitudes of children. No matter what you believe, it’s your right to believe it… not the right of scientists and educators to shove what we’re supposed to believe is the ONLY possibility down our throats.

    Good day, gentlemen and -ladies.

  194. Steven Carr Says:

    The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.

    It is no use denying it.

    Dozens of high-class research projects have been knocked back by the cabal who control evolutionary biology.

  195. Chris Says:

    I see Ben took down his second blog entry which I had posted some glaring quotes from. I’ll just duplicate them here.
    (Ben I’m forlorn that a previous law professor is dragging us back to 1925 Dayton Tennessee to reenact the Scopes Monkey Trial).
    Anyway based off this internet article:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884991/posts

    Walt Ruloff a writer for this movie claims:
    “The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ’shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days,” said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer. “People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth.”

    Now if this is true, how come PZ Meyers one of this interviewed was unequivocally duped. Heres the evidence for that:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

  196. Warren Says:

    Steven @ 191:

    Prove it.

  197. Edwin Hensley Says:

    Ben,

    You made so many untrue and uninformed statements in your rant that I have lost almost all respect I had for you.

    “In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”

    This is blatantly false. Frances Collins is the director of the Human Genome Project and is a well known evangelical Christian as well as a prominent scientist. Ken Miller is another fine example. Both have won multiple grants to study and has had multiple publications in scientific journals.

    I see nothing in the trailers about statements in support of evolution by the current and previous pope. I see nothing in the trailers about the Clergy Letter Project, where over 10,000 clergy members have publicly supported evolution. ARE YOU EXPELLING THEIR OPINIONS?

    Have you read the transcripts of the Dover trial? I have, and it is the creationists and intelligent design proponents that were proven to be liars. They lied about never using the phrase “creation science” but were recorded on video and audio doing so. They lied about the source of funding for the Of Pandas and People books, with the school board member having written the check himself on behalf of a Baptist church.

    Ben, please re-examine this issue. Talk to George Will and Frances Collins. Look at what happend in Dover when the Republican school board members were all replaced by Democrats in an republican dominated district.

    Ben, you are dead wrong on this one.

  198. Glenn Says:

    Stephen Carr wrote, “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”

    Submit a research proposal to whom? Have they tried the Discovery Institute? Did Answers in Genesis consider diverting a little of the $27M they spent on the Creation Museum to actual research?

  199. Steve_C Says:

    Hahahahahaha.

    Yeah ok. Maybe they know they don’t want to waste the money.
    Why don’t they just use the word alien, Thor or Zeus in their research proposal.
    They’re all equally valid as “designers”.

    Someone should prove the existence of a “designer” before they try to study the “designer’s” work through biology.

    It’s amazing how the Christians want to validate their superstitions with research.

    Why doesn’t the Baptist Church pour their money into ID research? Open up labs, create new vaccines and genetic treatments?

    I guess praying over a petri dish isn’t a very useful method of science.

  200. Michael Says:

    @ Stephen Carr:

    Your hilarious satirical response left me gasping for air after the immense gut laugh. Thank you. (Still trying to collect myself) You should think about sending a resume to The Onion.

  201. Rich Says:

    “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them”

    Really? Why is the “Discovery Institute” (sponsored by DOMINIONIST Ahmanson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute ) spending all of its cash of press releases, then?

    ID = PR. Just like this film.

    Show my predictions. Show me a theory. Show me experiments..

  202. Michael Says:

    Make that Steven in the post above.

  203. Joel Pelletier Says:

    Every proponent of ID that posts on here completely misses the point and by doing so just highlights the ignorance that keeps this movement alive. If you have a conclusion such as: an intelligent designer created the universe, you are already doing psuedoscience. Before even posing the question of an intelligent designer, proper evidence of said designer has to be studied. YOU CANNOT HAVE A HYPOTHESES BASED ON A PILE OF ASSUMPTIONS! And so far ID proponents have a million assumptions, but no evidence. This crying about not being heard or not getting the funding and all that whining misses the whole point. If you aren’t using the scientific method, its psuedoscience. Scientists would be glad to accept any new theory provided it uses the proper methods of eliminating bias. And when you have your conclusion before you have evidence, the bias is completely out of order. By argueing that “(they)have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.” is a STRAWMAN. You make a lot of accusations based on no evidence, which is ironic considering the state of the ID hypothesis. If ID can fund a propaganda piece such as the film being discussed here, then I am sure that research can also be funded. ID proponents: what is it about propaganda that you love? How bout this question: If there was a funded scientific study about ID that came up negative, would you be ready to discard your theory?

  204. Randy Says:

    I’m intrigued, though I fear that Stein, as a funnyman, may unintentionally trivialize an issue that is a serious one, when he could have spent the movie focusing on scientifically debunking evolution. It’s like when mainstream conservative talk show hosts debate global warming and focus on the hypocrisy of the Learjet/limousine liberal global warmists. Sure, that’s important to note, because it proves that even the loudest mouths aren’t true believers or they’d actually make an effort to change their lives (while telling us to do it)… but the real issue should be burying these people with the science that debunks global warming more and more each day.

    The same goes for evolution. It’s a huge issue, being debunked on countless fronts, and no movie could ever do it justice… unless the movie were literally hundreds of hours long… But I find this website to be a great resource. They focus on “discoveries” in mainstream science, while analyzing how the brainwashed Darwin community overlooks what the discoveries actually say. Often the Darwinists will themselves unknowingly point out just how flawed their story is, based on the evidence they discovered, and then just breeze on by, still assuming the same old story must be true.

    Quick note: Is everyone so arrogant to pull out the “the science is in”, line, when until a couple weeks ago “the science was in” that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the US, and 5 of the top 10 were in the last decade… Now 1998 is number 2, 4 of the top 10 were in the 1930s, 5 before WWII… Hell, here are the top 10 hottest years:

    1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

    NASA GISS REFUSED TO RELEASE THEIR METHODS, as do all global warmist groups. They wouldn’t tell the public how they arrive at their conclusions, so one guy took it upon himself to reverse engineer the figures and caught a huge mistake that began around 2000. NASA GISS ADDMITTED (to him) their mistake, and SILENTLY made changes to the numbers available on their site…. BUT TOLD NO ONE!!! No press release, no mainstream media coverage to speak of… I think Rush Limbaugh’s brief mentions were as mainstream as it got.

    So I ask you, wasn’t “the science in” on those numbers that have COMPLETELY changed, just a couple weeks ago?

    But don’t you dare question Darwin!

  205. Tom Hall Says:

    Mr Stein, To be frank I`ve not heard of you before but I must comment. To use deceit in the promulgation of a view wether true or not demeans yourself and the cause being promulgated, I would have thought you would have learnt that after your work with Richard Nixon. With regard to comment 191 I would be interested in which research projects are being written about.

  206. Brendan S Says:

    So, instead of making movies, and making museums, and sending out textbooks, why don’t they devote their money into all of these research programmes that are ready to go?

    You’d think that the cost of the Creation Museum could have easily supported several research projects.

    Unless, of course, there aren’t any research projects.

    How come, when Behe wants to get a book publishes, the money is there for him. The people at the Discovery Institute do very well for themselves. Yet, none of this money can go for the ‘multitude of research programmes ready to go’.

    Yeah, Right.

  207. Jenny Says:

    Many of the comments on this blog illustrate very well the need for this film. So many claims made against ID are just not true, such as the claim that they have never published material supportive of ID in peer reviewed literature. The fact is thousand of articles exist. I once started to compile a list, but stopped after it was pointed out to me by my fellow scientists that, if made public, such a list could hurt the career of the scientists involved. I learned of stories of ID supporters who were outed and found it very difficult to publish after being outed. I learned that angry letters were sent to the journals that published their articles threatening to never publish in those journals again. I learned of graduate students being taken away from such heretics and worse. I decided to keep my list to myself. Another reason was, after my list was well over 100 pages long, I realized that this job was far more than I could handle now. The list would be far too long for me alone to maintain. Most ID researchers, to survive, must be firmly in the closet and stay there until it is safe to come out. I hope that this film will help in this goal. Science can not progress without academic freedom, and the environment today against ID supporters is intolerable, all fair minded persons agree.

  208. Jasonx10 Says:

    To the below commentor:

    I am no scientist, but i am equipped to answer your questions.

    1) Give a comprehensive statement about what ID is. What does it mean?

    Intelligent Design is the belief that - rather than an origin of order resulting from chaos and matter from nothing - the entirity of empirical science we observe today does a greater job of pointing toward an intelligent designer - a God, such as the God of the bible - rather than a self-evolving universe that contradicts the norm of entropy.

    2) What predictions does ID theory make?

    Depends who you talk to. I happen to be a creationist myself. I think if you attempt to say that the God of the bible used the process of evolution to bring about what we witness today, you’re going to have a harder time conforming that to a genesis account of scripture (and additionally, i dont believe that all of what we have observed in known history fits an evolutionary viewpoint very well).

    3) What principles and standards are used to evaluate evidence?

    For starters, the assumption that there is no God is not a given. Apart from that I assume most scientists who believe in some form of ID are equally if not more objective than atheistic scientists. Take radiometric dating for instance: I can believe that the ratio i end up with (based on the assumed initial amount of lets say pottasium) yields the argon necessary to a ‘prove’ a relative age, but is that really being objective? Im assuming an initial pottasium content. Im assuming that decay rates have always been a constant. Im assuming a lot of things and then im stating in faith that what I say IS the absolute truth. I can use carbon-14 dating and confidently state that it is a process unable to be used on dinosaur bones because they are 65 million years old, and yet I can ignore fresh unfossilized recently discovered dinosaur bones (such as the t-rex bone with some intact blood). So to summarize my answer here: ID scientists probably use principles and standards similar to atheist scientists - but without the undying premise that God MUST NOT exist.

    4) What recent discoveries have ID researchers made?

    I follow creationist circles, but we arent a far cry from the general ID circles.

    We’ve pointed out discoveries of fish and clams and trilobites at the tops of and all along mountain ranges all over the earth.

    We’ve tried to publicize several recent discoveries of fresh unfossilized dinosaur bones (though, you’ll only read things like that as a foot-note - even on fox news).

    We have pointed out recent discoveries of so-called ‘living fossils’ (such as coelocanth) as reasoning that fossil-dating based on positioning in the earths strata is a faith-based assumption.

    We continue to point out the tremendous lack of transitional fossils, the complete absence of any witnessed evolution where an animal acquires new genetic information turning it into a different animal.

    We’ve shown that the layers you observe while driving through kentucky or strutting through the grand canyon are more likely formed quickly by layering mud and not the settling of dust over billions of years.

    We’ve pointed out the the increased iridium observed in the KT boundary is more likely due to past volcanic activity or small meteorite strikes rather than a big fat meteor - that supposedly killed the dinosaurs without hurting any other animals - striking the earth as the iridium is concentrated only in spotty areas and not evenly across the globe.

    5) What features of ID theory are subject to modification?

    If you’re trying to imply that ID proponents are ‘unshifting’ solely based on the fact that they do not throw the possibility of a creator off the table, you could turn that around and equally argue that atheists HAVE thrown the possibility of a creator off the table - and due to arrogance and an insistance that they have observed enough of the world in their mere life to plainly state “i know exactly what happened in the ancient past”.

    What kind of observation, if it were seen, would change ID theory?

    Mass transitional fossils showing tremendous variety between a dinosaur and a chicken (or whatever other animals you like).

    A clear disagreement between historical/religious records of geologic events (such as a worldwide flood) and what is actually observed.

    A lack of order in the universe.

    Some observable natural break from the process of entropy SOMEWHERE in the universe.

    The formation of a star.

    Im sure i could think of some more. Don’t get me wrong, i dont believe the would prove beyond a doubt that God does not exist, but I believe that those things would be good challenges to theism.

    What criteria is there for accepting a change?

    Proponent of creationism/Intelligent Design havent had the luxury of ‘accepting a challenge’ for the past 50 years. I would love to accept a challenge where a kid like me is given equal time to publicly debate an atheist peer without being shut up. What we do get is verbal assaults, mockery, down-grading in class, and uncontested regularly and massly publicized criticism from most government funded institutions and generally all popular media.

    6) How does ID explain the evidence produced by conventional science?

    Very well in the case of creationism i believe. As for other varying opinions within ID proponents - I suppose it would depend on the individual. The point is we’re not a movement to push our beliefs on anyone. We’re a movement to RE-examine a definite possibility that was once taught in schools but is now regarded by government institutions as politically incorrect and ‘wrongful’ to teach - even as a possibility.

  209. Jasonx10 Says:

    lol. suddenly I realized these posts are descending, not ascending. The above post was made as a reply to Post #1 - Rob.

  210. Orac Says:

    “asic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.”

    I wouldn’t “censor” the film. I want it widely seen because it looks like some nice evidence that “intelligent design” is inspired by religion, not science. It looks to be potentially great evidence that ID is creationism, not science. Heck, Ben appeals quite directly to religion in the trailers and on his blog.

    All the other silly whining about some “atheistic” or “Darwinist” orthodoxy trying to “repress” ID only adds to the potential amusement value of this film.

  211. Orac Says:

    “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”

    Really? Could someone point me in the direction of this “multitude of research programmes ready to go”? What are the specific hypotheses to be tested in these programs? What are the experimental designs? What are the experimental methods to be used? How will the data be analyzed? Come on, lay it on us! We’d all be curious to know!

    As for whining about not being able to fund this research, well, don’t expect any sympathy from me there. There are lots of researchers who can’t get their grants funded even with good proposals. The funding climate sucks right now. The NSF and NIH are not exactly swimming in money at the moment.

    Besides, the Discovery Institute supposedly exists to promote and fund ID; so why isn’t it funding some of this research, rather than PR?

  212. Orac Says:

    Finally, this is my reaction to Ben’s involvement in this movie.

    Very disappointing and sad.

  213. windy Says:

    “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”

    Gee, and I thought intelligent design “makes no claims about the identity or nature of the intelligent cause responsible for life”. Who are these intelligent design researchers who have pinpointed the cause as “God”?

    Teach the controversy within the ID community!

  214. Rheinhard Says:

    “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”–Steven Carr @ 191

    Hasn’t the religious right been whining for years about the National Endowment for the Arts, saying that they don’t want to fund art they don’t like — but this isn’t censorship because the artist is free to produce whatever, it’s just that the public shouldn’t be forced to pay for it!

    But here, Creationist scientists are being “censored” if the that National Academy of Sciences or whatever other scientific body refuses to fund their nonsense? Talk about double standard!

    There are plenty of rich Jesus-freaks who should be happy to pour millions of dollars into creationism “research”. Pat Robertson can raise more from a singe creationism telethon than most scientists could get in a decade of grant proposals. Why don’t you true believers pony up the cash for your pet hobby horse first before demanding that those of us in the reality based community take money away from real science for this tripe?

  215. melior Says:

    Ben Stein is famous for denying that Deep Throat was real — out of his zealous worship for Nixon. It doesn’t seem out of character at all for him to deny that fossils are real out of zeal to worship some other god.

  216. Rich Says:

    Lots of pro ID posts on here, but none with any actual science in them. I did like the one guy who rolled out the old, long discredited creationist SLoT canard.

  217. mr204 Says:

    What evolutionists propose is like a carrot on a stick. They can never arrive at a conclusion because the time it would take to make the neccessary observations is impossible. The so-called “evidence” simply shows that an organism is what it is and does what it does, which does not prove that anything is “evolving” in the Neo-Darwinian sense.

    A virus adapts and changes to its environment and even develops methods to resist efforts to destroy it, but then so does a highly trained US Navy Seal. Will the Seal’s offspring exhibit the same traits? Or will subsequent generations of the Seal and his children show a variety of adaptability in a variety of environments?

    The Scientific Method simply makes evolutionary theory look good, keeps everybody busy and keeps the grants coming. But since these theories in particular cannot be tested and replicated in a controlled environment, the bottom line is that evolution is still based on faith and belief.

  218. Nullifidian Says:

    Intelligent Design may have no certain proof, but nobody here seems to consider that Evolution could be a form of said design.

    The reason we don’t consider it is because if intelligent design is supposed to be an alternative theory to evolution, then it cannot simply replicate evolutionary theory in every respect but slap another label on it. There has to be a point of substantative difference, either in the extent of its explanatory power (which, for it to prevail, should be greater) or in making predictions which are distinct from evolutionary theory and accurate.

    Since when did the United States become the land of “My Way or the Highway!”

    About the time that Bush said that you either support him or you’re on the side of the terrorists.

    But anyway… folks, I’ve been through college, and I hate to say it, but what Mr. Stein believes, from what I’ve seen, is true. One of my professors did NOT like the idea that I believed in the possibility of an Intelligent Creation.

    He was nice enough not to affect my grade because of it, but he made my life difficult because of it.

    How? Did he stalk you and chuck copies of On the Origins of Species wrapped in obscure threatening notes through your windows? Did he organize cat calls when you walked through the quad?

    Or did he simply make you support your ideas and challenge them? If that’s what he did, that’s his job. I would ask when America became a land where higher education was supposed to be an academically and intellectually unchallenging free “A” dispenser, but I’m already depressingly certain that I have a rough idea.

    I can tell you don’t like the concept, but nevertheless educators are not bound by what is now called “balance” in their pedagogy. They’re only bound by fairness in their individual treatment of students. You did your work, I presume, and got a good grade, despite disagreeing with the professor. That was fair.

    However, if you’re teaching a class on the germ theory of disease, it is not necessary to bring on a supporter of the miasma theory. If you’re teaching about heliocentrism, it is not necessary to seek out the opinions of geocentrists. Science is a striving after truth, and it is not served by introducing nonsense in a mistaken quest for balance.

    If intelligent design supporters want to be taken seriously, they will have to do what I outlined above: develop a real theory which makes predictions which diverge from predictions of evolutionary theory, identify and provide evidence for the mechanism underlying their theory, and show that it has greater, not lesser, explanatory power.

  219. David Clark Says:

    Hope the movie creates as much stir as this blog and website. It is obvious by the screed that most of the responders have posted that they must feel threatened by it, otherwise why all the ugly, ad hominen attacks?
    The bottom line: there are many brilliant people and scientists who do not subscribe to Neo-Darwinist dogma. I would direct people to check out the American Scientific Affiliation at http://www.asa3.org/

    Also, check out the falsifiable creation model with ideas on old earth creation at www.reasons.org.

    It takes more faith to believe that the universe and life is here by chance than to believe in a supreme being. My Chrisitan worldview has better and more logical explanatory power for good and evil, death, purpose for life, redemption, etc than a strictly materialist or atheist worldview. Keep up the good fight.

  220. David P Says:

    Mr. Stein,

    Looking forward to watching your movie with my girl, a nice bucket of popcorn and a song in my heart.

    Truly, you have hit upon a truism as certain as the earth orbiting around the sun: Academic scientists are prickly, myopic, humorless, pedantic bean-counters, who have no concept of seeing the broad, big picture.

    Let me amend that: Many scientists are great — I’m referring to these juvenile evolutionary biologists. Just absolutely worthless. If they were all fired, the aggregate sum of human knowledge would increase immediately.

    Planning a party for Feb 12 - to smack down these losers!

  221. Jose Says:

    Is there conclusive proof that proves the Darwin’s theory of evolution to be true? By conclusive, I mean conclusive, without any more of the “keep digging until we find them missing links”. I feel that until those gaps in Darwin’s theory are filled, Darwinism has no claims to be the only answer any more than ID does. What proof is there?

  222. Jose Says:

    Also, I keep reading that all scientist want from ID is a testable theory, can you test evolutionary theory?

  223. Andrew Says:

    To Steven Carr (#191): Really? Care to link to even ONE intelligent design research program?

    The Discovery Institute has a budget of $11 million. Know what it spends that money on? Not research, but PR. In fact, the single biggest DI expense is for “Creative Response Concepts,” the same public relations firm that promoted the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, the Republican National Committee, the Christian Coalition, and the Contract With America.

    Don’t be fooled. The ID folks have enough money to pay Ben Stein’s hefty salary, with plenty left over for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. If they wanted to do any science (in their spare time, perhaps?), they could easily afford it. But they don’t.

  224. Open Minded Says:

    I see Ben took down his second blog entry which I had posted some glaring quotes from. I’ll just duplicate them here.
    (Ben I’m forlorn that a previous law professor is dragging us back to 1925 Dayton Tennessee to reenact the Scopes Monkey Trial).
    Anyway based off this internet article:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884991/posts

    Walt Ruloff a writer for this movie claims:
    “The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ’shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days,” said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer. “People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth.”

    Now if this is true, how come PZ Meyers one of this interviewed was unequivocally duped. Heres the evidence for that:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

  225. CKT Says:

    Wow. I thought Ben Stein was a smart guy. Why the heck would he attach his name to the nearly-sunk SS Intelligent Design?

    As far as ID research getting done, how much did this movie cost to make? How much does the Intelligent Design cabal squander per year on speeches, conferences, books, and press releases? Couldn’t they use a little bit of that money to start a lab someplace? Sure, science ain’t cheap, but it’s not THAT expensive. Last I checked, Behe still has a lab. Why doesn’t he do some ID science?

    I’ll help out. I work in a lab. Give me a testable ID hypothesis and some of the methods, and I’ll give your experiment an honest try. I’d love to work on a testable ID hypothesis; it’s just that I have never seen one.

  226. Collin Tierney Says:

    Steven Carr said:

    “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.

    It is no use denying it.

    Dozens of high-class research projects have been knocked back by the cabal who control evolutionary biology.”

    Steven, that’s interesting, if nothing else. It confuses me because the Discovery Institute, the various creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis, and the museums they run, have MILLIONS of dollars at their disposal! Creationists and IDists have made countless more millions through book sales and the like. What is holding them back? Since when does research on this topic take THAT much money? What kind of research proposals could you possibly be talking about?

  227. Ceven Starr Says:

    Steven Carr Says:

    “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them”

    Ha-ha!

    That is just HILARIOUS!

    No funding?!

    So how did they fund a multi-MILLION dollar ID museum?

    How did they fund this HUGE budget movie (pretending to be a low-cost rebel movie)?

    How do they fund all the people at sites like Answers In Genesi?

    Seriously, Mr. Carr, you can do better than that. I mean, SERIOUSLY.

    Come up with something better than fake tears of oppression. For oppressed, you are not.

    The ID movement has MASSIVE funding, and you know it. But just like the creators of this movie used lies and deception to trick people into giving them an interview, you are following up with your own deceptions.

    Dishonesty is the IDers first and foremost weapon against reason and logic.

  228. Open Minded Says:

    I’ve commented three times and it continues to be deleted.

    How deceitful.

  229. deadman_932 Says:

    A brief and incomplete list of scientists who have been or are critical of aspects of Darwinian evolutionary theory :

    Lynn Margulis
    Stephan Wolfram
    Motoo Kimura
    Graeme Donald Snooks
    Richard Goldschmidt
    Fred Hoyle
    Chandra Wickramsinghe
    Steven Gould
    Richard Lewontin

    None of whom were been “drummed” out of academia or “suppressed” in any way and all of them did pretty well for themselves. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=218533

    Anyone following the field knows there’s really a bunch of people that have added to the “new-new synthesis” but they bring MEAT to the table, not the hand-waving vacuous PROMISE of future meals that ID keeps yapping about

    And to the ID-backers here that keep claiming ID “has” some research program that has been supressed, like Steven Carr, who says ” Dozens of high-class research projects have been knocked back by the cabal who control evolutionary biology.” Show me some evidence that you KNOW this to be true and that such proposals have been rejected by academics. Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research and other ID/creationist fronts have millions in their budget, yet they produce NOTHING that they submit to mainstream journals because the work is shoddy and filled with holes. Anyone doubting this can simply visit http://www.pandasthumb.org/ or http://www.talkorigins.org/ and look at the hard facts.

    The truth of the matter is that ID was slapped down by a CONSERVATIVE republican judge at Dover becauseID-ists like Behe revealed in testimony that ID was on a par with ASTROLOGY, among other things. Oh, and that judge later got death threats for his honesty.

    Stein, you should be ashamed of yourself for not having actually LOOKED at the facts and instead plunging into selling snakeoil and conning the marks for profit.

  230. ck1 Says:

    AR Matthew Y #190:

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion and your beliefs. You are not entitled to teach your beliefs as though they were established fact, unless you can provide the necessary evidence.

    Your comments about how things should work in the US indicate that you are of the opinion that this is a political issue. I agree. It is clearly a political issue and not a scientific issue. I have no objection
    to having ID taught in political science/social studies classes. Or comparative religion classes.

    What is and what is not science is not something to be decided by US citizens - science is a global concern.

  231. Steve Bratt Says:

    Ben & All, (if you get down this far)
    Let me start by saying that I am a scientist (EEbackground working in Info Tech) who completely believes in God and believes basically in what ID says (the world is too complex to have evolved by random chance alone). I Do NOT agree, however, that it means ID should be taught in ANY public education system, where evolution should be. What evolution explains is HOW we evolved. What ID and other ‘creationist’ theories explain is WHY we evolved. It is as simple as that. There is scientific evidence to support HOW we evolved, and that is what public schools should teach as part of their science curriculum. If you want to insure that your children also learn your views, or any other views on WHY we evolved, you have ample opportunity to teach them at home or send them to the private school of your choice. ID is just a label and methodology to make creationism sound more ’sciency’ to try to force it into science curriculum, but that doen’t change the basic distinction made above. To keep wasting everyone’s time/money and energy trying to force this into the public education system instead of using those resources to solve the thousads of other REAL problems we have facing our society is misguided and self serving to everyome else’s detriment!!!

  232. Tom Aquines Says:

    Scientism is atheism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo.

  233. MattP Says:

    #191: “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”

    Really? Could you list a few of these rejected proposals? The ID crowd is pretty good at pointing out their supposed oppression, so it shouldn’t be hard to turn up. Also, the leading ID figures say that ID is not a religious proposition. Why would their proposals have anything about God in them?

  234. Robert Bell Says:

    Intelligent Design may have no certain proof, but nobody here seems to consider that Evolution could be a form of said design. You’re too busy attacking the people who dissagree with your views.

    Lack of “certain proof” is not a problem. In science, no idea about how things work is considered proven with absolute certainty.

    The problem is that however consistent Intelligent Design might be with other scientific theories, or all of the available evidence … it is NOT science unless it is 1) falsifiable and 2) makes predictions.

    This is basic and important and a point that “ID as science” advocates willfully ignore.

    If you subscribe to Intelligent Design, that’s fine. Just accept that it is a philosophical or theological position and not a scientific one, and don’t try to get it taught in science class, and don’t cry foul when you can’t get science grants to study it, or when peer-reviewed journals of science ignore any papers you submit on the subject.

    That’s why Ben Stein’s statements here are so frustrating to some of us. They belie a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, a misunderstanding that he seeks to perpetuate … all for what? So he can cry oppression? So he can accuse university tenure boards of trying to police their professor’s thoughts?

    Consider Ben’s blog entry and the previews for this film for a moment, assuming that everything I’ve said is true. Spend a couple minutes mulling it over from our point of view. Now can you see why some of us take a rather adversarial stance towards Ben, the producers of Expelled and some of the other who’ve commented here?

    We’re not trying to oppress anybody. I’m not looking forward to the release of this film not because I hate freedom, but because I hate misrepresentation of the facts and I hate anything that damages the scientific literacy of the public.

  235. hasty toweling Says:

    Ben, you are a smart man; no one could deny it. But one of the problems with intelligence is that it can make you over-confident in your beliefs. The ideas that you presented in the essay above are absurd.

    Suppose I thought that the earth rested on the back of a Turtle. Would you hire me for a position at NASA? Beliefs need evidence. It’s right for universities to discriminate in this way.

  236. Mitch Nance Says:

    “Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.””

    No, the message is not to discourage conversation entirely, but to discourage pointless conversation. Until IDists actually produce a coherent theory and some evidence to support it, all conversation about ID is pointless.

    For all we know, the universe and everything in it could have been poofed into existence 5 minutes ago and all of our memories could have been poofed into existence along with us. That’s certainly no less interesting an idea than ID, yet it’s also not worth taking the time to discuss (and for the same reason as ID — lack of evidence).

    Oh, about all those anonymous scientists who propose unnamed ID research programs only to have their funding denied, why doesn’t the Discovery Institute fund them instead of spending their multimillion dollar yearly budget entirely on PR? Why haven’t these nameless scientists sought grants from the Templeton Foundation? Why didn’t the makers of this film choose to fund some actual research into the subject they choose to advocate for?

    There is more than enough money in the hands of ID sympathizers to fund ID research if there way any to be done. The martyr act IDists pull is simply that — an act. They have to act persecuted because their ideas simply haven’t been able to EARN their places in the realm of science by accomodating the evidence and making accurate, meaningful predictions.

  237. G. Finch Says:

    Mutation and natural selection is the foundation of evolution. We can accelerate our mutation by eating Mutation Paste which is now available commercially. See:
    http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/MutationPasteResults.html
    It tastes like a Barlett pear.

  238. Tom Aquines Says:

    Big Science is atheism dressed up in a pink tutu.

  239. A fan... Says:

    Good luck making your movie. As for me, I give you my commitment I will pirate it and make sure you get not a cent of my money.

  240. Tom Aquines Says:

    “Too often what are called ‘educated’ people are simply people who have been sheltered from reality for years in ivy-covered buildings. Those whose whole careers spent in ivy-covered buildings, insulated by tenure, can remain adolescents into their golden retirement years.”

    Thomas Sowell

  241. Tom Aquines Says:

    Some have hypothesized a large number of monkeys sitting at a large number of keyboards might eventually produce cohesive intelligence. This BLOG has proven otherwise.

  242. Tom Aquines Says:

    Richard Dawkins is atheism dressed up in a tweed jacket.

  243. deadman_932 Says:

    This is interesting. I tried to post a message containing the names of MANY people who have objected to and been critical of Evolutionary theory — who still work and have never been “drummed” out of academia or “suppressed” in any way.

    I seem to have been censored.

    Why is that, Ben?

  244. deadman_932 Says:

    The truth of the matter is that ID was slapped down by a CONSERVATIVE republican judge at Dover because ID-ists like Behe revealed in testimony that ID was on a par with ASTROLOGY, among other things.

    And that judge later got death threats for his honesty.

    Stein, you should be ashamed of yourself for not having actually LOOKED at the facts and instead plunging into selling snakeoil and conning the marks for profit.

  245. Reynold Hall Says:

    Ok, so many mistakes, so little time…

    #185, jb says:

    “Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.”

    Right! Obviously you’ve never seen the flash animation that Dembski had of Judge Jones, did you?

    Or maybe the threats that he got?
    http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/03/threats-of-violence-against-dover.html (check the news article in the story, though it requires registration)

    Or Dembski calling Jones a “putz” because he supposedly “copied” the ACLU’s opinion (http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/judge-jones-towering-intellectual-or-narcissistic-putz/) never mind that it’s actually common practice for judges to do that??
    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/weekend_at_behe.html

    (from the Pandasthumb article):
    “Now, Vice President for Legal Affairs John West is not a lawyer, so he may not be familiar with the fact that this is exactly what proposed findings of fact are for. They are proposed findings which a judge, if he or she agrees, then incorporates as his or her own findings. Both the school district and the plaintiffs filed proposed findings, and the judge went with the findings he found most convincing. Incidentally, the school district doesn’t seem to have ever objected to the plaintiffs’ filing their proposed findings.

    The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case. In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005, 1008. (1st Cir. 1970) (“The practice of inviting counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is well established as a valuable aid to decision making.”) As the Supreme Court put it in a slightly different context,
    ….”
    (read on, and learn something)

    Or how the ID people attacked Dr. Barbara Forrest?
    http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html

    (from Forrest):
    “Scheduled to testify the following week but delayed by Hurricane Rita, I used the extra time to prepare for my testimony and to stay current on ID activities by visiting DI’s website. On September 29, I noticed that DI had posted a transcript of an interview I had done— except that I hadn’t done it. The transcript was fake. Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody, the organization whose self-described goal is “to support high quality scholarship . . . relevant to the question of evidence for intelligent design in nature” ridiculed me by, among other things, having fictitious radio host “Marvin Waldburger” refer to me as “Dr. Barking Forrest Ph.D.” [25] If DI thought this would unsettle me, they were ignoring the fact that I had just been through two killer hurricanes. I could only shake my head at their doing something so jaw-droppingly stupid. If they were hoping Judge Jones would see and be influenced by this silliness, it was just another sign of the disrespect for his intelligence and integrity that began before the trial and continues today (see below).”

    (jb again):
    “Not a one of ‘em has seen this film, but when PZ Myers says, “Jump!” the dogs dutifully jump. Amazing that he’d have his peanut gallery come here to prove - in writing! - the very premise of this film.”

    Wrong. While some people are throwing insults, I’ve noticed that most of the posters here are actually trying to say just why ID is wrong. And sorry, nobody told me to do anything. We, at least, are not sheep.

    Sure, we haven’t seen the film yet, but guess what? We’re replying to the stuff that Stein has posted, as well as in some cases the claims that ID has made repeatedly in the past.

    Unless the film differs greatly from the ID party lines that we’ve all seen before, I think that we can make a pretty good guess as to the kinds of things the movie will have: Same old, same old.

    (more jb):
    “Neodarwinism is the tool of metaphysical materialism, used to evangelize scientism to other people’s children, protected by law and authoritarian orthodoxy from any alternative thinking or theorizing.”
    (more conspiracy thinking: read some European history about the Dark Ages if you want to see who’s really been bad at that)…Good grief.

    If you want “authoritarian orthodoxy”, may I suggest reading the Statments of Faith that Answers in Genesis the ICR have? Or even read the Wedge document.

    Can you name any religious right figure who, at, or before the time of the Scopes Trial in the ’20s was saying that we should hear both sides of the story when it came to evoluton vs. creation??

    Why is it only once that the ideas the religous right supports are refuted, THEN we hear them talking about stuff like “teaching the controversy”???

    Bottom line: As the Dover trial and numberous other sites have shown, it’s the science that defeats ID.

    Enough conspiracy theories, jb.

    (jb again):
    “Fortunately, it is fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science, and that’s what these die-hards are really afraid of. It’s why Dawkins and PZ and the gang have given up science for their ‘New Atheist Movement’, a purely philosophical/metaphysical battle to be fought in the sociopolitical arena. Which is where this film will debut.”

    Right… “fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science”! That must be why you ID people couldn’t come up with ANY examples of working ID research projects during the Dover Trial, eh?

    If you people had any, that would have been a good time to show it…instead what do we get afterwards?

    Yep, more conspiracy theories!
    http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/08/dembski_and_darwinian_fascists.php

  246. edwinharbor Says:

    I have read nearly all of the 2 days worth of comments and one statement that keeps coming up is the claim that these producers lied. As a producer myself I feel compelled to point out that many (probably more than half) of productions change titles mid stream. It is just part of the creative process - Art. In the case of this production I could see where the producers, after viewing many of their interviews, decided to change the title to reflect more of what their documentary had become.

    As for there being some sort of conspiracy, I doubt that also. Just as Michael Moore is blatant about his objective via his titles, so too does this documentary seem to be. They believe that ID is worth investigating. And, it would seem, they believe that the popular school of thought in this area is trying to suppress that desire. That is NOT a conspiracy, rather a statement from their experience.

    You must admit, the title is actually a rather good play on words!

  247. Reynold Hall Says:

    Ok, my last comment didn’t make it, I’ll try again…

    Ok, so many mistakes, so little time…

    #185, jb says:

    “Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.”

    Right! Obviously you’ve never seen the flash animation that Dembski had of Judge Jones, did you?

    Or maybe the threats that he got?
    http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/03/threats-of-violence-against-dover.html (check the news article in the story, though it requires registration)

    Or Dembski calling Jones a “putz” because he supposedly “copied” the ACLU’s opinion (http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/judge-jones-towering-intellectual-or-narcissistic-putz/) never mind that it’s actually common practice for judges to do that??
    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/weekend_at_behe.html

    (from the Pandasthumb article):
    “Now, Vice President for Legal Affairs John West is not a lawyer, so he may not be familiar with the fact that this is exactly what proposed findings of fact are for. They are proposed findings which a judge, if he or she agrees, then incorporates as his or her own findings. Both the school district and the plaintiffs filed proposed findings, and the judge went with the findings he found most convincing. Incidentally, the school district doesn’t seem to have ever objected to the plaintiffs’ filing their proposed findings.

    The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case. In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005, 1008. (1st Cir. 1970) (“The practice of inviting counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is well established as a valuable aid to decision making.”) As the Supreme Court put it in a slightly different context,
    ….”
    (read on, and learn something)

    Or how the ID people attacked Dr. Barbara Forrest?
    http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html

    (from Forrest):
    “Scheduled to testify the following week but delayed by Hurricane Rita, I used the extra time to prepare for my testimony and to stay current on ID activities by visiting DI’s website. On September 29, I noticed that DI had posted a transcript of an interview I had done— except that I hadn’t done it. The transcript was fake. Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody, the organization whose self-described goal is “to support high quality scholarship . . . relevant to the question of evidence for intelligent design in nature” ridiculed me by, among other things, having fictitious radio host “Marvin Waldburger” refer to me as “Dr. Barking Forrest Ph.D.” [25] If DI thought this would unsettle me, they were ignoring the fact that I had just been through two killer hurricanes. I could only shake my head at their doing something so jaw-droppingly stupid. If they were hoping Judge Jones would see and be influenced by this silliness, it was just another sign of the disrespect for his intelligence and integrity that began before the trial and continues today (see below).”

    (jb again):
    “Not a one of ‘em has seen this film, but when PZ Myers says, “Jump!” the dogs dutifully jump. Amazing that he’d have his peanut gallery come here to prove - in writing! - the very premise of this film.”

    Wrong. While some people are throwing insults, I’ve noticed that most of the posters here are actually trying to say just why ID is wrong. And sorry, nobody told me to do anything. We, at least, are not sheep.

    Sure, we haven’t seen the film yet, but guess what? We’re replying to the stuff that Stein has posted, as well as in some cases the claims that ID has made repeatedly in the past.

    Unless the film differs greatly from the ID party lines that we’ve all seen before, I think that we can make a pretty good guess as to the kinds of things the movie will have: Same old, same old.

    (more jb):
    “Neodarwinism is the tool of metaphysical materialism, used to evangelize scientism to other people’s children, protected by law and authoritarian orthodoxy from any alternative thinking or theorizing.”
    (more conspiracy thinking: read some European history about the Dark Ages if you want to see who’s really been bad at that)…Good grief.

    If you want “authoritarian orthodoxy”, may I suggest reading the Statments of Faith that Answers in Genesis the ICR have? Or even read the Wedge document.

    Can you name any religious right figure who, at, or before the time of the Scopes Trial in the ’20s was saying that we should hear both sides of the story when it came to evoluton vs. creation??

    Why is it only once that the ideas the religous right supports are refuted, THEN we hear them talking about stuff like “teaching the controversy”???

    Bottom line: As the Dover trial and numberous other sites have shown, it’s the science that defeats ID.

    Enough conspiracy theories, jb.

    (jb again):
    “Fortunately, it is fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science, and that’s what these die-hards are really afraid of. It’s why Dawkins and PZ and the gang have given up science for their ‘New Atheist Movement’, a purely philosophical/metaphysical battle to be fought in the sociopolitical arena. Which is where this film will debut.”

    Right… “fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science”! That must be why you ID people couldn’t come up with ANY examples of working ID research projects during the Dover Trial, eh?

    If you people had any, that would have been a good time to show it…instead what do we get afterwards?

    Yep, more conspiracy theories!
    http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/08/dembski_and_darwinian_fascists.php

  248. secularskeptic Says:

    Just from the short trailer we know that this movie will be brimming with lies and deception. Of course, we already knew that from the false pretense under which the scientists in the movie were interviewed.

    ID is not science. If it were science, it wouldn’t need stupid movies and frivolous lawsuits to help it. If it were science, it would make predictions and be supported by evidence.

    Of course Mr. Stein lies when he accuses science of not allowing people to even consider an intelligent creator. At last count, 40% of all scientists believe in God, and it should be obvious that at least a large percentage of those have some idea about how God fits into what we know about evolution. The difference is that they recognize that their religion is not science and does not belong in the scientific arena.

    Mr. Stein, your religion does not belong in the scientific arena, no matter how much you believe it to be true. Teaching it in religion class, philosophy class, psychology class, or sociology class is fine. Pretending that it is science is not.

  249. Tom Aquines Says:

    “The institutional vanity and intellectual slovenliness of America’s campus-based intelligentsia have made academia more peripheral to civic life than at any time since the 19th century.”

    George Will

  250. Endurion Says:

    If Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is true, then truth is really not something we can know. Our thoughts, our very consciousness - would be accidental occurrences that have only managed to confer us a survival advantage. They would not be based on any type of higher “Objective Truth”, nor could we even be certain that they could be trusted to be properly conceiving of anything as actually true. We would have no basis by which to compare what could be true with could not be because we simply would not know - ever. How could we know *the objective* when our “knowledge” is merely, simply, an adaptation that just happened to allow us to survive? The uncertainty of our very consciousness would lend us to the utter hopelessness of ever really “knowing” anything for certain.

    On the same note, it should be said that simply being a scientist does not make one a philosopher. But philosophy is something that we see more and more scientists wading into these days. Take for instance, the veneration given to the Scientific Method. I keep hearing of things being “proven” by the scientific method, or of the scientific method being the only way by which someone can arrive at “True Knowledge”. Yet what many who say these types of things are failing to consider is that the scientific method itself is based on something other than the scientific method. It is based (a priori) on the axiom that the scientific method is a valid method of determining something to be factual. But this axiom itself cannot be tested by the scientific method, because one must fist assume the scientific method to be true before one can use it to prove it. This is much like saying “I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is!”. Now, neither of these statements of mine are meant in any way to denigrate the scientific method or the faith in things that work. (Ultimately, in a purely pragmatic paradigm such as Darwinian Evolution, the definition of Truth would actually and only be “that which works”, which of course could not exclude religions.) But I say this to point out, to those who venerate the scientific method, that the scientific method itself rests on something *higher* than the scientific method, that existed before the scientific method. Where do our axioms come from, and how do we know them to be true? Indeed - it all depends on our view of what Truth really is, and on whether we can know it.

    The scientific method is based on that assumption that Truth can be known. But, if Darwinian Evolution is truly the case of how things came to be, then it would seem to me that Truth really couldn’t be known, because all our data and the interpretations thereof would merely be the subjective applications of an illusory consciousness that simply “happened to work”. Indeed, as I said previously, the only thing which we could then consider or even have faith in actually being true would be ‘whatever happens to work’. A utilitarian pragmatism. Of course, this would leave us with the problem of never knowing what to believe in until long after it had proven itself to work. And even then, ultimately, it could be proven wrong by its adherents simply dying off. Since the “truth” the knowers adhered to did not enable them to survive, then ultimately it had no realy meaning.

    Of course - this is not my view of knowledge or truth, nor do I suspect it is many of yours. But we must ask ourselves, where does our view of truth come from?

    We must all make certain assumptions which cannot be, ultimately, proven.

    Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design are two sides of the same epistemological coin. They are both valid methods of inquiry, based on certain presuppositions. We must follow where the evidence and our consciences lead. And we must assume that there is something True to actually be known - else why do we even speak about these things?

    To Truth!

    Endurion

  251. Reynold Hall Says:

    Maybe if I cut my remarks in half:

    Ok, so many mistakes, so little time…

    #185, jb says:

    “Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.”

    Right! Obviously you’ve never seen the flash animation that Dembski had of Judge Jones, did you?

    Or maybe the threats that he got?
    http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/03/threats-of-violence-against-dover.html (check the news article in the story, though it requires registration)

    Or Dembski calling Jones a “putz” because he supposedly “copied” the ACLU’s opinion (http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/judge-jones-towering-intellectual-or-narcissistic-putz/) never mind that it’s actually common practice for judges to do that??
    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/weekend_at_behe.html

    (from the Pandasthumb article):
    “Now, Vice President for Legal Affairs John West is not a lawyer, so he may not be familiar with the fact that this is exactly what proposed findings of fact are for. They are proposed findings which a judge, if he or she agrees, then incorporates as his or her own findings. Both the school district and the plaintiffs filed proposed findings, and the judge went with the findings he found most convincing. Incidentally, the school district doesn’t seem to have ever objected to the plaintiffs’ filing their proposed findings.

    The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case. In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005, 1008. (1st Cir. 1970) (“The practice of inviting counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is well established as a valuable aid to decision making.”) As the Supreme Court put it in a slightly different context,
    ….”
    (read on, and learn something)

    Or how the ID people attacked Dr. Barbara Forrest?
    http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html

    (from Forrest):
    “Scheduled to testify the following week but delayed by Hurricane Rita, I used the extra time to prepare for my testimony and to stay current on ID activities by visiting DI’s website. On September 29, I noticed that DI had posted a transcript of an interview I had done— except that I hadn’t done it. The transcript was fake. Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody, the organization whose self-described goal is “to support high quality scholarship . . . relevant to the question of evidence for intelligent design in nature” ridiculed me by, among other things, having fictitious radio host “Marvin Waldburger” refer to me as “Dr. Barking Forrest Ph.D.” [25] If DI thought this would unsettle me, they were ignoring the fact that I had just been through two killer hurricanes. I could only shake my head at their doing something so jaw-droppingly stupid. If they were hoping Judge Jones would see and be influenced by this silliness, it was just another sign of the disrespect for his intelligence and integrity that began before the trial and continues today (see below).”

  252. Beefcake 27 Says:

    Hi Ben

    I just want to congratulate you on your movie. Looks like it will be the comedy smash of the year.

  253. Dudeness Says:

    Maybe those who believe in a Creator would stop challenging the Evolutionists in their science if the Evolutionists would stop attacking their theology.

    “Hey your karma just ran over my dogma!”

  254. Claypit 90 Says:

    When will these arrogant Darwinists learn science without a soul is what led to Hitler and Stalin. They may have the upper hand at the moment but it won’t be long before we return to the good ol’ days when we could put teachers in prison for teaching evolution and not the good book.

  255. Super Scientist Says:

    Dear Mr. Stein:

    Intelligent design is a hypothesis. Specifically, intelligent design is the assertion that an intelligent designer designed and created the universe, including living things. This hypothesis cannot be tested and verified so it cannot become a scientific theory.

    The proponents of intelligent design describe intelligent design as a “scientific theory.” That misrepresentation is the cause of the acrimony surrounding the topic of intelligent design. If the proponents of intelligent design would stop misrepresenting the status of intelligent design then the furor over intelligent design would evaporate.

    The proponents of intelligent design are willfully misrepresenting intelligent design for the purpose of causing a public controversy. They are acting in a dishonest and malicious manner. Their employment of the doctrine of Heavenly Deception (lying to advance their religious agenda) is not fooling anyone. Their lies only make them look untrustworthy.

  256. Matusleo Says:

    I find the tenor of comments here unsurprising. The level of ignorance on both sides is remarkable. There is a desire by folks on both sides to pit religion vs. science, when historically speaking (at least for Catholicism), it has not been the case.

    It was the Catholic thinkers (such as Thierry, Aquinas, Boskovich, etc…) that paved the way for scientific inquiry. Did you know that it was a Jesuit who proved Kepler right, that the Earth moves in an ellipse? Did you know that the science of Seismology was once so dominated by Jesuits that it was called the Jesuit science? Did you know that Copernicus dedicated his work on the heliocentric theory to the Pope, who praised him for it? Did you know that it was the Scholastics who first turned against Aristotle’s ideas on the nature of the universe, because they could not accept the limitations they placed on God? Did you realize that in every civilization accept Catholic Europe, science never got off the ground? And have you ever wondered why?

    It is this simple truth: In the Catholic (and hence Christian faith), God is a rational being who created a rational universe, and thus, one that can be understood by men. This was not the case with the Greeks, whose gods were capricious and often interfered in the affairs of men, or the Chinese (the idea of an ordered universe that could be understood would be ridiculous to the Taoists), or the Muslim (as no limitations at all could be made on Allah, the universe existed at his whim), etc… The scientific mind has its roots in Christianity, a fact that more and more historians of science are recognizing.

    That said, a lot of the ID proponents do disparage this great heritage by their looking for the facts to fit their certain notion. St. Aquinas warned against this very thing! And the folks like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens go out of their way to attack religion, even when their position gives them absolutely no ground on which to strike.

    If there is a war between religion and science, it is because these intolerant folks brought it to us. The rest of us who believe and yet seek to understand God’s universe will prosper fine enough without either of their mistakes.

  257. Josh Says:

    Thank you.
    You always get a constant mantra of how darwinism is “proven,” yet nobody can every produce good evidence. So many people ignore the fact that we can find no instances of one species changing into an entirely different one in our fossil record and that new species appear suddenly, often many at a time (such as in the Cambrian explosion).
    Currently, the proof for Darwinism is “it’s the only non-religious explanation we have, so it must be true.” Thank you for helping bring that fact to light.

  258. mr204 Says:

    Why are there so many posts on the Dover case? What does a legal decision by a judge based on the constitutional separation of church and state have to do with science? And the state university systems in this country have more money than God, so why are the Darwinistas whining about the possibility of funding for ID?

  259. Jim Says:

    I used to think Ben Stien was smart, but now I realize he’s not. He’s an idiot who thinks the Democrats caused the Khmer Rouge genocide because Woodward & Bernstein took away his job. And apparently, being smarter than Ben Stien is only worth $5,000. I guess the market has answered that question.

    Also, what kind of idiot parent lets their child play Everquest to the point where they never even leave the house? Way to, Einstien.

    Seriously, what the hell Stien? The About section not 4 inches away from the box I’m typing in calls a scientific fact part of the “Neo-Darwinian machine.” And machine is italicized. God damn man, you’re supposed to be a smart conservative, not whacked out conspiracy theorist.

    I just noticed I spelled your name wrong. But since I have lost all respect for you, I will not make the effort to correct it.

  260. Dan Says:

    “my kids don’t go to public schools…..what do i care”—Michael Behe

  261. John Says:

    “Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.”

    Einstein thought the idea of a personal God or an afterlife was ridiculous, and certainly did not believe in any form of creationism. Galileo, Newton, and basically everybody else before were creationists, just as everyone (aside from a few Greek philosophers whose thoughts were suppressed throughout the Christian Age) before Copernicus was a geocentrist.

    Propose possible falsification, a test, or evidence for ID, or else it does not deserve to be paid attention to by scientists.

    Can you do that Ben? Can you propose a possible falsification of intelligent design? Would obvious poor design (i.e. vertical Eustachian tubes during infancy) disprove the idea?
    There are dozens of potential falsifications for evolutionary common decent, and it passes them all.

    Some angry desert deity did not make trillions upon trillions upon trillions of stars and planets just to put some bipedal primates through an ordeal of sinning and salvation, or whatever your particular sect of the Abrahamic faiths dictates, on a piece of silicon and iron, alongside billions of other species, of which about 99% are extinct.

    It’s scary to think that so many people can retain the worldview of a medieval peasant in the modern age of science.

  262. Edwin Hensley Says:

    Jasonx10 said
    “6) How does ID explain the evidence produced by conventional science?
    Very well in the case of creationism i believe.”

    So Jasonx10, please explain how plants of every kind existed on the 3rd day WHEN THERE WAS NO SUN, since it was not created until the 4th?

    True scientists who believed this idea would perform an experiment. You could attempt to grow plants of every kind in an environment that simulates no sun light or sun warmth.

    True scientists perform such research. Creationists and ID proponents do not do any research. All they do is promote the same old tired arguments over and over again.

  263. Freedom For All Says:

    As I read the same old drivel the Darwinists offer as proof ID is not science, I am amazed at their lack of ability to think for themselves. All these old statements about lack of scientific evidence have been answered. The fact that the dogmatic Darwinists refuse to accept them will not change. But then this isn’t really about science. It’s about philosophy and belief on both sides. The inability of these atheists to accept any other explanation for their existence is out of the question, regardless of evidence offered. It’s so much easier to eliminate opposing ideas through limiting the definition instead of offering proof. The “God of the gaps” idea has never been used in ID theory but is repeatedly offered as rhetoric by the Darwinists. They constantly talk about “who designed the designer” like it is the final nail in the coffin of ID theory while their own evolutionary theory has no plausible beginning theory. Random mutation and natural selection requires a life form with the ability to reproduce and pass that genetic information on. How you get from a rock to this first life is huge. Talk about a theory with a gap. That’s more like a canyon.

    Here’s an idea for you supporters of scientific theory: use scientific facts instead of intimidation, character assassination, court ordered science theory, backroom political cutthroat tactics and dogmatic support of your scientific theory. If you actually had the facts to back up your position, you would do it that way. The fact that you resort to these other sleazy alternatives speaks volumes.

  264. Karl Priest Says:

    Evolution is a zillion times more impossible than the Blue Fairy, the Witch of the North, Aladdin’s genies, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Headless Horseman, and the mathematical definition of impossible all put together.

    That is why so many have defaulted on the Life Science Prize challenge (http://www.lifescienceprize.org/).

    All they have is hot air. Hot air contests never end. The Super Bowl and the World Series are not decided with hot air.

  265. RBH Says:

    Stephen Carr claimed

    “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.

    It is no use denying it.

    Dozens of high-class research projects have been knocked back by the cabal who control evolutionary biology.

    I give you this about ID grant requests from the Templeton Foundation:

    The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

    “They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

    “From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,” he said.”

    No ID research proposals came in. Why? There are none. My bet is that Carr couldn’t provide one ID research proposal to a federal funding agency that was refused. Consider the ID “journal”, Progress in Complexity. Information, and Design, run by Bill Dembski. An allegedly quarterly journal, it hasn’t had enough material to publish an issue since November 2005. Sure is a lot of ID “research” going on, huh?

    The fundamental question to ask of ID is “Where’s the beef”? (RIP, Clara Peller) Other maverick scientific ideas have prevailed by providing good evidence. ID wants to prevail in movie theaters. Now that’s a real research program!

  266. Schaef21 Says:

    Obviously, Ben, some website has directed a bunch of Darwinian fundamentalists here to badger you. All they are doing is proving your point. They will not allow dissent

    All those who have posted here that there is no evidence of intelligent design please read:

    Gene Myers, the computer scientist who mapped the genome, said “What really astounds me is the architecture of life. The system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed”.

    He also said “There’s a huge intelligence there. I don’t see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me”

    Scientists should not be fired or denied tenure because they see what Gene Myers saw.

    Bravo, Ben. I can’t wait to see it.

  267. Glenn Says:

    What is TRUTH? There is only one truth, and that is the Holy Word of God. All other so called truth is fiction made up to look like the truth.

  268. Brian Says:

    Karl,

    True, the Super Bowl is not decided with hot air, but scientific results do not stand or fall at the whim of legal definitions. If you want to claim evolution is impossible, then by all means submit your work to a refereed journal. If you can prove evolution wrong, or, as you imply from the “challenge” you site, that creationism is a better scientific theory, you are pretty much guaranteed the Nobel prize.

    No critic of evolution has ever come remotely close. The default-judgement is against creationism, not evolution.

  269. V Says:

    I see the Darwin groupies have already infested the site! Ben I look forward to more of your eloquent posts.

  270. A Hermit Says:

    “Obviously, Ben, some website has directed a bunch of Darwinian fundamentalists here to badger you. All they are doing is proving your point. They will not allow dissent”

    Don’t be silly, Schaef, Ben has every right to dissent. And those of us who actually know something about the subject have every right to point out his errors and laugh at him a little.

  271. Crystal Lake Says:

    Well, predictably they came out in droves to smash the documentary. And predictably Myers alleges to have been deceived. And predictably, his supporters believe him.

    Actually, even though I don’t agree with evolutionism - and the idiocy and ignorance on these comments are quite astounding, I have to say that PZ Meyers allegation does have some weight, only because I can’t imagine any fanatic evolutionist voluntarily including himself in a film like this. No, they prefer to snipe from the background, rather than expose themselves on the very film they’re slavering to ridicule.

    So, it would be much appreciated if you would contribute your side to Meyers’ allegation.

  272. A Hermit Says:

    Hey, what happened to the other entry on this shiny new rebel blog? The new with the spurious appeal to Johnny Cash and the whiny complaining about those mean old scientists and their biased old facts and puppy-hating logical skilz?

    This whole thing is a joke, right? Are we on camera? seriously….?

  273. Craig Says:

    Freedom For All Said: “The inability of these atheists to accept any other explanation for their existence is out of the question, regardless of evidence offered.”

    It’s already been mentioned many, many times that not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist.

    “They constantly talk about “who designed the designer” like it is the final nail in the coffin of ID theory”

    Well, then, who designed the designer? :)

    “while their own evolutionary theory has no plausible beginning theory. Random mutation and natural selection requires a life form with the ability to reproduce and pass that genetic information on. How you get from a rock to this first life is huge.”

    Two things here: The actual origins of life (abiogeneis) is separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t care how life got started, only that it did. And second, we *do* have some promising ideas on how it all got started. You don’t need to start with full-up DNA.

    “If you actually had the facts to back up your position, you would do it that way.”

    We have seen and continue to see evolution happen. We have even seen speciation occur. We have lots of facts. :)

  274. Grafox Says:

    Hi Ben, I look forward to this movie coming to New Zealand, I will happily play it at my theatre!!! Designer or no Designer.. its the Billian Dollar question and there are only two possibilities.. ask NASA they’ve spent enough money trying to find life on Mars! Perhaps the earth is special??? Most people look at the evidence of design in creation know which way to vote!!

  275. scientist Says:

    WOW ben. ID is not science, its religion. read this:

    http://zatma.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/mzs/intelligent.html

  276. Jbagail Says:

    I find it very interesting that so many people have so much negative to say about a movie they have never seen. All of the hate directed toward the once beloved Ben Stein proves his point very well. It is so easy to go from being admired to hated by simply mentioning the possibility that Neo-Darwinism may not answer all our questions about creation. One comment about the claim that the ID movement has MASSIVE funding, where do people get this idea? My single small department at the university (molecular biology) gets something like 10 times the whole Discovery budget each year. They are a tiny organization with only a handful of employees and no guarantee of any money when their grants run out. We have state funds and student fees each year, and we bring in more money each year as our research progresses. My, how people like to step on the little guy.

  277. Andrew Says:

    Fact: Every scientist alive agrees that living things have the appearance of design. Believing that Darwinism’s random processes are responsible for every last detail, rather than a designer, is the dogma that must be embraced. What if a scientist claims evidence that Darwinism may not be powerful enough to accomplish some aspect of the complexity of life - that perhaps the engineering in the cell, that human engineers learn from, actually had an engineer. - Heresy!

  278. Noyatin Says:

    How about Intelligent Math?

    1 Kings 7:23 states unequivically that Hiram of Tyre built for Solomon a “molten sea”: “It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.”

    Pi is, of course, the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter. We all remember from our secular math classes that Pi is always 3.14159 and so on.

    However, Solomon’s molten sea had a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits. Since this must be entirely accurate, Pi must therefore be 3.0.

    Intolerant teachers from Big Math have not only failed students but denied tenure to those mathematicians with the independence and courage to state that Pi = 3.

    I hope Ben Stein has the courage to expose Big Math as well.

  279. Lose Ben Stein's Mind Says:

    You’re an idiot. Go back to bible college.

  280. Glenn H. Says:

    Josh wrote, “You always get a constant mantra of how darwinism is ‘proven,’ yet nobody can every produce good evidence.”

    1) Do you have a few references to that “constant mantra”? I’ve literally never heard anyone claim that.

    2) Have you glanced at TalkOrigins.org? Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You have a fundamental right to find it unconvincing, but it’s just a lie to say there’s no evidence.

    I’m the “Glenn” who posted the first several messages under that moniker. The last one was someone else. My mistake for using a common name.

  281. Collin Tierney Says:

    ““The institutional vanity and intellectual slovenliness of America’s campus-based intelligentsia have made academia more peripheral to civic life than at any time since the 19th century.”

    George Will”

    Aaaahaha. George Will accepts the Theory of Evolution. Try again.

  282. Andrew Says:

    Darwinism can do anything you can think of and more. Intricate interacting systems beyond the complexity of the wildest dreams of today’s engineers happened by themselves building one mutated molecule at time - each of the billions of mutations in that precise chain conferring a decisive selective advantage. We unfortunately have no way of observing that which would have taken place over eons of time to provide enough generations and enough organisms to create these structures. Wait, you mean there are organisms like the malarial bacteria that have completed, while we have observed, millions of generations just during our lifetimes - each generation representing multi trillions of malarial organisms. It is a good thing that this hard empirical evidence demonstrates the great diversity of new structures that have been produced in malaria. There is nothing like actual data to shore up our faith in Darwinian macro-evolution. Wow, and this is just one of many bacteria that we can observe the amazing conquests of macro-evolution in action. To think that there are viruses like HIV that have much greater mutation rates than bacteria! What a gold mine for macro-evolution. All indications suggest that there is just is no limits to Darwinian mechanisms. Comrades nod your heads in agreement - to doubt this would be a decidedly poor career move.

  283. Doug Says:

    I can’t help but wonder at this whole approach. Trying to challenge an established scientific theory through high school students?

    History and science are replete with examples of new or improved scientific theories replacing or amending the old ones: relativity, the big bang and plate tectonics, to name a few recent ones. Yet I can’t think of one example where scientists tried to sell their idea to young adults instead of proving the theory to peers. Isn’t this exactly why the scientific community has respected, peer reviewed journals, and conferences? If you have something scientifically substantial, why can’t it withstand scrutiny from the professionals? Conspiracy? If so, why? The scientist who could radically change the theory of evolution, let alone disprove it, would likely become the most famous scientist of the 21st century.

    Conservative religious groups are never far behind this drumbeat of “intelligent design,” although they try to separate themselves from their more conservative “creationist” forefathers. I can’t help but see this as an attempt at religious indoctrination. If it were good science they would be trying to convince real scientists with data and actual proof.

  284. mynym Says:

    “If you can prove evolution wrong…”

    That’s a fools errand because the term evolution is based on hypothetical goo to begin with. Given the structure of typical Darwinian reasoning: “If I couldn’t imagine a sequence of events that seem natural to me, then my theory would absolutely break down. Yet see how I can always imagine something.” Darwinian theorizing will remain stuck in goo.

    “No critic of evolution has ever come remotely close.”

    Only if you’re using the term evolution the way popularizers of Darwinian creation myths do because they use to term to mean anything from all change that has ever happened in the Cosmos to a minute change in the size of finch beaks. To those adhere to “evolution” as a metaphysical system it seems that it is the be all, end all, which makes the term itself an “evolving” form of equivocation. When evolution is that sort of be all, end all to a person it doesn’t really make sense to try to reason with them. After all, intelligent selection is expelled from such a mind as it imagines more “natural selection.” Its own words and symbols and signs aren’t an artifact of intelligence by intelligent design, instead their words trace back to natural selection operating on some worms. A mind of the synaptic “gaps” which believes that may as well be excrement, so one may as well try to reason with worms.

    “The default-judgement is against creationism, not evolution.”

    Is that just what your Mommy Nature selected for you to say or do you think that you actually just say something?

  285. Jacob Evilsizor Says:

    Ben,

    Congratulations on your courage to come out and publicly stand up for what you believe in. Truly that is a rarity in Hollywood to say the least.

    What many of the “willingly ignorant” here are in fact doing, is a proving the point of just how effective the indoctrination method works on humans from a very young age. The irony is that evolution is a de facto theory which is only maintained by brain-washing the proverbial “masses” by consistently proclaiming pure conjecture to be absolute fact; a very efficient and effective method used by the Nazi party in Germany not so long ago. This is why you have empty-headed no-nothings proclaiming with ideological zeal that evolution is an indisputable fact and has “tons of evidence” and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers; as if the argument from authority method was in fact a fitting substitute for actual, credible evidence.

    Never mind that there are many scores of contradictory evidence that defy evolution; because the definition of evolution is so ambiguous, it can literally mean anything from the obscure “change over time” to “change in allele frequency of an organism due to genetic drift and natural selection via mutational variation compounded over millions of years to form increasingly complex entities of organizational matter.” Notice how much wiggle room there is in-between those two descriptions? Subsequently, evolution duplicitously disguises itself as science using a tactic known as bait ‘n’ switch. Bait ‘n’ switch is a tactic oft used by salesmen to get a prospective customer to buy into one thing by luring them in with something completely different. The salesman is the evolutionist, the promised item is natural selection, and the resultant product is molecules-to-man evolution. People buy into it all too easily, because we as a society have been conditioned not to question science for any reason. The truth is that natural selection is an ingenious design application allowing creatures to adapt to their environment, but it is always represented by an inherent loss of functional genetic information. This means that it can never “create” organisms of higher complexity, because this requires a massive increase in DNA coding language needed to direct new proteins.

    Mutations have the same problem because they also do not increase the net information content of DNA. Predominantly, mutations are either neutral or detrimental. For the most part, mutations caused by radiation exposure are seriously life threatening because the information structure (which is highly organized in the DNA molecule) is vital to a healthy, functioning cell, and radiation causes disorder and destruction within the cells. The only examples of beneficial mutations caused by radiation are in comic books. Mutations are also caused by the loss and scrambling of necessary genetic information due to copying errors in processes such as gene duplication/replication and polyploidy, but are never represented by an increase in functional genetic information content. On rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial, such as beetles losing their wings on a windy island where they might otherwise be blown out to sea. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the occurrence of beneficial mutations is sparse; but even given this arcane event in nature, and considering the result of gene duplication and polyploidy (which is subsequent to photocopying a page out of a book), we still have yet to witness an increase in the overall genetic information content of a single organism.

    Evolution works on the idea of random changes. But in the case of DNA, these changes are only good if they add not just information, but specific information in a coherent, structured fashion. In the case of a human being, that would be about 3 billion base pairs. And don’t forget that the genetic information is useless unless there are specific proteins that they are coding for in the first place. After all, what is the point of a coding mechanism if it has nothing to code for? Because the fundamental changes to DNA that evolution requires are ones that both are conducive to survival, and fundamentally increase functional genetic information that is specific and coherent to the DNA coding procedure. A simple example to illustrate my point might be: if you have the word CAT, and you randomly add characters to it, you cannot arrive at the word CATCHER unless you have specific letters that make the word coherent and meaningful. This does not even take into account the fact that this particular word, and the letters that are used in it, are both part of a structured, intelligently designed language system called English. Incidentally, if you add random Arabic letters to the end of CAT, you are never going to get the word CATCHER, in one coherent language. It just isn’t possible. And remember with something like human DNA, you are talking about literally billions of letters that together create a coherent, functioning coding mechanism (language) necessary for life.

    So if evolutionists cannot produce a viable mechanism for evolution that produces a single example of increased functional genetic information content, much less the astronomical increases that would be necessary to go from a single-celled organism to a human being containing over 100 trillion cells, DNA with over 3 billion base pairs of complex coding language, as well as the synthesized proteins which they code for to do specific jobs, and a brain with over 100 billion neurons, each with tens of thousands of individual synaptic connections, which functions around the clock from the time you are in the womb to the time you die, controlling hundreds of necessary biological systems within your body without a single thought; and yet they emphatically and dogmatically claim “tons of evidence” to support their so-called theory that cannot be subjected to the scientific method; has a history of hoaxes that are used as factual evidence for literally decades at a time; proclaims every single fossil discovery as a missing link or transitional fossil without contention or debate; uses bogus dating methods that cannot accurately date objects of a known age, and yet they claim that the results they get for objects of unknown age are incontrovertible (while simultaneously admitting that the method depends on certain unverified assumptions); ignores the fact that written human history only goes back 4-6 thousand years, and ignores the fact that the Bible is a written account of human history that is supported archeologically on many levels; ignores dozens of specimens of dinosaur soft-tissue and mummified dinosaurs (Google it), dogmatically proclaiming that dinosaurs died 65-68 million years ago; ignores the Cambrian Explosion which contains almost every major phyla of animal, yet Pre-Cambrian rock does not present any examples of ancestors of diminishing complexity at all; cannot produce a viable explanation for the initial “creation” of life (abiogenesis) without invoking aliens or a creator, and yet cannot concede that complexity warrants design (as is logical), and that the same creator that started life (if they concede an ambiguous creator) could have done it just how He said He did in a written account of history; will not consider other viable theories such as Flood geology to explain billions of fossils worldwide (fossils are quite rare occurrences except in catastrophic conditions, i.e. a flood) including mass fossil graves; dogmatically pushes a phony geologic column that is not found in whole in any one place on earth (only in textbooks), and ignores polystrate fossils that cut through several layers of strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years, as well as tightly bent rock strata that support the flood theory; deceitfully fabricate characteristic of extinct apes like Lucy to make them look like humans (because they don’t have any real transitional fossils), such as adding human facial features, and also human hands and feet to pictures and models, even though the specimen had long, curved, ape-like fingers and no feet; ignores the concept of irreducible complexity a priori, because the concept infers an intellectual injection of cause and reason into an arbitrary and meaningless process that has no motivation to surpass boundaries or benchmarks in any pseudo-creative endeavor as is implied by evolution; ignores the concept of physical laws (gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc.) that govern our universe and support our reality with mathematical inductive reasoning and logical structure (which imply an intelligent architect); and pretty much denies logical reasoning and common sense observation altogether, replacing them instead with ad hominem attacks, character-assassination, and virulent name-calling. But decide for yourself…

    For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant):

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
    http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
    http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
    http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
    http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
    http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
    http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site

  286. mynym Says:

    “One comment about the claim that the ID movement has MASSIVE funding, where do people get this idea?”

    It’s ironic given that the Darwinian creation myth is often propped up by relatively “MASSIVE” amounts of State funding, from PBS to textbooks (which have contained frauds that biologists have generally failed to correct.) Sometimes it seems that they’re little better than the eugenics movement, probably because they adhere to the same root philosophy of Life.

  287. Glenn H. Says:

    I’m baffled. Those who’ve come here to support ID or creationism as scientific theories make repeated claims that these “theories”:

       • Offer testable, falsifiable hypotheses
       • Make testable predictions

    …but they never say what these are or provide a reference. David Clark at #219 included a reference to a Web site, but there was no such thing on the page referenced, and a search of the site uncovered–guess what–claims that the site’s contributors have testable, falsifiable hypotheses.

    You’re catching a lot of flak here, folks. The science proponents here are exasperated, but they’re offering you really great, free advice. (Search for all of Nullifidian’s posts for a top-notch set of suggestions.) If you do what they call on you to do, and if you’re right, you will be rich and famous. No kidding. If you can show scientifically that evolution is false (and it *is* falsifiable since it’s a scientific theory), you could well win a Nobel prize.

    But all I’ve ever seen from proponents of ID and creationism is negative: criticisms of evolution. That’s not science. Science is coming up with your own proposal, as Nullifidian writes above (#218), “a point of substantative difference, either in the extent of its explanatory power (which, for it to prevail, should be greater) or in making predictions which are distinct from evolutionary theory and accurate.”

    Seriously, stop carping and *do* something. Contribute something positive and substantive to the field. You have a tremendous amount to gain, and so does humanity.

  288. Schubie Says:

    WAY TO GO, BEN. NO MATTER WHAT, IT’LL BE FUNNY.

  289. Piero Says:

    Myers was cajoled into taking part in this movie. Which goes to show just what kind of ethical people creationists are. You can see the details in Myers blog (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/). For those who can’t be bothered to examine the facts by themselves, here’s the letter originally sent to Myers:

    Hello Mr. Myers,

    My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.”

    At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment.

    We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.

    Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time.

    I look forward to speaking with you soon.

    Sincerely,

    Mark Mathis
    Rampant Films
    4414 Woodman Ave. #203
    Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

  290. Mike Says:

    What is the mathematical possibility that the universe in all of its beauty, mystery, and complexity evolved from some type of primordial soup,? As the dude in the Dodge commercial says, it “can’t be good”.

  291. Schubie Says:

    WHAT A GREAT IDEA. TALK ABOUT TOUCHED A RAW NERVE?

    BASED ON WHAT I SEE HERE, YOU’RE GONNA MAKE BILLION$.

  292. mynym Says:

    “It’s already been mentioned many, many times that not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist.”

    That’s true. History shows that Darwinian reasoning was generally propped up based on theological arguments favorable to naturalism, not empirical evidence. So arguments of this structure: “I don’t think God would make things this way.” “God wouldn’t get his hands dirty like that or something.” “How could a good God make cats to play with mice?” and so on and so forth are used to justify the Darwinian tendency of citing your own imagination as evidence. E.g. “God wouldn’t make the panda’s thumb like this but I can imagine something about it, so that’s evidence for the theory of natural selection.”

    It seems that Darwinists are frightened of any answer to their “panda’s thumb” type of negative theology in some form of positive theology. Negative theology has always been used to prop up the Darwinian creation myth, yet supposedly these little fellows who want to crawl back in the womb of Mommy Nature are being so “scientific” that theology has nothing to do with it.

  293. physicist Says:

    wow I don’t suppose its too late to include some of these comments in your movie it shows the arrogant hateful attitude the general public has to the theory of ID and their proponents. Its amazing that some of the people leaving such comments are freshmen when one of the scientists you interview is from the Max plank institute. That of course does not make them wrong but it does make their arrogance astounding. You may not be a scientist but as a scientist I applaud such efforts as I believe promoting ID is more a marketing problem than a science problem. The evidence is strongly in favour of ID but no amount of facts can beat a media characterization that design supporters are ignorant and have no evidence. Its time to break that characterization. Good work
    - an obviously “ignorant, stupid and insane” physicist

  294. mynym Says:

    “Two things here: The actual origins of life (abiogeneis) is separate from evolution.”

    Except when people use the term evolution to describe all change that has ever taken place in the Cosmos. It’s an interesting little question though, for what defines change as change?

    “Evolution doesn’t care how life got started, only that it did.”

    Now I suppose “Evolution” is just about a sentient being…. why just the other day Evolution told me that it was about to naturally select something for me.

    “And second, we *do* have some promising ideas on how it all got started. You don’t need to start with full-up DNA.”

    Translation: “Even among those of us who make rules allowing us to cite our imaginations as naturalistic evidence (naturally enough), the origin of life is still a problem. In fact, it’s enough of a problem that we almost can’t imagine anything right now…. but just wait a little while and we may be naturally selected to imagine something.”

    For some Nature selects, Nature calls… and excrement happens…

  295. Christopher Says:

    Ben, you have at least one good point. Science education does seem to be failing, because you appear to have absolutely no understanding of it whatsoever. The evidence for evolution continues to pour in every day from a variety of different fields. On the other hand, I have never seen any good evidence for a creator. God has no place in science classrooms, or indeed, anywhere else.

  296. Curtis R Says:

    Isn’t science suppose to ask questions? Do you always have to ask the right ones? Shouldn’t everyone in America have the freedom to ask whatever question they want? Just because you may not like the results doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run the test. Just because you don’t like the question some people ask doesn’t mean that you have the right to squelch them. Feel free to think they are an idiot if you want to, but don’t squelch them. If ID is not science then it will not be able to answer any questions with empirical data.

    Bring on the tests! Bring on the questions! Leave the attitude at home!

  297. Dave C. Says:

    Most of the above seems relatively content-free, but there are some good points. Some of the not-so-good ones:
    1) Dover settled it - ID isn’t science! Please - a judge with no scientific credentials copies an ACLU brief, and that’s supposed to have determinative value? Bah.
    2) ID isn’t a scientific theory! Sure it is - just because you don’t understand it (or don’t want to) doesn’t mean it isn’t scientific. See below for more detail.
    3) Expelled misrepresented itself, so they’re bad people! Possibly true, but irrelevant to the validity of the argument they’re going to make in the movie. Tell me - if 60 Minutes uses a hidden camera, are they automatically wrong?
    4) ID makes no predictions! This is really a dumb one. By definition, if you make an assertion, any assertion, its testable in some fashion. Even universal negatives (there are no pink dragons) are testable to some extent (I can test whether there are pink dragons here!) Want to falsify ID? Simply demonstrate something (other than life, which would be begging the question) that gives a false positive as having been designed, when it wasn’t.
    5) Ken Miller (et. al.) is religious and not-persecuted, so you’re wrong! Uh, guys, the movie is about people who object to materialistic Darwinism and allow the possibility of a religious element as having active involvement - not about people who happen to be religious but believe in a non-participatory God (aka Miller).
    6) Abiogenesis is not relevant to Evolution! Phah - Evolution’s foundation is that only materialistic explanations are allowed. If it requires God to create the first life, there’s no longer a valid reason to exclude Him from the rest of the process either. Either everything that happened from “big bang” is explained by naturalistic processes, or you can no longer exclude non-naturalistic processes from any given point.

    Back to my assertion that ID is a scientific theory. In my words, ID says this: “It is possible to determine whether an object is the result of natural, non-directed processes, or the result of intelligent design and directed processes, by measuring the complexity of the entity”.
    Interestingly enough, ID isn’t necessarily or even essentially about life, or origins. If ID didn’t carry implications for Neo-Darwinian Evolution, the same scientists who are so frenetic to discredit it now would probably applaud the science/math behind it. Basically, all ID says is that design requires a designer - and that it is possible to measure/detect design. Unfortunately for both Evolution and ID, life appears designed. So - either Materialistic Evolution which says life is undesigned is wrong, or ID which says that design requires a designer is wrong. Neither side would disagree that Life appears designed.
    So - where do we, and will we, see resolution? What predictions does ID make that differentiate it from Evolution? One such would be “Junk”, or undesigned elements to life. For some time, it was believed that most (upwards of 90%) of human DNA was unnecessary - remnants of the random evolutionary process. This would certainly imply ID was wrong - why would a designer put worthless elements in the base code of life? Current scientific thought is, however, that DNA is not only not mostly “junk”, but almost entirely functional (even if non-coding). Now evolutionists may (and have) argue that Darwinian processes have filtered out the worthless DNA (evolution is ultimately flexible - everything can be explained, and therefore nothing is), but ID theory is clearly supported by the findings.
    As for the argument that no scientists use ID theory - nonsense. Ever hear of Biomimetics? Scientists use the Design they find in life to help them improve our technology. This is inherently relevant to ID - you wouldn’t copy the design of something that wasn’t designed, would you?

    I’m a YEC, myself, so I have a dog in this fight only so far as I certainly see the design of life as evidence for a designer. And, as a YEC’er, let me give you some scientific predictions using my Theory of origins.
    1) Abiogenesis will not be solved. Scientists will never be able to “create life”, even using intelligent intervention in a lab
    2) Within the next 10 years, DNA will be found in more fossilized remains of creatures supposedly 100’s of millions of years old.
    3) No experimental process will ever be able to mutate a species beyond a certain boundary (years of experiments with mutated bacteria will result only in - a mutated version of recognizably the same bacteria, not a new type of bacteria).
    4) Increased research will increase our understanding of the complexity of life, and find complexity that we don’t currently recognize (e.g. the light pathways recently found in human’s “inverted” retina)
    5) Gene sequence comparisons and molecular phylogenies will only further muddy the “tree of life”
    6) SETI remains a colossal waste of time and effort
    7) Improvements in technology will allow new telescopes to take pictures of “20Billion-year-old” galaxies, in our “14Byo” universe.
    8) Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain the ultimate Fudge Factor.
    9) Evolution Research will remain mired in “just-so-stories” and gene sequence comparisons, because any interesting experimentation that might prove evolution possible (as opposed to “true” which is not possible with a historical science) lead to dead ends (e.g. Miller’s OOL experiment).
    9) We’ll still be having these same conversations, with noone’s opinions much changed.

  298. dalton Says:

    Mr. Stein,
    It’s clear the evolutionists posting here are laying awake at night in frustration because of you.

    A smart guy who refuses to believe!? How dare you!

  299. DAVESCOT Says:

    Evilution aka sheer dumb luck is what you liberals cling two. I see in the kitzmiller trial that the ACLU were helping the evilutionists.

    The same ACLU who stopped these marines praying hear:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/off-topic-from-a-dear-friend-of-mine/

    Its criminal, they want to take god out of the schools. Just look around at the many theocracies of teh world to sea what we’re missing.

    If you liberals think you are all so smart, then.

    Q) what is the strongest force in teh universe?

    A) Grabity. I bet you didn’t know that! well, I do and I didn’t even go to college. So don’t think you’re smarter becuase of you’re schooling.

    Sgt. Dave Springer Scott. (t-Ard)

  300. Kraig Says:

    I am suprised by the vitrolic responses. Why not just watch the movie and then make up your minds?

  301. jb Says:

    Reynold Hall responded:

    Right! Obviously you’ve never seen the flash animation that Dembski had of Judge Jones, did you?

    Why no, I haven’t. Is it in this thread, or part of this documentary? If not, then it has nothing to do with my observation about the comments to this thread about this as-yet unseen documentary.

    Or Dembski calling Jones a “putz” because he supposedly “copied” the ACLU’s opinion (http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/judge-jones-towering-intellectual-or-narcissistic-putz/) never mind that it’s actually common practice for judges to do that??

    LOL! “Putz,” eh? Wow. Sounds like that Dembski fellow is quite the potty-mouth.

    Or how the ID people attacked Dr. Barbara Forrest?

    From your citation it appears she has no problem defending herself from apparent “parody.” Which I also don’t care about.

    Wrong. While some people are throwing insults, I’ve noticed that most of the posters here are actually trying to say just why ID is wrong. And sorry, nobody told me to do anything. We, at least, are not sheep.

    I don’t get the impression from this site that the documentary it exists to promote is about whether ID is right or wrong. It looks to be about the declared “culture war” and what that actually looks like. I imagine PZ, Dawkins, Eugenie and all others interviewed provided plenty of useful material, since they apparently believed the film would be THEIR propaganda vehicle. And they now feel burned because they think the focus changed.

    If it changed. I am not convinced this isn’t edgy comedy of the “Borat” variety, where the subjects make asses out of themselves and most people get a good laugh at their expense. I am also not convinced PZ isn’t contributing requisite “controversy” for the film on purpose. No one here will see it for another 6 months - if it’s ever seen at all - but so far the absurdity factor alone is quite amusing.

    If you want “authoritarian orthodoxy”, may I suggest reading the Statments of Faith that Answers in Genesis the ICR have? Or even read the Wedge document.

    No, thanks. I don’t care what AiG or ICR believe. Nor do I care about what the wedgies believe. They have as much right to their beliefs as you and I have. The comedy springs from the sheer irony of this ‘Dueling Wannabe Mind-Tyrants’ production number. This film might be hilarious, judging from the warm-up I see here.

    Bottom line: As the Dover trial and numberous other sites have shown, it’s the science that defeats ID.

    Then what’s your problem? Lighten up. Your beliefs are in no danger from ID or from me.

    Right… “fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science”! That must be why you ID people couldn’t come up with ANY examples of working ID research projects during the Dover Trial, eh?

    Dunno. I wasn’t involved in the Dover Trial. I heard they lost, ID was declared “creationism,” and now it’s officially unconstitutional to teach ID (or even mention it) in public high schools. The NDS camp wanted it that way and got their wish. At the university level the students are adults and the teachers are supposedly operating under the umbrella of “academic freedom” so they can challenge previous knowledge and beliefs to promote critical thinking.

    I’d say the reactionism on display here demonstrates some serious insecurity, despite the win at Dover. PZ knew the film was about science v. religion, on the specific issue of NDS v. ID. He also knows what he said during the interview (knowing very well only a few answers to questions could be used even though the filming took hours). I don’t suspect he said anything he didn’t mean.

    If you people had any, that would have been a good time to show it…instead what do we get afterwards?

    Love the Rush Limbaugh impersonation. “You people” are such fun. Can’t wait to see the movie. It should be BETTER than Borat!

    You go, Ben!

  302. otto Says:

    I find it astoundingly amusing reading the posts from religious stalwarts fuming at the veracity of evolution. These folks fail to even understand the basic science, yet they are compelled by their fragile beliefs to rail at whole idea. Yet these same stalwarts see no problem with metaphysical apparitions speaking stuff into existence and believing that two of everything floated around in a big boat. By the way, which person had syphillis?

    As for Stein’s opus of twaddle, there is a very good reason why his “mistreated scientists” are seen as such. They propose bull sterco as science. When the reality of their bull sterco is exposed by science and their “scientific” motivation is exposed as being based exclusively on religious objections, it makes Stein’s little film rather silly.

    It’s sad to see an intellectual celebrity reduced to shoveling hog swallop for a pay check.

  303. jb Says:

    Uh, oh. Didn’t close a tag, so that post will be deleted. I’ll try again…

    Reynold Hall responded:

    Right! Obviously you’ve never seen the flash animation that Dembski had of Judge Jones, did you?

    Why no, I haven’t. Is it in this thread, or part of this documentary? If not, then it has nothing to do with my observation about the comments to this thread about this as-yet unseen documentary.

    Or Dembski calling Jones a “putz” because he supposedly “copied” the ACLU’s opinion (http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/judge-jones-towering-intellectual-or-narcissistic-putz/) never mind that it’s actually common practice for judges to do that??

    LOL! “Putz,” eh? Wow. Sounds like that Dembski fellow is quite the potty-mouth.

    Or how the ID people attacked Dr. Barbara Forrest?

    From your citation it appears she has no problem defending herself from apparent “parody.” Which I also don’t care about.

    Wrong. While some people are throwing insults, I’ve noticed that most of the posters here are actually trying to say just why ID is wrong. And sorry, nobody told me to do anything. We, at least, are not sheep.

    I don’t get the impression from this site that the documentary it exists to promote is about whether ID is right or wrong. It looks to be about the declared “culture war” and what that actually looks like. I imagine PZ, Dawkins, Eugenie and all others interviewed provided plenty of useful material, since they apparently believed the film would be THEIR propaganda vehicle. And they now feel burned because they think the focus changed.

    If it changed. I am not convinced this isn’t edgy comedy of the “Borat” variety, where the subjects make asses out of themselves and most people get a good laugh at their expense. I am also not convinced PZ isn’t contributing requisite “controversy” for the film on purpose. No one here will see it for another 6 months - if it’s ever seen at all - but so far the absurdity factor alone is quite amusing.

    If you want “authoritarian orthodoxy”, may I suggest reading the Statments of Faith that Answers in Genesis the ICR have? Or even read the Wedge document.

    No, thanks. I don’t care what AiG or ICR believe. Nor do I care about what the wedgies believe. They have as much right to their beliefs as you and I have. The comedy springs from the sheer irony of this ‘Dueling Wannabe Mind-Tyrants’ production number. This film might be hilarious, judging from the warm-up I see here.

    Bottom line: As the Dover trial and numberous other sites have shown, it’s the science that defeats ID.

    Then what’s your problem? Lighten up. Your beliefs are in no danger from ID or from me.

    Right… “fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science”! That must be why you ID people couldn’t come up with ANY examples of working ID research projects during the Dover Trial, eh?

    Dunno. I wasn’t involved in the Dover Trial. I heard they lost, ID was declared “creationism,” and now it’s officially unconstitutional to teach ID (or even mention it) in public high schools. The NDS camp wanted it that way and got their wish. At the university level the students are adults and the teachers are supposedly operating under the umbrella of “academic freedom” so they can challenge previous knowledge and beliefs to promote critical thinking.

    I’d say the reactionism on display here demonstrates some serious insecurity, despite the win at Dover. PZ knew the film was about science v. religion, on the specific issue of NDS v. ID. He also knows what he said during the interview (knowing very well only a few answers to questions could be used even though the filming took hours). I don’t suspect he said anything he didn’t mean.

    If you people had any, that would have been a good time to show it…instead what do we get afterwards?

    Love the Rush Limbaugh impersonation. “You people” are such fun. Can’t wait to see the movie. It should be BETTER than Borat!

    You go, Ben!

  304. Freedom For All Says:

    Freedom For All Said: “The inability of these atheists to accept any other explanation for their existence is out of the question, regardless of evidence offered.”
    Craig said “It’s already been mentioned many, many times that not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist.”

    Never said all people who believe in evolution are atheists. But I’ll bet ya 99% of the people posting here are!!!

    “They constantly talk about “who designed the designer” like it is the final nail in the coffin of ID theory”
    Craig Said “Well, then, who designed the designer?”

    Good one. I think I heard that somewhere before. A. Who designed the designer is only necessary if you think that it is necessary to have the facts on how we get from a rock to a place where evolution can even start. Why doesn’t a lack of information on abiogenesis mean evolution must be false. Is it not fruit of the poisonous tree? Would you look at Mount Rushmore and say “I won’t believe some man carved that stone unless you tell me his name?”

    “while their own evolutionary theory has no plausible beginning theory. Random mutation and natural selection requires a life form with the ability to reproduce and pass that genetic information on. How you get from a rock to this first life is huge.”

    Craig said “Two things here: The actual origins of life (abiogeneis) is separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t care how life got started, only that it did. And second, we *do* have some promising ideas on how it all got started. You don’t need to start with full-up DNA.

    Evolution doesn’t care, because if it did, it would be dead in its tracks. Wow, that was an easy way out of that one. We just don’t care. Promising ideas are a long way from fact. The canyon still exists. Claiming evolution as fact without a beginning point is ridiculous

    Macroevolution is a theory full of holes that is being blindly promoted because of its philosophical value. Not it’s scientific value.

    “If you actually had the facts to back up your position, you would do it that way.”
    Craig said “We have seen and continue to see evolution happen. We have even seen speciation occur. We have lots of facts. “

    You see microevolution. I believe in microevolution too. Quoted from a pro evolution website “The problem with trying to observe speciation is that it usually does not occur within the lifetime of a scientist, but since bacteria have such short generations, sometimes as short as 20 minutes, there is potential for actually observing speciation. The problem is that strict bacterial speciation has not occurred.”
    Galapagos finches were listed as a sign of speciation. Since the finch beaks returned to normal length after the draught, there was no net change. Even if we give you that one, changing beak sizes is a far cry from changing species. If you don’t need DNA to transfer genetic information, what do you need? You don’t need anything because you have already signed off on the end result. You have accepted an idea without the data to back it up.

  305. David Bump Says:

    Wow! The “howler monkeys” sure have jumped on this one, displaying the truth of the film’s premise, even as they demonstrate their failure to understand the real message. I see one naive person still thinks it is valid to claim that the Bible says pi=3, which not only has nothing to do with this film, but has been refuted by mathematicians who don’t even have any interest in defending the Bible.

  306. simon Says:

    expecting a believer in ID to conduct research without bias and teach at the university level is like asking a shaman to perform surgery and teach medical school

  307. EdwinHarbor Says:

    Following site has much to say about ID & Evolution.

    http://www.reasons.org/

  308. Aaron Says:

    As I read most of the comments by those who obviously reject ID I am saddened. It is almost like they all get their talking points from the same place. And THEY talk about thinking for themselves! The issue is not between ID and evolution (Or natural Selection), which is what the evolutionists try to make it sound like, and many ID people allow, but it is an issue of presuppositions. The real issue is between Philosophical Naturalism or materialism or what ever name one calls it and ID. When one frames the debate as between evolution and ID it is made to sound like the ID person does not use science. There are some ID people that believe in evolution. The evidence has led them to believe that something must have designed the process. Evolutionary Scientists have a death grip hold upon keeping Science and Naturalism synonymous. Once the two presuppositions are seen for what they are then we can focus on where Science takes us.

  309. ID is full of poo Says:

    Why does the evolution debate have to attract such knot heads to it? It’s the ultimate proof that most of these monkeys are still barely conscious as indicated by their ramblings.

  310. Mike Says:

    Mr. Stein,

    I’ve read your letter, but not the (currently 280) comments posted thus far, so I am sure my response echoes some comments.

    I’ve always admired your acting. I have even admired your political and social commentary, even though I’ve often disagreed with it. So it is with some sadness that I find you associated with this project.

    Intelligent Design, naught but a misnomer for biblical creationism in new clothes, is imbecility masked in religion. It is the last gasp of Biblical literalism. The convergence of so many branches of science — evo-devo, genetics, chemisty, astronomy, physics, and many more — is awe-inspiring. We understand more about the world than ever before, and it is breathtaking as humanity begins to grasp its origins. Intelligent Design seeks nothing more than to put an end to this awesome pace of discovery. It seeks to end it so that the mystical and mythical ruminations of Bronze Age Middle Eastern peoples will not be up-ended.

    Your political leanings are different than my own. No problem. That is something about which reasonable minds can differ. However, your willful association with the morons (I use that word knowingly) of Intelligent Design saddens me.

    I hope you reconsider your association with these people. They may share your socio-political ideology, but rest-assured they are imbeciles. For your own sake don’t align yourself with them.

  311. Steven Carr Says:

    It seems I was wrong.

    Even when the Templeton Foundation offered to fund ID research, no projects were submitted.

    OK , ID proponents do not do research and do not even have any research projects planned, but why should that stop ID being taught in schools?

  312. Steven Carr Says:

    Which textbooks have been expelled, and why?

    Let us see the Darwinists come up with rationalisations why high-quality books like ‘Of Pandas and People’ should be forbidden to our children.

  313. Tom Aquines Says:

    “There is one God, the Father, ever-living, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ…” Isaac Newton

  314. infinitelimbs Says:

    blech.
    its all about the benjamin, isnt it?
    you talking head, keep your opinions to yourself. i equate you with ever other dumb quasi famous entity who cashes in by selling their opinion about some matter of the times. blechhh! i used to think you were a lot cooler.

  315. ruinevil Says:

    According to an informal study by the late Dr. Gould, half of all biologists he surveyed believed in God.

    The scientists you mentioned are all physicists… and I believe most physicists believe in God, in one way or another, since they find rules in the universe that things run by.

    Anyways, if you take the Bible literally, I find intelligent design as heretical as Darwinism. Stick with the Earth as we know it being formed in 6 days if you take the Bible literally.

    That being said, I am a Darwinist because the assumptions that come out of it can be useful to mankind. Science is just a bunch of information, with theories that try to explain trends that are found; you need to engineer something useful with it to benefit mankind. Darwinism makes rat and monkey models of human disease acceptable and logical, as it is unethical to experiment on humans against their will.

    Can literal creationism or intelligent design do that?

    Don’t forget science is only a tool to make our lives easier. We will never know the whole story of anything; that is something only God knows.

    The Tyranny of the Majority is what this nation is all about. If you dislike our democratic way to getting grant money for projects, I suggest you tell your scientists to move to some more authoritarian nation.

  316. Nishizawa, Hiroyoshi Says:

    In the context of 1 Kings 7:23, rounding off would be acceptable.

  317. Ceven Starr Says:

    Andrew:

    “Every scientist alive agrees that living things have the appearance of design. Believing that Darwinism’s random processes are responsible for every last detail, rather than a designer, is the dogma that must be embraced.”

    And you are a scientist in the field who knows all about it? Or did you just make that up, or hear it from some anti-scientific religious organization?

    “What if a scientist claims evidence that Darwinism may not be powerful enough to accomplish some aspect of the complexity of life - that perhaps the engineering in the cell, that human engineers learn from, actually had an engineer. - Heresy!”

    You can keep claiming evidence until your head falls off. Produce the actual evidence, don’t just talk about what-ifs!

    You creationists are all talk, but no substance. Where is all your evidence? Where is all the actual research? Where are all the peer reviewed reports?

  318. Weston T Says:

    A few points:
    1) Ben Stein is getting paid. Probably well. Like Morgan Freeman talking about penguins, baby… you don’t have to “believe it,” you just have to “push it.” Like Visine… wow.
    2) This is an open blog. The intarwebs are pretty well known as a bastion of ID “haters,” and as such, I believe that all the well-meaning arguments against ID and the Fundamentalists that support it will only serve as propagandist fuel for the real audience. Bible belt mega-church-going Walmartians will eat this stuff up, plus they can throw a “no hate like librul hate” in there for their amusement.
    3) So, don’t hold it against Ben… I’d shill for this sorry excuse for propaganda too if I were famous and paid a LOT. And don’t feed the freepers… they eat enough.

  319. John Doe Says:

    I can’t believe that anyone, much less most of the posters of comments here, would disagree with Ben Stein (actually, most of you have transformed Ben’s thesis into something else entirely).

    Ben is NOT arguing for Creationism. He IS arguing that people that believe in Creationism should not be discriminated against. And you people are disagreeing with him? You think it is OK to have a litmus test for your personal belief on the question of evolution or intelligent design?

    Doesn’t anyone actually think anymore? Or do they just have programmed reactions to keywords. “He said Intelligent Design, I have to disagree with that because I believe in evolution”. If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny.

    And what is even sadder is that most of you won’t even understand this message and will misinterpret what I said.

  320. Grim Says:

    Let us be reminded that if god-magic is accepted as a suitable basis for paleontological science, then we must also believe voodoo to be “contraversial new theory” repressed by an entrenched anti-chicken-guts elite.

  321. Ermine Says:

    What I find interesting is that, for all their crowing about how they ‘do SO have lots of research projects ready to go’, and they ‘do SO have lots of evidence for ID’, And ‘Big Science is SO trying to keep them from publishing’, none of the pro-ID side has managed to link to a SINGLE piece of actual scientific evidence to support their position. Not one paper on PubMed, not one article in any reputable, peer-reviewed science journal, NOTHING.

    I’ve seen a few, ‘I was making a list of pro-ID articles/scientists/studies, but I decided not to post it.’ - but that’s EXACTLY what the pro-evolution people said the IDists would do. Lots of bluff, lots of wailing about persecution, but not a shred of honest-to-god DATA or SCIENCE from a single one of them.

    On the other hand, the pro-evolution side has linked to studies, court cases, lists of answers to all the old pro-creationism canards, etc. Got a specific question? Ask it, and watch those who understand the scientific method pop right up with a detailed answer.

    Which side is being disingenious here? I followed the court case in Dover from its beginning. I watched daily as the pro-ID side were exposed as liars, charlatans, and pro-religion creationists hiding behind a fancy new name. I watched their spokespeople fumble on the witness stand, watched them admit that for ID to be called ’science’, the rules of science would have to be changed/relaxed to the point that ASTROLOGY would also qualify as ’science’. I watched them handwave away STACKS of studies, books, and papers *that they hadn’t even read* as ‘not sufficient evidence’ - and watched them get caught time and again in blatant lies. They’ve been unable yet to produce a single study that agrees with their premise. Why should I believe them now?

    It’s simply amazing how many of the pro-ID side posting here can’t keep their story straight. If it’s NOT about God and religion, how come so many people here are spouting off about ‘Evil Atheists’ and bringing God back where He belongs?

    If the pro-science people show up here in force and demand real evidence, they’re called sheep, and their requests for ANY actual science are completely ignored. How convenient!

    Just from reading these responses, it’s obvious who is thinking and who is reacting, which side understands the scientific method, and which side is grasping at any straw in an attempt to legitemize themselves without ever doing the work required to do so.

    You want me to believe that ID is science, that it could be a possible explanation that answers as many questions and fits as much of the evidence as the Theory of Evolution does? Show me the Science! Show me you even understand what Science IS!

    And they wonder why pro-science people get so bent out of shape when someone puts up something like this? Mayyybe it’s because otherwise the IDiots might delude well-meaning but ignorant people into believing their unsubstantiated tripe?

    Notice that not one pro-ID person has refuted any link or study given here by the pro-evolution, pro-science side. Telling, isn’t it?

    It certainly is to me.

    Ermine

  322. Davis Says:

    There seem to be numerous comments along these lines:

    Interesting how the apologists for academic orthodoxy have distinguished themselves in this very blog thread as being the inquisition witch-hunters the documentary aims to expose.

    Apparently I missed the part where the pro-evolution folks started suppressing dissent, since I see lots of it here and elsewhere.

    For future reference: when someone disagrees with your position and vocalizes it, you’re not being oppressed. You’re being argued with. Taking the martyr’s pose at the first sign of criticism makes you sound like a whiner.

  323. Ugly American Says:

    Aren’t you a little old for an imaginary friend?

  324. Bob Says:

    That reel of Nixon saying “I am not a crook” will forever invalidate anything you ever write or say.

  325. Smoohy Says:

    …Hi, I’m Ben Stein. I’m not a smart guy, I just play one on television.

  326. Richard Says:

    So glad you have started this. Those of us who believe that the Spaghetti Monster controls everything in the universe find it hard to keep faculty positions. You will support our freedom to have research grants regardless of whether we do real science or not! Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou!

  327. Suresh Says:

    Ben,

    I used to really admire you, but now… This is really stupid!!

  328. blahblahblah Says:

    At least you got the “intelligence not allowed” part right.

    Goodbye

  329. hokeygrandma Says:

    Torbjorn Larsson, OM @ 174 wrote:

    “can you tell us where in biology or other sciences is there an assumption of “matter is all there is”?”

    Well, Torbjorn, it’s called “methodological naturalism”, and I have no problems with that as long as it’s being used only as a framework for both experimental or observational practice, and reasoning about the results of experiments, or observations, in the work of discovering generalisable explanations for repeatable events occurring in the natural world. That, BTW, is what I think science is.

    Macroevolutionary theorists aren’t trying do that, just as doctors and police detectives aren’t trying do that. Doctors’ work is to try to identify the cause of a particular person’s illness. Police detectives’ work is to try to determine whether or not a crime has occurred and, if so, to identify the perpetrator of each particular crime. Macroevolutionary theorists’ work is to try to discover what could have caused life to originate and diversify. In each case the reasoning about the particular event that happened in the past is informed by the results of work done by real scientists on processes occurring in the present.

    But here’s the thing. Imagine how hard it would be for a doctor to correctly diagnose and treat an illness if he or she had an a priori commitment to the belief, say, that all illnesses involving fever are caused by the sufferer’s hot-tempered nature. Or imagine how hard it would be for a police detective to determine, say, that a child was killed by his or her mother if the detective had an a priori belief that mothers never kill their children.

    Macroevolutionary theorists (by the very nature of their business) have an a priori commitment to the belief that life originated and diversified by purely natural processes that occur spontaneously. That is, the completely defensible idea that methodological naturalism is the proper framework within which real scientists should study events that are repeatedly occurring in the present, and reason about their results, has been expanded, illegitimately, to include the notion that theories about the causes of historical events must be consistent with metaphysical naturalism or they cannot be considered “scientific”. (See Dover.)

    This is why certain intellectual elites keep saying that Jesus only swooned on the cross, or that the disciples were lying, or that everyone who said they saw Jesus after the resurrection was caught up in a mass hysteria, and so on and so forth, despite evidence to the contrary (which, of course, has been dicovered by real scientists studying events that occur repeatedly in the present).

    The proper methods for judging the truth or falsity of claims about historical events are those that are (used to be?) used in courts of law. The question that needs to be answered about historical events is, “What is the truth of the matter?” It is not, “Does this answer comply metaphysical naturalism?”

    So doctors try to diagnose an illness in order to treat it. Police detectives try to identify a criminal in order to bring him or her to justice. Macroevolutionary theorists interpret all evidences naturalistically in order to support the idea that metaphysical naturalism is true.

  330. Always Studyin' Says:

    Yes, the over the top comments coming from neo-Darwinists would be almost amusing and ‘oh my’ aren’t they all proving the point. By the way, they forget that even Dawkins was aware that there is an ‘appearance of design’. Design is what is evident so why would it need to be a theory. There are only a few movies a year that are really worth watching and this one looks like one that will be on my list!

    You go buy!

  331. Tom Hall Says:

    Noyatin…Excellent posting!… Well pointed out. My first thought was that the Discovery Institute et al could be of assistance but in view of their serious lack of funding even for current I D research projects I don`t think its feasable. Where IS Steven Carr when needed?

  332. Matt B. Says:

    Ben,

    Leave science to the scientists. You’re obviously way out of your depth.

  333. Dave Hawkins Says:

    Thanks Ben for this project! Much needed. I searched the page for posts about the Rick Sternberg affair and only found Ed Brayton’s pro-Darwinist piece. So I think readers of this blog should hear the other side. Here’s an excerpt from the U.S. House of Representatives Investigation … Read the rest of the excerpt at my blog … http://afdave.wordpress.com

    UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DECEMBER 2006

    _____________________

    INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN SMITHSONIAN’S TOP OFFICIALS PERMIT THE DEMOTION AND HARASSMENT OF SCIENTIST SKEPTICAL OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION

    There is substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers. Given the factual record, the Smithsonian’s pro-forma denials of discrimination are unbelievable. Indeed, NMNH officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution. On September 13, 2004, Dr. Jonathan Coddington, chair of the zoology department, wrote to crustacean curator Dr. Rafael Lemaitre that he could not find a legal basis for terminating Sternberg, but added: “I suppose we could call him on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?”3 A few hours later, Dr. Lemaitre responded that “a face to face meeting or at least a ‘you are welcome to leave or resign’ call with this individual, is in order.”4 Finally, in an email on October 6, 2004, Dr. Coddington (in his capacity as Dr. Sternberg’s “supervisor”) stated that he was planning to meet with Dr. Sternberg to convey the message “that if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.”5 Clearly, the NMNH management was trying to make Dr. Sternberg’s life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave, since they knew they had no legal grounds to dismiss him.

  334. Jon Says:

    As a Jew, I have to say don’t pay attention to this man. He’s ridiculous.

  335. Stutter Says:

    Ben,

    I guess I fall into the category of what might be considered the religious right, in that I’m a Christian and a republican. But evidence is evidence. God doesn’t mess with our minds. Evolution is an uncontroversial underpinning of biological reality as gravity is of physics. Evolution does not impinge on abiogenesis, and does not need to be suppressed in support of faith. Jesus does not need us to lie in his name, and God does not require us to obscure his works. While there are different ways of approaching truth, claiming that black is white because admitting that white is white might set some sort of bad precedent is foolish and mendacious.

  336. Schubie Says:

    IT IS SAID, “IF YOU THROW A ROCK INTO A PACK OF DOGS, THE ONE THAT YELPS IS THE ONE YOU HIT.”

    BUT HOW CAN ONE ROCK CAUSE THIS MUCH YELPING?

    THIS MOVIE MUST BE ONE BBBBBBBIG ROCK.

  337. Open Minded Says:

    ROFL, Steven Carr finally replied with this. I see we have someone greater then Colbert at satire now:

    # Steven Carr Says:
    August 24th, 2007 at 12:21 am

    It seems I was wrong.

    Even when the Templeton Foundation offered to fund ID research, no projects were submitted.

    OK , ID proponents do not do research and do not even have any research projects planned, but why should that stop ID being taught in schools?

  338. Rob Povey Says:

    “ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo”

    Can’t wait to see the evidence for ID produced…. First person to get some, get’s a Nobel Prize and could probably become Pope if they wished. Any takers? Thought not.

  339. Vic Says:

    Holy backfire batman!
    Ben, I’ve always seen you on TV and thought you were a smart, respectable guy. Obviously, this is not the case.

    ID is nothing but a bunch of fanatical people assuming something. And what do they say about assuming? You make an ass out of you and me. Stick with politics and economics, science is a little above you and your religious nuts.

  340. David Says:

    “I’m baffled. Those who’ve come here to support ID or creationism as scientific theories make repeated claims that these ‘theories’:

    • Offer testable, falsifiable hypotheses
    • Make testable predictions”

    I must say that I’m also quite baffled. How is it that the Darwinists, claiming to be so “rational” and “unbiased,” accuse ID theory of being untestable? When was the last time evolution from one species to another was tested in a laboratory? Oh wait, that can’t be tested. And that amazing “fossil record” with all the gaps! “Well, we’ve been doing quite a lot of digging and can’t find fossils to fill these holes. But we must maintain our commitment to most holy Darwin…so…punctuated equilibrium!”

    Ben, I, as many others on this blog, have been a fan of your work for a long time. When I was a youngster I was first introduced to you through “The Mask”; I loved your performance! Now, as a college student who refuses to sit back and be indoctrinated like most of the lemmings here, my respect for you has grown even more.

  341. Rob Povey Says:

    Open Minded

    ID can be taught in Schools, just put it in the Religious Education class with the rest if the mumbo-jumbo and bronze age mythology.

    It has no place in a Science class, because there is no scientific evidence to support the thesis of ID.

    The first person to produce peer reviewed evidence of ID will win the Nobel Prize (probably Physics, Chemistry and Physiology / Medicine all in one go) and change the course of human history on a global scale. All of us atheists would be quaking in our boots because the wrath of God would be real instead of imaginary.

    If that is not a motivator for some “intellegent” person to go and find some evidence of ID I don’t know what is.

    He or She would be invited to speak and give real science lectures at Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, not just some backwoods school biology class in the US.

    So far ID proponents have produced zip, nothing, nil, nowt. Not one itsy bitsy teeny weeny scrap of evidence.

    Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath whilst we await the first piece of evidence supporting ID.

  342. Open Minded Says:

    David your ignorance of evolution is glaring.
    “I must say that I’m also quite baffled. How is it that the Darwinists, claiming to be so “rational” and “unbiased,” accuse ID theory of being untestable? When was the last time evolution from one species to another was tested in a laboratory? Oh wait, that can’t be tested. And that amazing “fossil record” with all the gaps! “Well, we’ve been doing quite a lot of digging and can’t find fossils to fill these holes. But we must maintain our commitment to most holy Darwin…so…punctuated equilibrium!””

    Please research how a fossil is formed. Do you truly expect every last species thats ever existed from microbes to insects to plant life, to large scale animals like you and I to leave behind EVERY SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL? No. And no scientist is remotely afraid to admit that. However this doesn’t change the fact that YES we do have steady lines of numerous species going through enough micro evolution to equal MACRO if you juxtapose two fossils from far ends of that spectrum.

    I want you to really think about you’re claiming as a lack of evidence. EVERY single species, in every environment ever, successfully leaving behind a fossil over the course of 4 billion years. That’s simple impossible given several of the environments they grow up in. Regardless since 1859 the fossils we do find support natural selection and just because you can’t find a fossil connecting a certain kind of beetle doesn’t mean “the designer” stroked some untestable magic into it.

  343. Paul Begley Says:

    Ben -
    Say it ain’t true. I have to assume this is some sort of absurdest post and that Expelled will actually be an outing of ID.

    What the heck happened to the brilliant economist I love to read in the NYT?

    If nothing else, collect and read all the posts supporting ID in the replies. They speak for themselves. Consider what happens to the United States if ID becomes mainstream. If you think we have problems maintaining a technology edge over other countries, you haven’t seen *anything* yet…

    Remember, Darwin has a posse…
    www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/posse/chazhasaposse.htm

    Regards,
    Paul

  344. Rob Povey Says:

    David

    The reason fossils will never fill all the gaps is because geological conditions have to be right to enable fossilisation to take place.

    Over 4.5 billion years, the “camera” of the fossil record only fired it’s shutter at various times in various locations. What happened in between was never captured in the first place so cannot be found.

    Go do your homework before making an assertion.

    Evolution has been seen and studied in the laboratory, maybe not with complex mammals changing species I grant you, but at a bacterial and molecular level definately.

    If you hand around for another few million years I’m sure you’ll see some!!

  345. Dave Mc Says:

    To Jose:
    221 & 222 - Read “Why Darwin Matters” by Michael Shermer for a great description of proof of evolution, testing of evolutionary theory, and the misuse of the term “Missing link.”

  346. snaxalotl Says:

    Ben,
    the school uniform is ironically suitable. Usually it youth who “discover” an issue and declare their undying preparedness to fight, without actually having a grasp of the issues. Almost everything you say is a non-sequitur. I look forward to the day you get to try out your incredible arguments against someone who actually has a clue, instead of making pompous speeches to fawning audiences of christians. Failing that, I hope you learn some philosophy of science, some biology, and some of the real history of this debate. The only “freedom” christians are fighting for here is the freedom to assert that aspects of their religion have been scientifically proved when they haven’t, and to make this assertion without pedantic scientists dismissing arguments known to be wrong. And as much as you want to believe there is a chasm between worldviews, this is pretty much all the philosophy of science is - the gradual removal of wrong stuff. What you don’t understand about science culture is that ANYBODY who insists on some theory without paying due deference to people who can be expected to offer a reasonable critique become scorned and ostracised. Most scientists have had a humiliating butt kicking at some stage, and if you spent some time you’d find that consequently most scientists are extremely deferential in proposing a disagreement, in a way that isolated self-congratulatory christian-audience-lecturing ID proponents tend not to be. But if you don’t want to deal with people who can tell your assertions are false, I guess you have to fight for the freedom to assert wrong facts to children. If all these arguments about suppression of freedom are true, why don’t people take it to court. Oh I forgot … they do. They crow and crow about how scientific arguments are so bad, if they can ever get those scoundrels in court they’ll mop the floor with them. Then they lose. Say goodbye to the honorable world of being simply a man of faith, Ben, and welcome to the world of religious crackpots fighting the tide of reality. Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

  347. Cedric Rex Says:

    Right On!

    Evolutionists have been shoving their religion down our throats for more then a century. It’s about time they got exposed and expelled.

    Evolutionism is not science, science is not evolutionism. Evolutionism is a dogamtic religion badly disguised as science.

    Go for it Ben!!!!!

  348. Jeff Says:

    Your documentary is highly anticipated Ben. Sounds like it will be spot-on in shedding light on the hatred and vitriol exhibited by the anti-God posters on this blog and in the scientific community in general. I agree, it is an incredible display of politically correct bigotry foisted against honest inquiry.

    However it is not unique in history. Have you ever read the book, “The 5 Equations that Changed History”? I read it a few years ago and one thing that emerged from that compilation of mini-bios of the rock stars of science is that every one of them suffered severe distain from mentors, colleagues, and the scientific community in general for their contrary opinions. We ID Neanderthals are not unique in history for being ostracized by the established ‘truths’.

    Some angry bloggers here ask for proof if ID. They claim we have NOTHING to base our witchcraft upon. I submit they are working from emotion rather than rational thought. ID has several rock-solid, foundational scientific principles on its side. I know the other side will throw up a deluge of high sounding arguments ‘proving’ I am wrong but that doesn’t change the facts that these principles DEMAND an intelligent designer. I am a 35 year practicing engineer and work with permutations of these laws daily. I’m glad they are there or I couldn’t do my job!!

    1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
    2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.
    3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes gradual evolution of innumerable living constructions.
    4. The law of information is absolute proof of intelligent design. These learned men would scoff at anyone claiming the Encyclopedia Britannica (do they still sell those door-to-door or even publish it any longer or is it all on the web now?) spontaneously assembled itself. However they have no problem believing a strand of DNA, a compilation of precise information that makes the Britannica look like a Dr. Seuss book, just decided to come together one day.

    Again, there will be a storm of inordinately angry rebuttals to this list (calm discussion of them on a scientific level is not allowed by the other side) but since they are laws, the rebuttals always sound kind of silly don’t you think?

  349. Dave Mc Says:

    “Blah blah, blah blah blah blah…” - Tom Aquines

  350. Beerina Says:

    Unfortunately for Design peeps, Intelligent Design fails when analyzed scientifically. It’s predictions do not hold true, and, as an explanation for life in all its myriad, changing forms, it is far less parsimonous (a word Ben would love) than evolution.

    Evolution is very solid. If this contradicts your religion (your theory of reality), then your religion (your theory) is wrong, or you must modify it.

    That is intellectual honesty.

  351. Tom Harris Says:

    I read a powerful bookm which is os in sync with what ben is writing. The book, Adults Only: Trednsetting Spirituality for the 21st Century (www.thebookforadults.com), by bioethicist, IC Fingerer, definitvely proves based on objective science the fact that we are not evolved primates but a higher species endowed with sublime souls. It also proves, in the section, atheism discombobulated, that true science conclusively demonstrates that there is a Creator. Then this brilliant and creative book delves into moral philosophy and human sexuality.

  352. Marty Gold Says:

    I read Adults Only and corroborate that it is the one book which should be sold along side Ben Stein’s new movie. It’s a great read and propoganda free.

  353. Steve_C Says:

    Hehe.

    Why is it the most strident haters of Darwin and evolution seem to be creationists?
    Something they freely admit is based soley on the bible and faith.
    Yet they claim they can prove that evolution is wrong.
    But never do. They rarely can show they even understand what the theory is.

    They bring up random chance. (While a factor, is not the sole driver of evolution)
    They bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (pssst. earth isn’t a closed system)
    They bring up complex systems. (failing to study the research on how complex systems evolove. the eye being a well studied one they claim is too perfect to arise from evolution, which is completely ridiculous)
    They say mircoevolution happens but not macro. (failing to notice that the mechanisms for both are the same)

    They don’t even agree on the age of the earth. 6,000? 10,000? Billions?

    We know you want “GOD DID IT” to be the answer to everything.
    But that really doesn’t function as scientific hypothesis.

    Try again.

  354. RobbieC Says:

    Ben, you have lost your mind.

  355. Rob Povey Says:

    Why was PZ Myers interviewed under false pretenses for this film?

    http://richarddawkins.net/article,1559,Im-gonna-be-a-MOVIE-STAR,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

  356. Y. From Chicago Says:

    Ben, what is your next documentary?
    Is it about persecution of flat earth scientists ?

  357. the durnMoose blog » moosings 165 - the return / moose droppings: Says:

    […] ben stein begins his own blog to promote his new documentary expelled: no intelligence allowed by proposing that “In […]

  358. Neal Says:

    The reason intelligent design continues is that no matter how hard big science and big media spread their philosophy many people are just not buying the ocean front property in Iowa. You’ve got to have proof to sustain a scientific theory, but evolutionists offer up more of the same tired and half baked “facts” and mix in it with a lot of bullying. Truth ultimately prevails. The closer it get’s the louder they scream. I love it.

  359. tgb1000 Says:

    Jeff (#348), please let me calmy and politely state that talkorigins.org very calmly and politely uses scientific principles to refute your arguments.

  360. CRasch Says:

    I find it funny when theist are saying that they are being expelled for their beliefs when one of the greatest scientist of our time, Ken Miller who is a devout Christian and believes in Intelligent Design and Creationism. The difference is that he knows that Intelligent Design and Creationism is not science but religion.
    Even though Science and Religion are Philosophies. science is not one of the supernatural. Intelligent design is just that, bringing in the supernatural. That’s an oxymoron to science.
    And Newton discoveries was limited by his faith. Watch Neil De Grass Beyond Belief video.

  361. Tom Aquines Says:

    Dave Mc Said: “Blah blah, blah blah blah blah…” - Tom Aquines.

    Dave Mc is an atheist dressed up as an intellectually bankrupt blogger.

  362. Tom Aquines Says:

    “Virtually no idea is too ridiculous to be accepted, even by very intelligent and highly educated people, if it provides a way for them to feel special and important. Some confuse that feeling with idealism.”

    Thomas Sowell.

  363. Wetbreasts Says:

    I feel this is just a knee-jerk reaction to critisisism. Please don’t hate, masturbate!

  364. SeanB Says:

    No one will probably read this, being the 360th post. Heck, I didn’t even have the time to read them all, but I must say, that while I am in complete opposition to the idea of intelligent design (if it was so intelligent, why can’t we substitute body parts on a whim, like swapping out hard drives in a computer?), however, Mr. Ben Stein has always seemed to be a pretty decent person. Regardless whether you side with his beliefs or not, there’s no reason to treat his beliefs with disrespect. I have no belief in a personal god whatsoever, but one of my best friends believes in quite the opposite, yet we can discuss the issue like two civil adults who respect each other.

    Kind regards,

    Sean

  365. CRasch Says:

    Neil deGrasse Tyson from Beyond Belief 2006
    “Even though you’re brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops. It just stops. You’re kind of no good anymore for advancing that frontier. Waiting for someone else to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain, and says that’s a really cool problem and they come in and solve it.”

  366. G. Finch Says:

    There is an article here:
    http://www.TheBrites.org
    that proposes academics and religious people should be “separate but equal.”

    It worked during the first half of the twentieth century in America and there is no reason it can’t work now.

  367. Matthew Durham Says:

    As soon as an Intelligent Design proponent provides a falsifiable and predictive hypothesis, it will be considered. Even assuming that every one of the ID proponents’ criticisms of evolution were accurate, they would still be lacking an actual hypothesis.

    Until this happens, it is rightly categorized as a purely religious or philosophical view and should be described in schools as such.

    This is not discrimination. It is honesty.

    That said, if anyone is being unfairly discriminated against for their thoughts, then those doing the discriminating should be held accountable.

  368. Cory Says:

    GO BEN!

    I understand what you are doing. Kick ass and take names!@

  369. Jasonx10 Says:

    To the above poster SteveBratt and others of the same mind-frame:

    “Ben & All, (if you get down this far)
    Let me start by saying that I am a scientist (EEbackground working in Info Tech) who completely believes in God and believes basically in what ID says (the world is too complex to have evolved by random chance alone). I Do NOT agree, however, that it means ID should be taught in ANY public education system, where evolution should be. What evolution explains is HOW we evolved. What ID and other ‘creationist’ theories explain is WHY we evolved. It is as simple as that. There is scientific evidence to support HOW we evolved, and that is what public schools should teach as part of their science curriculum. If you want to insure that your children also learn your views, or any other views on WHY we evolved, you have ample opportunity to teach them at home or send them to the private school of your choice. ID is just a label and methodology to make creationism sound more ’sciency’ to try to force it into science curriculum, but that doen’t change the basic distinction made above. To keep wasting everyone’s time/money and energy trying to force this into the public education system instead of using those resources to solve the thousads of other REAL problems we have facing our society is misguided and self serving to everyome else’s detriment!!!”

    The problem is that evolution isnt merely factual observation. Its an entire system of reasoning masked with the term ‘hypothesis’ that literally attempts to explain away a biblical creation and ultimately a God.

    When you lend yourself to that worldview, i am telling you that any self-honest objective person who reads and studies Genesis and the bible and thinks about the implications of how evolution conflicts with areas of scripture will absolutely reject one or the other.

    So even if you’re attempting to keep an attitude of forced religious BELIEF out of school, im telling you that you are only offering a viewpoint that leads people away from God or a belief in the bible. If it isnt taught, it isnt understood. If it isnt understood and it’s regarded as non-applicable in life, people will not apply it. If people do not apply it, they will strengthen in the ambition to disprove it. The implications of not teaching opposing viewpoints that involve the possibility of God in school is farther reaching than most realize.

    To those who follow Hugh Ross and other old earth creation theories, I would respectfully disagree with you. You arent looking at all the evidence objectively, and you certainly arent reading Genesis as its written. You dont tailor clearly non-metaphorical passages to fit a pre-existing assumption - if you’re going to read the bible and believe that it is divinely inspired then believe that God isnt going to write something thats completely deceptive. It wouldnt have been hard for God to clearly explain the process of evolution to Moses (if God so chose to use that process). Christ would not (in the NT) have said something like “at the BEGINNING of creation i made them male and female” if it was actually only 40,000 years ago in the full supposed 4.56 billion year span of earths existence. Respectfully, i’ve heard all the Hugh Ross arguments and they are completely fabricated on hermeneutical falacies. EVEN SO, i would gladly welcome an open teaching of all his ideas alongside the creationist ideas and the atheistic interpretations.

    The truth of the matter is that we are only portraying the empirical science in one light - and that light is built on a FAITH that evolution is the cause of our existence and God is irrelevent.

  370. JCL Says:

    Some Questions…

    Why does Talk.origins.com link to web pages with opposing views, while none of the creationism/id web pages extend the same courtesy?
    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#creationism

    Why is creationism/id being contested in courts and movies while the one organization that offered to fund grants for creationism/id science sit waiting for their first proposal, and a quarterly journal devoted to the true science behind creationism/id has gone unpublished since 2005, yet they claim to be using the scientific method? (see comments above)

    Why do creationism/id proponents call scientists “atheists/communists/Nazis”?
    (see comments above for proof)

    Why do creationism/id proponents use arguments that other creationism/id proponents admit are false arguments?

    http://northeastflorida.humanists.net/strayer004.html

    Please, explain these observations to me?

  371. jb Says:

    Ermine said:

    Notice that not one pro-ID person has refuted any link or study given here by the pro-evolution, pro-science side. Telling, isn’t it?

    Notice that not one Darwin-Defender has figured out that this film isn’t about who’s scientifically right or wrong. Thus simply asserting and re-asserting Neodarwinian beliefs doesn’t affect the premise of the film one bit. The film is about anti-religious bigotry, violation of the civil rights of scientists who don’t toe the orthodox line, and the vanishing concept of academic freedom.

    Stein says very clearly right there in the blog post atop this page that:

    Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

    Now, it seems implicit that at least one of the anti-religious dogmatists interviewed for this film actually expressed this position. I’d guess PZ Myers (since he has advocated this position on his blog, and has also called for denial of degrees to students who show signs of such beliefs).

    This isn’t a prejudice PZ kept secret from the world, thus he has absolutely no credibility for the claim that he was “tricked” into saying it in front of the film crew. The whole “They told me I’d be the good guy!” whine is ridiculous. He wanted to play in the broader sociopolitical sandbox, and this is it. It’s way too late to begin worrying that his authoritarian pretensions and intemperate hate speech might not appear so noble to the larger public.

    So he sent his acolytes over here the moment this blog appeared to do the usual schoolyard bully act, thereby confirming the premise of the film (as currently advertised). He can’t change what he said and no amount of surrogate whining from his fan club will alter a single word. He can’t sue (cashed check, signed contract, currently poor position due to a different lawsuit he exposed his sponsors to via immoderate speech).

    Y’all might consider that if this film is released and does well in theaters, it’ll be time to stand behind your statements and positions as if you really meant them. This isn’t the same thing as selling books to the choir or selling yourself to like-minded groups as a motivational speaker. This is the “popular culture” on which you declared war. Turning into chicken-hawks at this point is a total cop-out.

  372. Glenn H. Says:

    David at #340 wrote, “When was the last time evolution from one species to another was tested in a laboratory? Oh wait, that can’t be tested.”

    There’s a primer on prediction and testing in science and specifically in evolution here:
       http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#evidence
    …and some details of a few outcomes of that prediction and testing here:
       http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/evidences.html

    Peruse that and come back with a question that shows an elementary understanding of science, prediction and testing. Not all science involves laboratory tests. Do you believe in a sun-centered solar system? Was that tested in a laboratory?

  373. EdwinHarbor Says:

    The “thesis statement” of the documentary is rather clearly stated on the web site for the movie…more interesting, it seems to be proven on this blog. : 0

  374. Open Minded Says:

    Neal #358 what are you talking about?
    Evolution is a fact, Darwinian natural selection is the theory thats been steadfast since 1859. So yes truth is prevailing, for 150 years.

    Why are you people trying to bring back the scopes trial of 1925! It was ignorant then and it’s still ignorant now.

  375. Rich Says:

    Jeff, is dishonest:

    1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.

    SLoT says: “The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” Not what you said. At T=0, most physical laws break down.

    There is no “Law of entropy”

    2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.

    Is this evolution of abiogenesis? Do you know the difference? Does Evolution require spontaneous generation? No, that would be CREATIONISM.

    3. The law of irreducible complexity…. THERE IS NO SUCH “LAW”

    4. The law of information…. THERE IS NO SUCH “LAW”

    You might want to use the “law of misinformation” in the future.

  376. BobRyan Says:

    Atheist darwinism is religion for those who prefer fairytales over science. Intelligent design offers an alternative to the pseudoscience story telling of darwinism.

  377. Freedom for All Says:

    Homo habilis and Homo erectus are brothers after all. Oops! Now what do we do. It’s time for another baseless evolutionary fairytale.

    I love the anthropologists. Here’s a quote from the press release on the two Homo brothers above, “Like chimps and gorillas, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.” How smart these people are that they would know how these people behaved towards one another because of a few bones they dug up. You know it might that chimps don’t hang with gorillas because gorillas are much bigger than them and could pound them into little fur balls if they felt like it. But I’m no anthropologist.

  378. Tom Aquines Says:

    To tgb1000 (#359)

    Please let me (sic) calmy and politely state that writers like Jonathan Wells, William A. Dembski, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson and Guillermo Gonzalez very calmly and politely uses scientific principles to refute YOUR arguments.

    BUT!

    They have been eXpelled. Hence the movie.

  379. Osama Bin Laden Says:

    I love you Ben!

  380. Jenny Says:

    “Evolution does not need to be suppressed in support of faith”
    Where is it being suppressed? What is being suppressed now is criticism of evolution. What Darwin skeptics are now experiencing is symptomatic of an entire scientific establishment that is in the process of abandoning the bedrock precept of academic freedom in favor of political correctness and the defense of orthodoxy. In general Darwinists are not people who want to know what is true about evolution. On the contrary, they are people who want to impose their own ideas about evolution (and a bunch of other things) on society. And they will not hesitate to ruin anyone’s reputation, career, or life work in the process. I continue to be astonished at the viciousness of the anti-ID zealots. They seemed not to care how they appear to anyone with an open mind or anyone who has a shred of respect for honest academic work. I am appalled by their tactics and have concluded after much study that they are one of the biggest threats to democracy and freedom of thought today. They are modern intellectual brownshirts.

  381. Open Minded Says:

    “# BobRyan Says:
    August 24th, 2007 at 11:37 am

    Atheist darwinism is religion for those who prefer fairytales over science. Intelligent design offers an alternative to the pseudoscience story telling of darwinism.”

    Please elucidate this alternative once and for all.

    Also I like how not being religious is a religion, and being in a religion is a religion. Basically no matter what you do, by your fatuous logic, you’re religious and faithful no matter what.

  382. Jasonx10 Says:

    To Steve C:

    “Hehe.

    Why is it the most strident haters of Darwin and evolution seem to be creationists?”

    A. Because many of us also understand that the bible says Christ is the only way to heaven.
    B. Because we understand that evolutionists ignore a lot of things.
    C. Because we understand that evolutionists are actively working to flush God and Christianity out of life.

    “Something they freely admit is based soley on the bible and faith.”

    Interestingly enough the bible also says that we live and die by faith. You couldnt beleive in evolution if you did not have faith. You werent there. So the two faiths you hold to are 1. you’re smart enough to KNOW everything (except a few token things which you select not to know only because they are irrelevant to the manner in which you prefer to shape your world view) and 2. You know what happened in ancient history despite not having been there.

    “Yet they claim they can prove that evolution is wrong.
    But never do.”

    You know. This is rediculous. Guys like Robert Gentry still have outstanding challenges and pleads in to TV networks and scientific organizations to air a live public primetime debate between creationists and evolutionists and the ones refusing to do it ARENT the creationists, theyre the evolutionists and the organizations that support them.

    “They rarely can show they even understand what the theory is.”

    Blablabla. My guess is you (like most evolutionists) don’t actually know how Creationists interpret the empirical science (except that they believe in the bibles account of creation). So perhaps you could state some facts that creationists ‘have no argument for’ and we’ll see if i have one.

    “They bring up random chance. (While a factor, is not the sole driver of evolution)”

    If random chance doesnt drive non-intelligently guided processes then what does?

    “They bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (pssst. earth isn’t a closed system)”

    Psst. The outside influence that the earth recieves is RANDOM. No intelligent process guides radiation or meteor strikes or whatever else you like.

    “They bring up complex systems. (failing to study the research on how complex systems evolove. the eye being a well studied one they claim is too perfect to arise from evolution, which is completely ridiculous)”

    Lol. Its not that we don’t understand the process evolutionists claim it took for the eye to evolve. Its that we recognize how rediculous it is and how it is completely uncorroborated by what we actually observe.

    “They say mircoevolution happens but not macro. (failing to notice that the mechanisms for both are the same)”

    My gosh. How many more atheists will i run into that do not understand the difference…… OK. LET ME CLARIFY: Start with DNA that encompasses all the genetic attributes of humanity mixed into the original 184 chromosomes of those on Noahs ark. Eliminate ancestral information from each new generation of people and you end up with different looking humans (or dogs or cats or whatever else you like - intersetingly enough they are all able to breed together): This is micro evolution.

    Start with no genetic information and randomly build up more and more complex chromosomes that code for new attributes as vast amounts of time passes: this is macro-evolution.

    “They don’t even agree on the age of the earth. 6,000? 10,000? Billions?”

    Creationists believe in 6,000. I dont know who believes in 10,000 - not many learned Christians as chronology is laid out clearly in the bible. Obviously billions is wrong.

    “We know you want “GOD DID IT” to be the answer to everything.”

    And we know you don’t.

    “But that really doesn’t function as scientific hypothesis.

    Try again.”

    So let me get this straight. We tell you that there is a God that exists outside the boundary of time/space/matter who created time/space/matter and because He isnt solely/regularly/readily observable by the 5 physical senses He created us with we are therefore going to declare that He does not exist. Nevermind recorded history. Nevermind supernatural occurances. They’ve never happened to you so you’re going refuse to believe its impossible that they ever will. Sounds like you are the ones limiting possibilites and banning freedom of speech and thought.

  383. Open Minded Says:

    Jenny these critics have been saying the SAME THING SINCE THE DAWN OF MAN. Even before evolution it was God did it, don’t worry about the rest. Now we know otherwise, Darwin solidified that. Science has made massive leaps and bounds, you’d have to be a shut in derelict to not realize how greatly the medical community, amongst other science communities, have reached such robust and staggering accomplishments as a result of Darwin.

    Again it’s not as if ID just popped up and “big science” is quickly trying to quell it. No ID theory has been around forever, real biologist just want it to either offer some provable test or take it to the religion class where it belongs.

    Can you counter this with any research by ID? And don’t say they can’t afford it, the discovery institute and the Ken Ham creationism museum have MILLIONS.

  384. David P Says:

    Man, these “scientists” are unbearable! Please go back to your silly, meaningless labs, where you examine frogs, flies and yeast, grovel to the government for money, churn out worthless papers that nobody reads.

    We should go the Universities and fire 1/3 of the faculty. Nobody would miss them.

  385. Ceven Starr Says:

    First of all, “Tom Harris” and “Marty Gold” are one and the same person. The first pushes a fairy tale book, and the second tries to lend it credibility.

    Anywway, Jeff is confused:

    The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.

    Incorrect. Go back to school.

    The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself

    Look up the Urey-Miller experiment, which has later been confirmed. Also, “probability” is not a valid argument. How big is the probability that you are reading exactly this exactly now? TINY! So that means that you aren’t reading it? LOL! Also, random chance is not what drives evolution. CLUELESS ALERT!

    The law of irreducible complexity precludes gradual evolution of innumerable living constructions.

    There is no “law of irreducible complexity”. IC is just a new name for interlocking complexity, a part of evolution

    The law of information is absolute proof of intelligent design. These learned men would scoff at anyone claiming the Encyclopedia Britannica (do they still sell those door-to-door or even publish it any longer or is it all on the web now?) spontaneously assembled itself.

    Straw man. Cluelessness. Read this:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

    “This claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures. Order can and does result from such evolutionary processes”

    “Hoyle applied his analogy to abiogenesis, where it is more applicable. However, the general principle behind it is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. The tornado itself is an example of order arising spontaneously. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can produce more and more complexity.”

    However they have no problem believing a strand of DNA, a compilation of precise information that makes the Britannica look like a Dr. Seuss book, just decided to come together one day.

    You are clueless, like all other IDers.

    Again, there will be a storm of inordinately angry rebuttals to this list (calm discussion of them on a scientific level is not allowed by the other side) but since they are laws, the rebuttals always sound kind of silly don’t you think?

    They are not laws, but clueless, wrong claims by an anti-scientist.

  386. Collin Says:

    370, jb:

    “The whole “They told me I’d be the good guy!” whine is ridiculous.”

    I agree, jb, and that’s why PZ isn’t using it. The argument is that what he said will be taken out of context, mixed around, and suited to make his statements appear degrading when they are not.

  387. Ceven Starr Says:

    Jenny, you play the victim. It does not suit you. Come back when you have some scientific studies to point to. You are part of the conservative establishment. Don’t pretend to be an underdog or rebel. It’s a lie.

  388. Ceven Starr Says:

    Tom Aquines:

    Actually, while they may use “calm” arguments, their arguments are still unscientific and wrong. Sorry to have to destroy the lie you are living :(

  389. Glen Davidson Says:

    Perhaps the most telling reason why ID is not only useless but wrong, is that the evolutionary patterns among the eukaryotes are substantially different from those in the prokaryotes. Notably, we see the appearance much horizontal transfer among the asexual (but conjugating) bacteria and archaea, and almost solely vertical transfer among the sexual (it appears that all asexual eukaryotes had sexual progenitors) eukaryotes, regardless of what level of evolution is considered.

    If the Grand Designer were in fact designing through evolution, why does it choose to produce the patterns expected from the differing mechanisms among eukaryotes and prokaryotes? Why virtually no horizontal transfers in the vertebrate lineage, why a difficult-to-sort out pattern of evolution in prokaryotes, due to their rampant promiscuity?

    It looks as though known mechanisms might be responsible for the evolution of eukaryotes and the evolution of prokaryotes. It takes quite a designer to so carefully design evolution just as if it were the known and established mechanisms were operating over the course of earth’s history.

    That’s what we’re “censoring,” of course, a “theory” that has utterly failed to explain anything at all, only claiming that the predictions of modern evolutionary theory “can fit” with the lack of predictions about their “designer”. Of course it can, because the IDists haven’t said anything substantial at all.

    Why not simply resort to Last Thursdayism or Omphalos creationism? It’s the same reasoning, that all of the predictions of science are meaningless because an undefined and unconstrained designer could make it all look like it’s old, and that Darwinian mechanisms have operated in organisms through all time.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  390. wScott Says:

    Ben,
    I’m a young earth creationist(YEC),but I’d like to give you a billion years worth of thanks.

  391. R Says:

    “scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”

    Really? their thinking is checked?

    Millions are thinking about a Creator every sunday, in church!

    Your piece is so full of lies!

  392. Open Minded Says:

    wScott #390

    The earth is 4.5billion years old, you say 6,000-10,000 do you realize how disingenuous that is? Someone is wrong, there is no middle answer, and the staggering facts don’t mount on your side. Not only that but ID in a way has to accept 4.5billion year earth, to throw god into the gaps of those fossils without a succinct and linear history, so even BEN doesn’t agree with your view.

  393. G. Finch Says:

    #279 Osama Bin Laden Says: I love you Ben!

    G. Finch says: I love your biting satire Osama! All fundamentalists are dangerous! We especially have to watch out for those unpredictable Amish.

  394. Freedom for All Says:

    Open Minded said “The earth is 4.5billion years old, you say 6,000-10,000 do you realize how disingenuous that is? Someone is wrong, there is no middle answer, and the staggering facts don’t mount on your side. Not only that but ID in a way has to accept 4.5billion year earth, to throw god into the gaps of those fossils without a succinct and linear history, so even BEN doesn’t agree with your view.”

    OM, you have just proved that ID is not the same as creationism. Please pass this along to your dense Darwinist supporters.

  395. Glen Davidson Says:

    I commend Ben Stein for running a blog which allows all comments, presumably within certain reasonable rules of dialog. We’re really not used to this from pro-ID spokespersons.

    And I do hope that Ben interviewed Dembski, whose own blog is the opposite of open, having expelled nearly all critics of ID. Indeed, this was done recently in the discussions about this movie on Uncommon Descent, Bill Dembski’s blog. See Dembski expel the inconvenient critic here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/randy-olson-plugs-ben-steins-expelled/#comment-133745

    You have to scroll up to see what “Rocket” had said that “merited” this censorship.

    Meanwhile, Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula remain open to virtually all comments, except for the truly trollish ones. It is rare that Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova avail themselves (the rest of the DI tribe do not at all, even if Dembski did in the past) of such openness, generally preferring (or so I have to assume) the secret conversations held by highly restricted net groups. I only know about these latter because a former member of one, David Heddle, tired of the limits of discussion enforced by that group, and complained publicly as he was ousted for disagreeing with them. Heddle’s a good source to look up on the web as a critic of ID censorship, who still sympathizes with cosmological ID (probably biological as well, but he doesn’t discuss it much, if ever).

    Okay, so forums are open to the IDists, they just don’t use them much. Forums are closed to us (Dembski’s blog kicks us off piecemeal), so that ID doesn’t have to face sound criticisms.

    Any chance that Stein will cover these important details, if not in the movie, at least in a future blog?

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  396. Tom Aquines Says:

    #288 Ceven Starr Says: Actually, while they may use “calm” arguments, their arguments are still unscientific and wrong. Sorry to have to destroy the lie you are living.

    Tom responds with a quote:
    “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled…”

    “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    A lecture by Michael Crichton at California Institute of Technology (2003)

    http://www.michaelcrichton.com/index.html

  397. David Says:

    I think a lot of you all are missing the point here. It’s not a question of whether Darwinism or Intelligent Design is right or wrong. It’s that in today’s scientific culture, you’re not even allowed to ask the question. To even entertain the possibility that a “God” (however you choose to define it) may have been involved in creation, to even point out any of the acknowledged flaws in Darwinism, is a one-way ticket out of the good graces of the Scientific Establishment.

    Science thrives where scientists are free ask questions, even when those questions may not lead anywhere. Maybe Intelligent Design is much ado about nothing, but we’ll never know, because anyone who dares peer down that particular rabbit hole is ridiculed, belittled, and given their walking papers. That is the issue at hand.

  398. Neal Says:

    Open minded #374. To coin an old phrase, “There you go again”. Natural selection is one of those half-baked “facts”. Evolutionists are like the guy who comes back with his target after visiting the shooting range and proudly displays his 3 bulls-eye’s. “I’m a professional marksmen”, he says. What he fails to say is that it took him 100 rounds to get the 3 bulls-eye’s. Real science looks at all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the facts.

  399. Steve_C Says:

    “My gosh. How many more atheists will i run into that do not understand the difference…… OK. LET ME CLARIFY: Start with DNA that encompasses all the genetic attributes of humanity mixed into the original 184 chromosomes of those on Noahs ark. Eliminate ancestral information from each new generation of people and you end up with different looking humans (or dogs or cats or whatever else you like - intersetingly enough they are all able to breed together): This is micro evolution.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH.

    AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    NO WAY! You believe the fable of Noah’s Ark! That’s your genetic theory for everyone and every animal on the planet?!

    AHHHHHHHHHHHH! HAHAHAHAHA.

    OH man. That’s so good.

    Genius.

    Someone has been drinking the Hovind/Ham kool-aid.

    hehe.

    Wow. Welcome to the dark ages. The bible is literally true.

    Damn, you’re a deluded godbot.

  400. Neal Says:

    Glen Davidson #389. You wrote, “It looks as though known mechanisms might”… that’s how you could sum up nearly every article on evolution. Glen, can you tell me one thing that you know for sure about evolution?

  401. Steve_C Says:

    Hey David.

    Most of us aren’t scientists.

    We’re just not ignorant godbots.

  402. Jesse Says:

    “I look forward to the movie, because, the most troubling aspect that I’ve seen in my investigation is the lack of open-mindedness, especially on the evolutionary side.”

    Really? I’d be more concerned with the complete lack of a single piece of evidence for ID/Creationism. However, anyone with a functioning brain knows that those who want to ‘debate’ ID rest all their laurels on side issues, semantics, and trying to victimize themselves since they have no basis for fact in their debate.

    I hope that this movie is a joke and is not actually being made with Mr. Stein’s support. Otherwise, I think it will be his ‘Macaca Moment’ and he will soon be another shill for the Discovery Institute.

  403. Craig Says:

    Jasonx10 said:
    “A. Because many of us also understand that the bible says Christ is the only way to heaven.
    B. Because we understand that evolutionists ignore a lot of things.
    C. Because we understand that evolutionists are actively working to flush God and Christianity out of life.”

    A. Why should we accept the Christian version of the creation story and not, say, the Hindu version, or any of the Native American versions?
    B. Please name something that “evolutionists” (which is a silly word) have overlooked.
    C. This is simply not true.

    “Interestingly enough the bible also says that we live and die by faith. You couldnt beleive in evolution if you did not have faith. You werent there.”

    There’s a difference in having faith in something because the evidence suggests it’s true and having faith in something on purely religious grounds.

    “You know. This is rediculous. Guys like Robert Gentry still have outstanding challenges and pleads in to TV networks and scientific organizations to air a live public primetime debate between creationists and evolutionists and the ones refusing to do it ARENT the creationists, theyre the evolutionists and the organizations that support them.”

    This is because these debates usually never get anywhere and often end up with the creationists ignoring the science and just attacking the other side for being atheists (even if they’re not). All the real debate about creationism and evolution took place long, long ago, and creationism lost.

    “So perhaps you could state some facts that creationists ‘have no argument for’ and we’ll see if i have one.”

    Why do some whales and snakes have vestigial hip bones?

    “If random chance doesnt drive non-intelligently guided processes then what does?”

    Mutations in an organisms genetic code are random; however, *selection* (natural or otherwise) is not. The members of a species that survive are the ones that are better adapted to their environment.

    “Its that we recognize how rediculous it is and how it is completely uncorroborated by what we actually observe.”

    Why is it ridiculous?

    “This is micro evolution; this is macro-evolution.”

    I don’t think any biologist would agree with your definitions.

    “Obviously billions is wrong.”

    Then why does every single dating method used end up with approximately the same age? What about light from stars that are more than 6000 light years away? Did God create the light already on the way here? Why did He deliberately make it look like the universe is billions of years old? Is He trying to trick us?

    “And we know you don’t.”

    Well, yes, because it explains nothing. Why do we get sick? God does it. What causes tornadoes? God makes them. If we just accepted “God did it” as an answer, we’d still be living in caves, if we ever got that far.

    “So let me get this straight. We tell you that there is a God that exists outside the boundary of time/space/matter who created time/space/matter and because He isnt solely/regularly/readily observable by the 5 physical senses He created us with we are therefore going to declare that He does not exist.”

    No, “we” are going to declare that there’s no point in speculating on His existence or non-existence. Either He influences the universe is some detectable way, in which case He’s removed from the supernatural down to the natural so no we can do some research; or he influences the universe in some NON-detectable way, in which case there’s no way we can investigate His actions.

    “Nevermind recorded history. Nevermind supernatural occurances. They’ve never happened to you so you’re going refuse to believe its impossible that they ever will. ”

    Examples please? Outside of the Bible I mean.

  404. Rich Says:

    “Creationists, of course, can’t stand the fact that science has prevailed over magical thinking, and that, as a result, we teach science and not magic to our children. They want equal time for unscientific appeals to supernaturalism. Moreover, they want their acceptance of magic to receive the same respect that rigorous scientific discourse receives.

    …”

    http://positiveliberty.com/2007/07/all-epistemologies-are-not-created-equal.html#more-2603

  405. Craig Says:

    David said: “When was the last time evolution from one species to another was tested in a laboratory? Oh wait, that can’t be tested.”

    But it can (and has).

    Read these links:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

  406. Galileo Says:

    Methinks yon movie sucketh! And don’t ever mention my name again.

  407. Dark Jedi Says:

    Dear Mr. Creationist (or whatever your handlers tell you to call it this week),

    Another 30 board-feet of pasting the same arguments does not change the fact that they are still as wrong as when we debunked them all the first time.

    You have absolutely zero ability to comprehend what you paste, and as such, when you come across the same argument already shredded here at a later date it appears brand new to you. It is a truly sad state, and you need to grasp that you only highlight your own mental deficiency by persisting with the cut and paste marathon.

    Were you able, on even the simplest level, to grasp the concepts involved, you would recognize the repetitive nature of your posts. As it is, you do not even have that elementary comprehension of the topic at hand.

    Sadly, this is how creationism works, they rely on the vehement and vociferous response of their most ignorant and uneducated of followers to speak for them. They pot up the article, fully knowing the lies, distortions, and misleading nature of them and wait for people like you to cry them from the mountaintops.

    We know the creationist movement to be dishonest to it’s core, because the articles they produce requires a pretty decent knowledge of astronomy, cosmology, geology, anthropology, and a variety of other sciences… yet it is deliberately twisted and distorted in to outright lies. And this is not the type of misunderstanding that comes from a bad grasp of the topic, it required in-depth lies and trickery to produce.

    So climb that mountain again, Rainman, and tell us again how wrong we are.

  408. Berthajane Vandegrift Says:

    This controversy is over materialism, more than religion. One doesn’t have to be religious to question random mutation and natural selection as an explanation of life.

    Materialism in this context is not about an obsession with money. Nor is it about the existence or non existence of God. It concerns a definition of reality. Materialists see the universe, including living organisms, as consisting of nothing more than purposeless matter in motion — a complex machine lacking any intelligence or volition. We non materialists see subjective choice (free will) and intelligent causation (intelligent design) as non supernatural aspects of reality. Only a committed materialist would question the reality of free will in humans and other mammals. However some materialist do just that, claiming that free will is an illusion, that what we mistake for rational free choice is nothing more than mechanical, deterministic interactions of the brain.

    Many materialists are atheists, and many non materialists are religious, attributing everything to God. However theism is not the only alternative to materialism. Panpsychism, for instance, proposes that free-will, subjective choice, has always been a basic ingredient of reality. The “laws” of nature are merely entrenched habits of a spontaneous, volitional, creative reality. “Laws” concerning inanimate matter are habits so entrenched that deviations cannot be detected by existing measuring methods (except perhaps at the quantum level). Living organisms, on the other hand, all retain some limited ability to respond creatively and purposefully. Living organisms can be easily observed overriding habits, instincts and “laws“ of nature, The universe is an intelligent democracy in the process of designing itself. The “design” of inanimate matter may be pretty entrenched by this time, but living organisms are still to some extent a design in process.

    At the moment the materialists seem to be in control of academia, and they are not shy about wielding their power to silence non materialistic views. They harass and deny tenure to scientists who question materialism. Some materialists go so far as to claim materialism is the only permissible “scientific” view of reality, and they have persuaded a court to prohibit theories involving free will and intelligent causation from being considered in biology classrooms. I doubt an overwhelming majority of the public would define themselves as materialists if they gave the matter serious consideration. In any case, I’m confident that only a few in our society are so intolerant as to condone banning conflicting views from consideration.

    Freud, Marx and Darwin have often been named as the three materialists of the 20th Century. Marxism is in decline. Darwinism is being hotly debated. Freud suggested that our thoughts were a mechanical process, over which we have little control. Few people still accept the Freudian notion that faulty parenting cause autism, mental illness or homosexuality. However some people still argue that ‘thinking’ is nothing more than mechanical brain interactions and chemical reactions.

  409. Matusleo Says:

    You know, before a miracle is officially declared a miracle, it is put through rigorous scientific examination to determine if some natural process actually accomplished the supposed miracle? Only once natural processes are ruled out is it declared a miracle.

    Now, I recently read a book entitled ‘The Fabric of the Cosmos’ by Brian Greene. This book covers a staggering amount of cosmology, and also String Theory. One of the questions that Greene tries to tackle is why time’s arrow only operates in one direction. Almost all the laws of physics still make perfect sense if you run time backwards. The only one that doesn’t, is the Law of Entropy. Entropy is always increasing in a reaction, which means that entropy in the past must be smaller than in the future. However, physic, cosmology, even String Theory cannot explain why this is so, and believe me they have tried!

    Another thing that amuses me about String Theory is that it is beautiful math whose equations can solve certain problems in quantum models of the universe, but it is utterly incapable of making any predictions that can be tested. In fact, whereas the standard model for the cosmos involves a beginning point, a ‘first cause’ if you will, to borrow a term from St. Aquinas, String Theory returns cosmology to having no definable beginning. They posit that the Big Bang occurred when two branes collided, an event they suggest repeats every few trillion to quadrillion years. What this means is that there is no more first cause, but an infinite chain of causes, which St. Aquinas demonstrated was logically impossible.

    Now, this is not discussing evolution per se. But I think it does demonstrate something fundamental. It is an example of where science begins to fail. We can accomplish so much, and we can describe so much through science, but we will still be left with unanswerable questions.

    I do not subscribe to a God of the Gaps theory. However, I also recognize the limit of man’s cognitive and sensory abilities. And we cannot learn about God merely by our senses, as Dawkins and his ilk would have us do. That is kind of the point! While He does offer us physical signs that we can perceive with our senses, it was not of our own effort that these were accomplished. They were revealed to us by God! Hence, the Christian religion will always be one of the revealed God, and why that, as it stands, is exactly as reason would dictate He was going to be.

  410. Craig Says:

    Freedom For All said: “Good one. I think I heard that somewhere before. A. Who designed the designer is only necessary if you think that it is necessary to have the facts on how we get from a rock to a place where evolution can even start.”

    I don’t understand what you mean. The point of the “Who designed the designer” question is to illustrate that by proposing that some higher power designed life, you haven’t really solved anything; you’ve just pushed the question back one level. There are three ways out. One is that there is an infinite regress of designers designing designers. The second is that you can arbitrarily define the designer as being special and eternal, but that leads to the question of why you need to have a special designer when you could just take the third option — that the laws of physics and chemistry eventually built a molecule that could reproduce itself, and natural selection took over from there.

    “Why doesn’t a lack of information on abiogenesis mean evolution must be false.”

    Because, as I said, it doesn’t matter to evolution at all how life got started.

    “Evolution doesn’t care, because if it did, it would be dead in its tracks. Wow, that was an easy way out of that one. We just don’t care.”

    I honestly don’t understand why you have difficulty with this. Whether God created the first life, or the Earth was seeded by aliens, or life started on it’s own, evolution would still occur.

    “Claiming evolution as fact without a beginning point is ridiculous”

    The trouble is the word “evolution” is often used somewhat sloppily. Depending on how it’s used it can mean different things. “Evolution”, in the sense that the genetic makeup of a population of organisms changes over time, is an undeniable fact. “Evolution”, in the sense of a scientific explanation of how the changes occur, is a theory.

    “Quoted from a pro evolution website “The problem with trying to observe speciation is that it usually does not occur within the lifetime of a scientist, but since bacteria have such short generations, sometimes as short as 20 minutes, there is potential for actually observing speciation. The problem is that strict bacterial speciation has not occurred.”

    Observed instances of speciation:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    And more:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    “Even if we give you that one, changing beak sizes is a far cry from changing species.”

    If two populations of organisms don’t mate with each other, they are different species. This happened with the finches.

  411. Ed Says:

    Ben,

    You better watch out for the Flying Spagetti Monster. His tenticles wil ensnare you and then you will feel the true power of belief…

  412. Colin Says:

    I have read many of the replies to this opening Blog and felt I must reply to those people. I applaud Ben Stein for finally standing up and fighting back against a pack of lies that has destroyed the scientific community and our classrooms. Darwinism is one of the biggest scientific jokes ever conceived by man. Many of the greatest “proofs” used to show it as so-called truth have been forgeries in the name of eliminating God from all aspects of life. Darwinism is so far from being concrete that it is merely laughable. Anyone with just a little bit of time on their hands could do the adequate research on the topic of Darwinism and Intelligent Design and come to the realization that at best, Darwinism exists on shaky ground, or at worst it is scientific hogwash. Most who laugh at the Intelligent Design theory have little actual knowledge of the idea, and even less knowledge of the numerous holes, gaps, and enourmous unanswered questions left by the Darwinism theory.
    I find it equally humorous that there are many people already denouncing the movie a full six months before it is released. That’s a great open-minded approach, very typical of those wishing to silence those supporting Intelligent Design. As for me, I’ll hold off on my opinion of the movie until I see it; a novel idea. I’ll see if I consider it a success or not.

    God Bless America.

  413. Ed Says:

    Until you embrace the Flying Spagetti Monster, your words are useless. Follow me to Pastfarianism and worship the only true God. Let his noodley tenticles wrap warmly around you!

  414. CRasch Says:

    The reason they don’t teach ID or Creationism in Science because it’s the same as trying to teach that 1 + 1 = 3 in a Math Class.

  415. Dark Jedi Says:

    JasonX10
    “They bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (pssst. earth isn’t a closed system)”

    Psst. The outside influence that the earth recieves is RANDOM. No intelligent process guides radiation or meteor strikes or whatever else you like.

    “They bring up complex systems. (failing to study the research on how complex systems evolove. the eye being a well studied one they claim is too perfect to arise from evolution, which is completely ridiculous)”
    ————-

    Wow. I propose a challenge. Go outside during the day. There is an outside energy source you have apparently never noticed. Look up, you will see it. It is called the sun.

    I am continually shocked at how many creationists have never noticed the sun before. You’d think it’s a little too noticeable to overlook.

  416. Craig Says:

    mynym said: “Except when people use the term evolution to describe all change that has ever taken place in the Cosmos.”

    But no biologist would do that.

    “Now I suppose “Evolution” is just about a sentient being…. why just the other day Evolution told me that it was about to naturally select something for me.”

    I was waxing poetic. If I were talking about gravity I might have said, “Gravity doesn’t care if you’re a human or a rock; you’re still going to hit the ground just as hard.” :)

    “Translation: “Even among those of us who make rules allowing us to cite our imaginations as naturalistic evidence (naturally enough), the origin of life is still a problem.”

    Of course it’s a problem. Science doesn’t pretend to know all the answers. The way we figure things out is by poking at the problems. Einstein came up with relativity by thinking about problems with Newtonian mechanics. The point it that we have some ideas about how life might have gotten started, and research is continuing.

  417. Joel Pelletier Says:

    The ID arguement is a logical fallacy playground. If you can’t even make an valid arguement. What hope in hell do ya have to actually do some real science. ID is like 3rd grade logic mixed with sunday school theology. I dont care how many propaganda films you guys put out, bullshit is still bullshit.

  418. Lee Says:

    Keep on proving Mr. Stein right gentlemen.
    Blind dogma and ad hominem do not make you right.
    I am not a proponant of Intelligent Design, but the farcial stranglehold moribund scientists have over real scientific study is a disgrace.

    They have brainwwashed a generation to avoid true critical thinking and mock and dismiss instead of observe and refute with evidence.
    Overall what I see here is several hundred posts of “Oh Yeah? Well your stoopid so shut up!” which is about on par with what Eugenie Scott usually has to offer in her daily witchunt to exterminate any ideas or theories different than her pet religion of Darwinian Evolution.

  419. jb Says:

    Collin said:

    The argument is that what he said will be taken out of context, mixed around, and suited to make his statements appear degrading when they are not.

    PZ was ONE of many people interviewed for this project. He stated in his blog that his interview - for which he was paid $1200 and signed a contract - lasted “several” hours.

    Now, how stupid would you have to be to believe that a 90-120 minute documentary film featuring so many people is going to use 2-3 hours of film of YOU answering questions and opining about the sub-human status of your ideological opponents? I do not believe for a millisecond that PZ Myers was ever led to believe this movie would consist entirely of his interview start-to-finish. Unless he’s a bigger idiot (and a bigger megalomaniac) than any IDer out there.

    OF COURSE the producers would use only those answers and opinions they feel best illustrate his position per the subject of the film. The same is true for Eugenie, Dawkins, Sternberg, Gonzales, and everybody else who was interviewed. PZ’s whining sounds like those frat boys who tried to sue the ‘Borat’ producers for using their racist jokes and slurs without telling them they might come across as bigoted assholes.

    Now, you can try to claim that whatever PZ is shown to say in the film was pieced together from disparate responses, but you certainly don’t know that since you haven’t seen the film. So you’d be lying. Nor would I believe that the producers would need to alter a single word he said or invent things for him to say. He’s already famous for the exact position Stein highlighted in his blog.

    His whining suggests that he only said what he said because he thought the film would be HIS propaganda vehicle. That is very amusing as a lead in to the PR campaign for this film, as is the fact that he’s deployed the peanut gallery here to run an offensive defense on his behalf. He needs to buck up and act like a man who isn’t afraid or ashamed of his own words, opinions, positions and prejudices. Because I have a sneaking suspicion they’ll figure prominently in the documentary’s theme.

    If he can’t do that much, now’s a good time to apologize in public for being such an incontinent jerk. Say he never really meant it, go on back to teaching biology 101 and lay low for the next 6 months. As Dawkins would say - er, has said - Shut up.

  420. Gerry Says:

    Rob … pathetic … ’nuff said

  421. JCJ Says:

    For Ben Stein to believe that there is a god that acts in nature is a matter of faith. For Ben Stein to know, in the sense of being able to prove, that there is such a god is hubris; just as the assertion that there is no such god is hubris also. Whatever is divine is beyond the ken of man, for that we should be happy. To assert that we fully understand creation either by a wave of god’s hand or the slow creep of evolution is to over state the powers of the human intellect.

  422. Jim Says:

    Ben,

    After reading the anti-ID diatribes above, I’m prepared to list all the books written by ID theorists that your critics have actually read. The list follows:

    1) None.

    A prediction: After it’s released, your movie will be harshly attacked by people who haven’t seen it. In my experience, most critics of ID don’t (and won’t) allow their opinions of it to be molested by any actual knowledge of it.

  423. Design Says:

    I’m distress to see that Ben has the relationship between science and persecution in reverse. It is the religious right that is persecuting scientists; scientists pursue the truth, wherever that pursuit takes us.

  424. Rich Says:

    Jim says:

    :After reading the anti-ID diatribes above, I’m prepared to list all the books written by ID theorists that your critics have actually read. The list follows:

    1) None.”

    I’ve read all of Dembski’s work, some Hoyle if he counts.

    Is your point that because they have no THEORY, they’re not THEORISTS?

  425. Neal Says:

    It would be a real treat to actually read a serious article on evolution that actually proves something substantial about the evolution of complex life to more complex life forms and organs. I have found it interesting to count the number of words like “maybe”, “if”, “assume”, “could”, “might”,
    “possibly”, etc that are in the evolutionary articles.

    An interesting exercise is to take an article on evolution and strip away the bold title, and all the sentences that contain these speculative words, and any sentences that are derogatory toward intelligent design and creation. What you get is usually a very small article that can be summed up as “we don’t really know what we’re talking about”.

  426. Neal Says:

    One more thing to take out of evolutionary articles is the flaky artistic concepts and graphics that are based more on speculation than on solid evidence.

  427. namgorf Says:

    Dark Jedi, I think you’ve misunderstood how entropy relates to the universe. Disorder has nothing to do with it.

    For some reason people like to use The Second Law of Thermodynamics a lot, but I don’t know if they really know what’s up.

    There are several equivalent statements of the Second Law that rather insightful:

    1) During a process, if the system begins and ends at the same state, it is impossible that heat is completely turned into work.

    2) Heat flows spontaneously from a hot object to a cold object.

    3) The change in entropy is equal to the change in the heat along a reversible path divided by the temperature.

    4) The entropy of an isolated system will always increase in a spontaneous process.

    The last definition is essentially the one you are recalling.

    The idea that entropy is disorder is not quite right and its unfortunate that this concept has been held onto so long.

    Consider the case where a liquid freezes into an ordered crystal; according to the definition you give this should never happen but we know that it does — Why?

    A better definition of entropy would be the definition that is common to statistical mechanics and was proposed by Boltzmann.

    Entropy can be thought of as being directly related to the number of ways a system has to `arrange’ itself. Each arrangement constitutes a `microstate’ of the system.

    Therefore, a system seeks to maximize the number of different arrangements or microstates.

    To make this clear think of a container full of a gas. The gas is occupying a constant volume and is also at constant temperature. Within the container the molecules of gas will explore different positions. If you could stop the system at some time you would find the molecules at some fixed positions. Collectively, their positions represent one possible microstate. Now start the system back up again and stop it some later time. Once again you will (probably) find the system in a different microstate. Given enough time the system will explore all possible microstates as well as ending up in the same ones. The more microsates the system has available the higher the entropy.

    So you see entropy has little to do with disorder — it’s about microstates.

    Entropy will always increase because a system is the most stable when it has the most microstates — disorder is not the factor.

    Matter isn’t constant; energy is constant.

    Consider the case when two atoms undergo a nuclear reaction and give off energy; something similar to a nuclear bomb or a reaction in a nuclear reactor. The mass (matter) of the products is LESS than what was started with — mass has been lost! This is because the lost mass has been changed into energy.

    The relationship between the mass lost and the energy produced is given by Einstein’s equation:

    E=mc2.

    Energy — not mass is conserved.

    Additionally, here’s a helpful article about entropy with detail on micro and macro states.

    http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.entropysite.com/entropy_is_simple/index.html

  428. Steve_C Says:

    Neal.

    Most biologist and scientists never talk about ID. It’s like talking about magic and gnomes.

    There’s no real need.

    Ah, evolution isn’t just about things becoming more complex. Anyone who actually understood what evolution means wouldn’t talk about things becoming more complex… sometimes it means becoming more blue, or bigger or smaller or softer fur or bigger feathers….

    It’s amazing how many people who disregard the theory of evolution have no idea what it is.

    Could someone please post the ID HYPOTHESIS. I’d like to see how it could be tested in the lab. I say hypothesis because it’s not a theory until it’s been tested and shown to have evidence to back it up and that hasn’t happened.

  429. A Says:

    Mr. Stein, you apparently promote the ideas of Intelligent Design in all sciences. Here, I want to point you to some important prior work in this field, done by the Re-Discovery Institute
    http://www.re-discovery.org/
    You might find this helpful, as this web site lists other areas
    in science, where controversies rage, which are best resolved by an original designer. Not only in Biology, in all sciences, the ideas that all was designed might help stop useless investigations, and move funding to faith-based researchers.
    (Apparently, currently only social faith-based organizations receive funding from the Bush administration; if one could give them, too, the money now uselessly wasted by the NIH, NSF etc.
    we’d all be so much better off [in the next life, at least]).

  430. Steve_C Says:

    Someone is takin’ the piss out of the DI. hehe.

    They even got the wacky, bad website design down.

  431. Dudeness Says:

    For me it’s this simple: Evolutionists propose that we all came from monkeys, or some version of that. Creationists propose that we all came from a Creator. Both have missing links and require faith. Both are a religion of sorts, both have elements of science in them - of course one more than the other because it has taken that approach. Yes, there are fossils and primates, etc.., but there are also historical writings that never mention any sort of evolution of man, NOTHING.

    Evolution looks to the past, for the most part, Creationism looks to the future. One is feudal, the other hopeful. Sure, many Scientists believe in a “Higher Being” – only difference is they believe Man is becoming that Higher Being! A few Scientists mix things up for a creation/evolution explanation of things, as do some of the Creationists, but that is just a lazy way to get along.

    Sure, we look like monkeys, but that doesn’t mean we do not look more like our Creator. Those of us who choose to live by faith are allowed to do so freely. Those of you that want to say there is NOT a Creator must prove entirely. In the end one side will be right. If the Evolutionists are, well, so be it…if the Creationists are…

  432. Tony Says:

    All I see posted here is the typical regurgitation of athiest dogma. Thankfully you realize there is a growing number of people (including scientists, philosophers, biologists, etc.) who have come to the conclusion that this science is not “God of the gaps” science. The belief that evolution is the ONLY way we could be here is as much a faith driven belief as that of a religious individual. I look forward to seeing your film.

  433. J Myers Says:

    Steve_C, see #159 for the IDiot Hypothesis.

  434. Steve_C Says:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/axis_formation_in_spider_embry.php

    hey look! science!

    Some of you need to try it.

  435. Jasonx10 Says:

    To SteveC:

    “HAHAHAHAHAHAH.

    AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    NO WAY! You believe the fable of Noah’s Ark! That’s your genetic theory for everyone and every animal on the planet?!

    AHHHHHHHHHHHH! HAHAHAHAHA.

    OH man. That’s so good.

    Genius.

    Someone has been drinking the Hovind/Ham kool-aid.

    hehe.

    Wow. Welcome to the dark ages. The bible is literally true.

    Damn, you’re a deluded godbot.”

    With all due respect, im the one using historical accounts combined with scientific norms - you’re the one responding with ‘HAHAHAHAHAHAHAD SD YOurs O stoopID CreationIST God FanSTASY PersON’ - which is exactly why the anti-creation proffesors are so disgusted with guys like me - deep down their ‘ultra-logical scientific reasoning’ amounts to: ‘HAHAHAHAHAHAHAD SD YOurs O stoopID CreationIST God FanSTASY PersON’.

    State facts and honestly sort them from presumptions. Be willing to declare what is fact and what is faith - evolution is faith - so is creation - but I believe biblical creation better fits history and science. You wanna debate me on how we observe the empirical science - go for it. You wanna smear character and throw insults - may i reccomend a elementary school playground.

  436. BobRyan Says:

    [quote]
    BobRyan (Post 376) says

    August 24th, 2007 at 11:37 am

    Atheist darwinism is religion for those who prefer fairytales over science. Intelligent design offers an alternative to the pseudoscience story telling of darwinism.”[/quote]

    [quote]OpenMinded post 383 Responds

    Please elucidate this alternative once and for all.

    Also I like how not being religious is a religion, and being in a religion is a religion. Basically no matter what you do, by your fatuous logic, you’re religious and faithful no matter what.
    [/quote]

    #1. Atheist Darwinism survives IN SPITE of good science not because of it. As the late Colin Patterson (senior Paleontologist British Museum Natural Hist) stated “Telling stories about how one thing came from another is simply story telling -not science”.

    He is an example of a believer in Darwinist evolutionism IN Spite of it’s scientific failings!

    The true believers in Atheist Darwinism are known for turning a blind eye to the mono-chiral problems of abiogenesis and of turning a blind eye to the differences between real science and “Story telling” in general.

    #2. ID is a general statement — so much so that it embraces a form that is simply another kind of evolutionism.

    The ID “general statement” is like the SETI project - it “admits” that one can “detect” a difference between natural phenomina and an intelligently directed action.

    For example when people observe objects that change course (speed and direction) midflight and seem to “accomplish a task” (A bird in flight seeking food) that they “see a difference” between THAT and a leaf falling to the ground that can also change speed and direction during flight.

    It is the most basic confession of “obvious fact” that the ID model embraces and braindead atheist darwinism denies.

    BobRyan

  437. BobRyan Says:

    [quote]A says

    Mr. Stein, you apparently promote the ideas of Intelligent Design in all sciences. Here, I want to point you to some important prior work in this field, done by the Re-Discovery Institute
    http://www.re-discovery.org/
    You might find this helpful, as this web site lists other areas
    in science, where controversies rage, which are best resolved by an original designer. Not only in Biology, in all sciences[/quote]

    In the link to that bogus site You have unwittingly pointed out the flaw in your ability to objectively evaluate two positions and come to a cogent objective intelligent conclusion.

    Your link demonstrates the basic failure to comprehend the opposing argument that is so characterstic of blind faith in atheist darwinism exhibited by it’s adherents — the “Darwinist faithful”.

    I do not challenge your beliefs in the myths and story-telling of darwinism as a belief system. I simply ask that you not foist them onto the public as though such tactics were in fact “science” or even “genuine concern” for science.

    BobRyan

  438. Jeff Meyer Says:

    Speaking as someone who’s livelihood depends on science, this is really, truly sad. Has anybody here even read anything by Dawkins, Gould, et. al.? They have supported academic freedom forever! Even Richard Lewinton penned this which I think we should all take to heart:

    “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.)

    Oh, wait, maybe that wasn’t a good example. This one is much better…

    “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University - Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.)

    Oops. Maybe that one is not too good either, but you get my point - people like these love for the other side to be voiced. These kinds of things are exactly what I want my kids to hear in their classes at the local university. It’s statements like these that reflect the desire for open and honest discussion in order to find truth - perfect examples of unbiased, academic freedom, absent from all preconceptions.

    So maybe these were not the best examples, but I’m sure better ones exist. I mean look at Guillermo Gonzales, noted astrophysicist from Iowa State University. There is no way he’ll be denied tenure, I mean, he’s written many times the number of peer reviewed papers, is only cited more times by one other full professor in his college at ISU in other peer reviewed papers, and he doesn’t even teach ID in his classes. He is a model example of what ISU looks for in tenured professors, and a perfect example that you don’t need to believe in evolution in order to be a scientist. What? No tenure? Hmmm, must be that last point. Even more confusing is that ISU grants tenure to 91% of its applicants with far fewer credentials.

    The problem with origins science is that it is by nature untestable and unobservable. Give me difinitive proof that birds evolved from reptiles. Have we seen it happen? Have we recreated it? Likewise, have we seen God create any species? Have we recreated creation in a lab? No, we have not. We do have fossils, but depending on your committment to naturalism, you’ll read them differently than me. Heck, there are even evolutionists who specialize in birds and those who specialize in reptiles who say that there is no way reptiles evolved into birds. We all look at the same fossil record, but our biases (and we all have them) determine how we view them.

    Of course, you can always claim to be an unbiased observer, but really, there is no such thing.

    Jeff.

  439. Pat Says:

    “Yet they claim they can prove that evolution is wrong.”

    Cite one instance of this ever.

  440. BobRyan Says:

    Neal Said -

    “It would be a real treat to actually read a serious article on evolution that actually proves something substantial about the evolution of complex life to more complex life forms and organs. I have found it interesting to count the number of words like “maybe”, “if”, “assume”, “could”, “might”,
    “possibly”, etc that are in the evolutionary articles.”

    BobRyan said -

    That is a very good point Neil. So much “what-if” and “Some-atheist-darwinists-think” gets mixed into their story telling — it is hard to fathom that anyone falls for that kind mythology in a day where real science is making so much progress.

    Colin Patterson’s statement provides a good reference point for where actual science stops and “pure story-telling” takes over in the mythology of atheist darwinism.

    Bobryan

  441. Kazim Says:

    Jim:

    “After reading the anti-ID diatribes above, I’m prepared to list all the books written by ID theorists that your critics have actually read. The list follows:

    1) None.”

    Wrong. Let me pitch in as someone who read Darwin’s Black Box. Review is here:
    http://kazimskorner.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-darwins-black-box-by-michael.html

  442. BobRyan Says:

    I applaud Ben Stein for his work in raising public consciousness regarding the rank censorship practiced among atheist darwinist trying to censor freedom of thought and truncate science itself in favor of darwinist-storytelling.

    What is particularly helpful in that regard is simply reading the posts given on this thread in response to Ben’s movie. Notice in this very blog the extent to which they display themsevles to be devoted adherants to the beliefs of atheist-darwinism rather than objective open-minded students of science.

    Very instructive for the objective unbiased reader.

    BobRyan

  443. Ignatius Gorgonzola Says:

    ID is not science. Science is based on rules. In a scientific world-view, a small number of simple rules leads to observed outcome through a chain of logical inference. ID effectively suspends the rules in favor of a deity that makes up the rules as the game progresses. In such a universe, the very idea of science is hopeless.

  444. CRasch Says:

    So Lee,

    Teaching 1 + 1 = 3 in a math class OK because of academic freedom?
    As much you try to cover up the real issue, all you are doing is layering it with more scat.

  445. C.W. Says:

    Could someone please post the ID HYPOTHESIS.

    There’s always Behe’s famous “puff of smoke” hypothesis. Something happened, through magic. We don’t need to elaborate on this, since ID isn’t a mechanistic theory and only naturalistic dogma would require that pathetic level of detail.

  446. Jeff Says:

    See? Evolutionist are amazingly angry people. As Ben’s show apparently points out they resort to vitriolic personal attacks against the messenger rather than dealing with the message. I will grant them I am probably a particularly ignorant person but that doesn’t change the facts of the laws (I’ll call them ‘laws’ since that is in line with Stephen Hawkings definition of a theory that has not been disproved through a multitude of examinations, and am too ignorant to come up with a better noun than he did) I pointed to.

  447. Eric Proph Says:

    Reading through Stein’s words, I cannot seem to find where he stated his undying faith of Christian beliefs. It would be nice if someone pointed it out for me, because it seems to be a lot of what many posts here are ranting on about. Stein has not placed any support for ID or flying spaghetti monster or anything. He has simply made an observation. And in my own experience his observation rings true.
    I’m glad that this blog began such an open minded discussion. A nice Socratic dialog in which the first comment is nothing but contentious accusations.

    Just for the sake of adding a small amount of evidence to Stein’s argument, in my public library many book that have been published dealing with the issue of ID have been thrown out simply because they analyzed the idea. One of which was a thesis based around the calculation of the famous Sir Fred Hoyle. He calculated that the chance of a single cell forming even in the time of 4.6 billion years was 10^39982 to 1. This was checked and supported by mathematician and Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick.

    My point of this little bit of talk is that this information, researched and calculated by two very distinguished and recognized individuals, was censored out of a PUBLIC library, simply because it gave ID a chance.

    That is why I believe Stein is right in saying that scientific inquiry on the subject is suppressed, and not only that but information already out there, that is still proving valid, is being censored.
    And when science it censored, I don’t believe it can be called science any longer.

  448. J. Matt Says:

    Ben Stein,
    I am very surprised that a man of your education and intelligence would build such an elaborate straw-man. Congratulations on the continued distribution of the myth that scientists are atheists who suppress religious beliefs.

    The reason we don’t include our beliefs in a creator in our science is because THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.

  449. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    Jasonx10 (comment #208):

    I note that your so called theory doesn’t make definite predictions, nor present data to test those predictions on. (You mention a lot of “discoveries”, but leave no description of tests, nor references.)

    You are also presenting a strawman for science. (”a self-evolving universe that contradicts the norm of entropy”; wrong, see my comment #172.)

    Finally, your point #5 and #6 are curious - apparently you claim that there is no predictive power in creationism, but individual interpretation and no criteria guiding you as Rob asked for. Color us unsurprised. But don’t claim that it is signs of science.

    Jose (comment #221-222, 257):

    … conclusive proof … can you test evolutionary theory?

    Here is a primer for non-biologists summarizing the many evidences. You are also welcome to study the 100’s of 1000’s of published papers during the last 150 years.

  450. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    Endurion (comment #250):

    The scientific method is based on that assumption that Truth can be known.

    No. Science is simply based on the observation that empirical observation can be repeatable and explainable based on natural mechanisms. Science works, therefore it is.

    Andrew (comment #277):

    Fact: Every scientist alive agrees that living things have the appearance of design.

    Fact: Conservatively, 99.9 % of scientists alive agrees that evolution is correct.

    DI can show a list with 700 disagreeing persons, mostly non-scientists, out of 10 000’s biologists and many more scientists. Assume 500 000 scientists worldwide (~ 100 nations, 5000 scientists each) and do the numbers.

  451. Marty Says:

    To Rob:
    In your post (#1), you list 6 questions. What would your answers be if you substituted “evolution” for “ID”?

    To Steve_C (post # 427):
    How has evolution been tested in the lab? What do you think is the most demonstrable, verifiable evidence backing up evolution?

  452. Mordred Says:

    It’s a good thing Ben isn’t a junior faculty member. Judging from the comments here, he’d be the one being interviewed in a movie called Expelled.

  453. Joel Pelletier Says:

    “Keep on proving Mr. Stein right gentlemen.
    Blind dogma and ad hominem do not make you right.
    I am not a proponant of Intelligent Design, but the farcial stranglehold moribund scientists have over real scientific study is a disgrace.

    They have brainwwashed a generation to avoid true critical thinking and mock and dismiss instead of observe and refute with evidence.
    Overall what I see here is several hundred posts of “Oh Yeah? Well your stoopid so shut up!” which is about on par with what Eugenie Scott usually has to offer in her daily witchunt to exterminate any ideas or theories different than her pet religion of Darwinian Evolution.”

    How many more stawmen can you guys come up with, every post by ID proponents is just another rehash of this fallacy ridden pile of irrelevance.

  454. Chrisitan Lewis Says:

    Interesting how many atheists are chiming in with the idea that even being allowed to consider the possibility of God is akin to “forcing” others to believe it.

    Perhaps, friends, there isn’t any evidence because anyone who dares even consider it solely for the purpose of scientific disproof is immediately fired, won’t get published and certainly won’t get peer reviewed? I’m not fond of the idea of pushing God through science myself, but I can’t deny that the idea is currently being censored in the most vicious and fearful fashion. Not allowing the other side to even talk says something: you’re afraid. You needn’t be. If your ideas are the stronger, you’ve got nothing to fear from free speech. You should be able to produce much stronger and more resonating ideas and concepts if your idea is stronger.

    I look forward to seeing Expelled.

  455. Michael Says:

    jb post 419:

    That last post was a real whinefest itself. Could you just show us the research being done to support ID? Please. Anything.

  456. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    Jacob Evilsizor (comment #285):

    the definition of evolution is so ambiguous, it can literally mean anything from the obscure “change over time” to “change in allele frequency of an organism due to genetic drift and natural selection via mutational variation compounded over millions of years to form increasingly complex entities of organizational matter.”

    You are confusing the general phenomena (”common descent”) with the mechanisms that explains it.

    The rest of your post is continuing this criticism of evolution, but does nothing to address the lack of science in creationism ideas or the movies claims of repressing good science.

    The interested non-scientist bystander can find these old creationist talking points addressed in a readable format at An Index to Creationist Claims, with references to relevant sciences.

    Dave C (comment #297):

    What predictions does ID make that differentiate it from Evolution? One such would be “Junk”, or undesigned elements to life.

    How do you derive this prediction unambiguously from your definition? Others claim that everything is designed (no undesigned elements), perfectly designed (no “junk”), et cetera.

    If you can’t derive a “prediction” from a definition, it isn’t a prediction. And the definition isn’t a theory.

    The same problem applies to the rest of your list of “predictions”.

  457. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    FFA (comment #304):

    Macroevolution is a theory full of holes that is being blindly promoted because of its philosophical value. Not it’s scientific value.

    See here for a primer in evolution, summarizing the evidence and with references to the original science.

    Your comment is essentially an argument from ignorance, and the link will answer that.

  458. Richard Says:

    I’m not from the USA, thankfully. I had never heard of Mr Stein before. But it has increasingly seemed to me that totalitarians like him are gaining the upper hand in US thought and politics.

    ID and creationism have offered absolutely nothing to science, but they (and similar crank ideas) can triumph by legal ploys, populist ranting, and undermining the education system. They could reduce large parts of US science to nothing, like Lysenko in the USSR.

  459. ngong Says:

    It’s almost a law of nature…if you support some form of flim-flam (creationism, HIV-denial, global warming denial, etc.), you’re gonna claim that the intellectual establishment is locking your side out.

    As a biochemist, I can say that the arguments put forward by IDers are transparently silly. Supporters of silly ideas should not be educating our children.

    Very disappointed in Ben Stein.

  460. Jim McDuggan Says:

    Me is want for thank to you Ben Stein. Me is no beleeve evolushon and you is make movie so for me can understand trooth.

  461. jb Says:

    Michael:

    That last post was a real whinefest itself. Could you just show us the research being done to support ID? Please. Anything.

    Excuse me? While I’d love to chat away on this obscure blog, I do have a life and must attend to business. Couldn’t leave (looking forward to which of my predictions about this film may prove right in 6 months) without asking what the heck this is about.

    My last post responded to a pseud ‘Colin’ who asserted that PZ Myer’s “argument” (which is actually just a whine, now buried on his site with comments off) is that - and I quote -

    “what he said will be taken out of context, mixed around, and suited to make his statements appear degrading when they are not.”

    I said if that’s his argument, it’s ridiculous. Nobody ever promised a 2-hour documentary of nothing but PZ Myers pontificating in his lab for 2 straight hours. It’s not what he signed up for and it’s not what he agreed to. Out of all that was filmed, the producers and editors will choose whatever answers to questions and/or whatever volunteered opinions they figure will best fit their theme. Same is true of every other person who was interviewed for this project - including Richard Dawkins, who hasn’t complained at all and isn’t likely to. He knows how media works.

    Now PZ’s got another thread going claiming that he knows what ‘Expelled’ will feature. If he’s being honest (and not just shilling for the film’s PR company drumming up “controversy”), this movie should be a real prize-winner!

    I’ve done zero whining. I’ve advised PZ (through his acolyte) to grow a spine and own his opinions or crawl back into his borrowed conch shell and lay low for the next 6 months. Looks like he’s taking that advice. As well he should, because it’s too late to back out now.

    Now. You can go seeking your own ID research if you’re that curious. I don’t mind. Good-bye and good luck.

  462. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    hokeygrandma (comment #329):

    Well, Torbjorn, it’s called “methodological naturalism”

    Methodological naturalism is a philosophical description that may or may not be relevant for science. Specifically naturalism is defined as “all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods”.

    What you are describing is called “metaphysical naturalism” (see the same link) and is another philosophy.

    None of it is science, and you have yet to tell us where in biology or other sciences is there an assumption of “matter is all there is”.

  463. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    FFA (comment #377):

    Homo habilis and Homo erectus are brothers after all.

    Whether they are species that lived at the same time or not doesn’t invalidate anthropology.

    Anthropologist John Hawks refers to this argument as “Man bites dog”, since the chronology of events totally vaporizes such stupid claims:

    But this idea of contemporaneity of H. habilis and H. erectus is neither interesting nor new. Recall yesterday’s story about the African and Asian clade hypothesis? News stories had the same lede — “hominid family tree more complex than thought.” This is the ultimate paleontological “dog bites man”: “Human Evolution A Bush, Not A Ladder.” It’s just not interesting anymore.

    Why is it old news? Well, we could look back at Bernard Wood’s 1991 Koobi Fora monograph, which went into long detail about the assignment of fossils to Homo aff. H. erectus — fossils that in every case were older than the latest occurrence of Homo habilis at Olduvai.

    At least, they thought they were older…

    You see, there’s some really interesting stories to be told about these fossils. Stories that hasn’t appeared anywhere in the press. [Emphasis original.]

    And he goes on to discuss the Asian vs Africa controversy. (Which, btw, you don’t hear creationists propose discussing.)

    And then he describes the recent redating that throw the field open:

    But wait, there’s more! Last year, Frank Brown’s geochronology group redated many of the early Homo specimens from Koobi Fora, with the surprising result that early Homo erectus no longer included any cranial fossils that were demonstrably older than 1.65 million years. …

    This is an amazing problem, now. The consensus that Homo habilis and Homo erectus overlapped in time was thrown completely open by the redating. This paper by Spoor and colleagues, by presenting both a new H. erectus specimen and a very late H. habilis specimen, was directed toward this problem. If they are right, it re-establishes the status quo: Homo habilis hung on after the evolution of early Homo erectus, the two species being radically different in their body size (and presumably life history) adaptation, but somehow both making tools and surviving on the same foods.

    This is what bad sensationalist journalism and creationism gives you: a fully false picture of the science. The recent find will, if it is correct, re-establish status quo. And either way, the relation between H. habilis and H. erectus is unaffected: either erectus is derived from habilis, or not.

    The evolutionary tree for our Homo ancestors is as bushy as every other part of the evolutionary tree. Why would that be surprising?

  464. Brian Barkley Says:

    To pro-Darwinian evolutionists . . . A human cell is more complicated than a jet engine. Take away one part and it’s not as if doesn’t work as good, it doesn’t work at all. You’re telling me that all of these parts (never mind where they came from) just got together all by themselves way back yonder.

    Judging by the many anti I.D. people who have posted here, it appears that the human race is willfully ignorant and wished to remain that way.

    Your rebellion is not against Ben Stein, but rather God himself. This is obvious by the blindness that has been displayed thusfar.

  465. ck1 Says:

    OK, I have read most of the posts.

    I am a scientist who uses the theory of evolution in my work on viruses.

    Please, if you can, point me to those published, and/or well-documented studies that document the fallacies in the theory of evolution and demonstrate how ID or other forms of creationism provide a more solid foundation for research.

    Evolution is used to develop yearly flu vaccines and is used in HIV research. Evolution is the foundational theory that underlies much of what your tax dollars support in biomedical research. It is also used by pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies as well as government-funded labs. Companies that are interested primarily in what works, what generates results, not what fits some religious worldview. And this is approach is used in every country doing productive biomedical research, not just the US.

    Can any of you ID supporters identify research labs that use ID as the foundation for their work? Can you link to real findings based on this thinking? Didn’t think so.

  466. dingo dan Says:

    Who needs freedom of inquiry when the explanation for everything is “my all-knowing, all-powerful buddy that lives in the sky did it”

  467. ck1 Says:

    If you IDists/creationists think the biological sciences give too much credence to evolution, why don’t you set up your own research labs instead of using your money to hire fancy PR firms or make Hollywood movies?

    Or do you think using PR and movies is the way to do science?

  468. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    Jasonx10 (comment #382):

    If random chance doesnt drive non-intelligently guided processes then what does?

    Natural processes are described by natural theories. They can be deterministic or probabilistic.

    In biology, you see both. Common evolutionary mechanisms are variation, selection and drift. There are many more.

    Selection is mainly deterministic. In most situations, variation and drift is slow and the combination with selection bumps up the evolution rate with a huge factor.

    Psst. The outside influence that the earth recieves is RANDOM.

    What are you babbling about? We are discussing the energy flow in and out from earth that changes entropy. The second law of TD concerns energy and entropy.

    What has this to do with any “intelligent process”?

    Glen Davidson (comment #395):

    I commend Ben Stein for running a blog which allows all comments, presumably within certain reasonable rules of dialog. We’re really not used to this from pro-ID spokespersons.

    Agreed. This is the first time in a while that it has been possible to discuss these subjects outside science blogs, where few creationists appear.

    Nice touch to bring up that subject.

  469. Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says:

    Matuseio (comment #409):

    Entropy is always increasing in a reaction, which means that entropy in the past must be smaller than in the future. However, physic, cosmology, even String Theory cannot explain why this is so, and believe me they have tried!

    You can’t get around that we will have to accept some basic theory that can’t be “explained” by anything more basic. The problem with the arrow of time in entropy isn’t the asymmetry since symmetries can be spontaneously broken, the problem is why it is broken. (Why the initial condition.) There are ideas, but none proven.

    Btw, string theory isn’t a tested theory yet.

    String Theory returns cosmology to having no definable beginning. They posit that the Big Bang occurred when two branes collided, an event they suggest repeats every few trillion to quadrillion years.

    Brane collision cosmologies (ekpyrotic scenarios) aren’t unavoidable under string theory, and the current concordance cosmology makes these scenarios highly unlikely. (Greene’s book is dated.)

    Btw, all these scenarios must eventually have definable beginnings (mechanisms for initial conditions) if they are to be considered complete.

  470. subson Says:

    Think of an animal. Any animal. Now head on over to Wikipedia for that animal’s entry. With few exceptions, you’ll find info on when and how that animal diverged from earlier species.

    To build on #464, evolution is as well established in biology as gravity is in physics. Yes, there is a conspiracy….to expel shoddy thought from academia.

  471. Craig Says:

    Eric Proph said:
    “One of which was a thesis based around the calculation of the famous Sir Fred Hoyle. He calculated that the chance of a single cell forming even in the time of 4.6 billion years was 10^39982 to 1. This was checked and supported by mathematician and Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick.”

    First, Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist, so I’m not sure why his opinion on the odds would matter. Second, his argument was based on some false assumptions. Read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_Fallacy

    And third, while Crick may have checked Hoyle’s arithmetic, but I doubt he agreed with the conclusion, since he was part of a group of scientists who told the Supreme Court in 1987 that “‘Creation-science’ simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.”

    “And when science it censored, I don’t believe it can be called science any longer.”

    That’s perfectly true. The trouble is that ID isn’t science. :) It’s an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis. For example, what objective test can you make to distinguish something that was designed from something that wasn’t?

  472. hokeygrandma Says:

    At #462 Torbjorn wrote,

    “Methodological naturalism is a philosophical description that may or may not be relevant for science.”

    No. Methodological naturalism is the framework within which the work of science proceeds - science being defined as the search for generalisable descriptions of indefinitely repeating natural events. That is, naturalism is assumed for the purposes of the work simply because the natural world is what is being investigated.

    Metaphysical naturalism is a view about the ultimate nature of all reality, i.e., that the supernatural does not exist and that matter is all there is.

    You would have noticed this distinction if you had read further down on your linked page.

  473. subson Says:

    #447…Hoyle’s fallacy is very easily dealt with. He assumed that primordial replicators would be similar to those now populating the planet. It’s a transparent load of bunk, and anyone who relies on that sort of logic would rightly be shut out of a career in biology. Science doesn’t work like the Oprah Winfrey show, where every viewpoint has equal merit.

    Virtually all ID logic is dismissed just as easily.

  474. Dale Says:

    The average intelligence of those leaving comments (the mean, which includes me) is apparently very low.

    I despair at the elimination of formal logic and comprehension in modern schooling.

  475. Jbagail Says:

    I find it very interesting that so many people have so much negative to say about a movie they have never seen. All of the hate directed toward the once beloved Ben Stein proves his point very well. It is so easy to go from being admired to hated by simply mentioning the possibility that Neo-Darwinism may not answer all of our questions about the how of creation. One comment about the claim that the ID movement has MASSIVE funding, where do people get this idea? My single small department at the university (molecular biology) gets something like 10 times what the whole Discovery budget gets each year. They are a tiny organization with only a handful of employees and no guarantee of any money when their grants run out. We have state funds and student fees each year, and we bring in more money each year as our research progresses. My, how people like to step on the little guy.

  476. subson Says:

    With all the $$$ flowing in from Christian organizations, the Discovery Institute should have labs galore, churning out interesting research. Instead…it’s a big PR machine. The very best they can offer up is Behe and his mousetraps, and Dembski’s math that doesn’t relate to real strings of DNA. Why?

  477. Craig Says:

    All the people here who disagree with evolution should read this page first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

    It has responses to a lot of common creationist criticisms of evolution. It’s pretty much everything that I’ve been trying to say here in one place (and better-written :)).

  478. Steve_C Says:

    I’m still waiting for someone to state what the ID Hypothesis is and how they propose to test it…

    Anyone?

    For now I’ll stick with this elegant example of evolution.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMHNnhAEDN4

    We miss you Carl.

  479. John Says:

    Well, Ben, you lost me. You really are a nut.

  480. John Gault Says:

    OK, if all theories will be taught in the schools, I’d like to propose the following:

    “Gravity is actually the work of invisible, undetectable rubber bands that hold us (and everything else) to the earth.”

    Because these rubber bands are undetectable, there’s no way to prove or disprove the theory. Thus, according to Mr. Stein, the “rubber band theory” should be taught in schools. To not teach it would be an affront to our very ideals of Freedom!!

    My next theory: Sex is good.
    Bwahahaha

  481. Lizzard Lipps Says:

    The other day I heard that scientists who accept the Copernican view of the universe are also banned from researching their subject. What are mainstream scientists afraid of?

  482. EdwinHarbor Says:

    Okay, I agree, ID requires that we must assume there was a form of intelligence that we can not test, prove, predict or disprove. However, doesn’t materialism make the same assumption for the first spark of matter? How did it happen? Where did it come from? And, where did that first amount of matter that sparked it come from? And so on..?

    Both take some amount of faith and assumption. Both are based in some amount of supernatural intervention.

  483. Michael Johnson Says:

    This has to be a joke, surely. Another brilliant comedy setup, perhaps?

    Michael

  484. Neal Says:

    Steve_C #428

    I haven’t met anybody in my life that denies that organisms change size, color, etc.

    The conflict is not about changes like that. It’s the single cell to man explanation that begs a better explanation (not to mention how the single cell arrived.

    Look, I would have stayed an evolutionist if evolutionists would have stopped saying how wonderful their theory was and instead actually presented a solid evidence for the big stuff.

    For all the evolutionary biologists on the blog… why don’t you fellas just admit when there is not a credible evolutionary explanation for something instead of always saying that evolution did it, but finding the explanation is just over the next hill. Why is it that Einstein’s theory of general relatively can be tested again and again in various ways, but evolutionists are stuck on only looking at evidence that supports their various theories of evolutions?

    Does big science realize that most branches of modern science were founded before Darwin? These founders should have known that they couldn’t have done real science without Darwinism, “cuz nothin’ makes sense in biology without it”. Someone please grab me a bucket, I think I’m going to…

  485. Neal Says:

    Richard #458

    The USA is a great place to live because of our freedom. The freedom of its people to worship God and think out of the box is why Americans invented the light blub, radio, record player, airplane, etc. Our history of invention shows we have our heads on right, so before you critize why don’t you take everything out of your house and garage that was not invented in America?

  486. Torin Hanson Says:

    How come every ID documentary I see proclaims the exact same things? All they are doing is proving the evolution theory substantially. Ben Stein vs Greatest minds of our time. Does he really stand any ground here? What is your credentials?

    Oh yes you have a game show, played in a few movies, speech writer and republican nut. Good luck!

  487. Michael Says:

    Nice cop-out jb.

    When are you going to grow a spine and stop being a deceitful creationist operating under the pretense that ID is real science? Come on, just show us ANY research that is/was being performed to support ID. Hell, as Steve_C asked, just give us the testable hypothesis. Please, enlighten us with your telic thoughts.

  488. Weston T Says:

    Funny how the mods wouldn’t let me say that this entire blog is just one big troll… looking for “teh hate” from the internet community.

    Kinda funny, anyway.

  489. ngong Says:

    If you had a ludicrous point of view, and wanted to shine it up and make it appear reasonable, who would you choose for the task? How about a political speech writer? Better yet…President Nixon’s speechwriter!

  490. ngong Says:

    Testable ID hypothesis: since God is infinitely creative, we shouldn’t expect DNA sequence homologies between different species.

    There, I answered your challenge, you evilutionist numbnuts!

  491. Craig Says:

    Neal said: “I haven’t met anybody in my life that denies that organisms change size, color, etc.”

    Great! Now, here’s a followup question: if you accept that small changes occur, what’s to stop the small changes from piling up into big changes?

    “Look, I would have stayed an evolutionist if evolutionists would have stopped saying how wonderful their theory was and instead actually presented a solid evidence for the big stuff.”

    Here’s some.

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, part 1:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

    Part 2:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

    Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    “but evolutionists are stuck on only looking at evidence that supports their various theories of evolutions?”

    We have tested evolution in the laboratory.

  492. 500lbsofToothpaste Says:

    Why isn’t ID taught in science class? For the same reason there’s no major in Unicorn Studies in the biology department. ID isn’t science. It’s not testable, it predicts nothing, and there’s no supporting evidence.

    All Stein is doing is getting a bunch of people who believe, against all empirical evidence, that life and Earth have a creator, poiting a camera at them, and having them whine about how they’re persecuted because their unfounded beliefs aren’t accepted by rational people. Grow up.

    As Bill Mahr said, “You don’t have to teach both sides of a debate, if one side is a load of crap”

  493. Bill Says:

    ===============
    “I think a lot of you all are missing the point here. It’s not a question of whether Darwinism or Intelligent Design is right or wrong. It’s that in today’s scientific culture, you’re not even allowed to ask the question. To even entertain the possibility that a “God” (however you choose to define it) may have been involved in creation, to even point out any of the acknowledged flaws in Darwinism, is a one-way ticket out of the good graces of the Scientific Establishment.

    Science thrives where scientists are free ask questions, even when those questions may not lead anywhere. Maybe Intelligent Design is much ado about nothing, but we’ll never know, because anyone who dares peer down that particular rabbit hole is ridiculed, belittled, and given their walking papers. That is the issue at hand.”
    ================

    Well said, but you’re spitting into the wind.

    I’m hardly surprised at all the close-minded attitudes and childish attacks on Ben Stein here. If anything, they prove his point. Yes he dares to express the idea that acceptance of atheism should not be automatic, or at least that others (including - gasp - scientists) should be allowed to at least consider other possibilities. The nerve!

    I respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they wish - and although I may disagree, can understand and appreciate opposing viewpoints. How sad that most atheists by far (at least in my experience) cannot do the same. But again, this is hardly surprising. Narrow-mindedness, arrogance, and hypocrisy appear to be almost pre-requisites to it nowdays.

  494. javascript Says:

    Hey Michael… Michael of “Nice cop-out jb”
    Can you read Mike? Are you reading Mike? There are plenty of people on this blog giving you examples of what you’re requesting… Are you taking the time to read them or just shooting off your zombi, pre-programmed responses? For that matter, are you reading anything on this site? …Any of the links to articles?… or do you not have a mind of your own to take it upon your self to hear, read and listen? Wake up Mikey… you’re missing the bus.

  495. Michael Terry Says:

    It didn’t even take 1 post before people were misrepresenting what Stein had said and proving his point. Jesus, folks, I’m an atheist, but all you people who like to think of yourselves as rational and scientific need to bone up on bias, because you can’t take a step without tripping over it. The sheer rage with which you respond to the anyone even entertaining the idea of a God calls into severe question your tempered objectivity.

    Christopher Michael Langan was ID before ID was called ID. His IQ is like 195. He’s WAY smarter than you. If you argued with him, he’d destroy you with no trouble. That doesn’t make him right, but, when people WAY smarter than me believe things, I don’t run around acting like I know everything about everything. I try to understand why they think the way they do.

    Another thing I don’t do is engage in tautology like “this person believes this thing, and I’ve already decided this thing is stupid, therefore they’re stupider than me so I don’t need to consider why they believe this thing.” Do you see the danger with that way of thinking? I try to decide whether people are smarter than me based on the most objective measures I can, not using self serving litmus tests that allow me to never question myself.

    Being scientific minded isn’t tied to your belief about any particular thing. It’s a way of approaching life. It’s a method of inquiry. So many of you on your high horses do not see the irony in the way you behave. Your anger at people who disagree with you demonstrates as anti-scientific a mind set as any Christian fundamentalist.

  496. james moore Says:

    Great work Ben, I look forward the film.

  497. CRasch Says:

    “ngong Says:
    August 24th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Testable ID hypothesis: since God is infinitely creative, we shouldn’t expect DNA sequence homologies between different species.

    There, I answered your challenge, you evilutionist numbnuts!”
    Nice theft of common descent. You idiot homologies of different species is because of common descent not creationism.
    In biology “homology” is a fundamental similarity based on common descent.
    Sorry you just used evolution.

  498. ngong Says:

    #493…Plenty of polls confirm that the number of scientists who believe in an Abrahamic God is significant (somewhere around 50%, if I recall), though not as high as the general population. So you’re

    If you believe that God plopped down the animals 6,000 years ago, you’re simply not competent to be a biologist, biochemist, geologist, or paleontologist, though you might make it as a mathematician or engineer or the like. It’s not a question of academics conspiring against Abrahamic religion.

  499. Interested Observer Says:

    “All generalizations are fair, including this one.” - Mark Twain
    Interesting….
    Extremely vitriolic ad hominem attacks…
    Discourses filled with distortions, based on clearly deeply held personal beliefs…
    Immediate dismissal and condemnation of any contrary views…
    Sweeping generalizations made without regard for opposing viewpoints…or established facts…
    Demonization of perceived dissenters…
    Commentary and observations made from a definite epistemology…
    Projection and accusations of the very things they themselves are doing intellectually…
    Gosh, if evolution is REALLY true, maybe the critics will evolve to a higher state of mental superiority where civil discourse, open and tolerant discussion of conflicting views, with real, substantive debate of the issues will actually occur. Just think, in only a few million years, pretentious elitism and affected academic snobbery may be eliminated from the species! Why, maybe even basic etiquette and plain good manners will become standatd characteristics of the human genome!
    It’s a staggering thing to consider…
    To paraphrase the Bard: “…methinks the gentlemen doth protest too much…”

  500. Collin Says:

    “I’m hardly surprised at all the close-minded attitudes and childish attacks on Ben Stein here. If anything, they prove his point. Yes he dares to express the idea that acceptance of atheism should not be automatic, or at least that others (including - gasp - scientists) should be allowed to at least consider other possibilities. The nerve!

    I respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they wish - and although I may disagree, can understand and appreciate opposing viewpoints. How sad that most atheists by far (at least in my experience) cannot do the same. But again, this is hardly surprising. Narrow-mindedness, arrogance, and hypocrisy appear to be almost pre-requisites to it nowdays.”

    _____________
    _____________

    That argument has been defeated too many times to count in the comments to this blog entry. People are mad at Stein because the documentary’s cries of persecution are BS. We’re telling him to shut up because science has always and will continue to be open to scientific study of the supernatural… providing it can actually be studied!

    Thus far, the only type of supernatural study any ID’ists have put forth is to merely punch holes in evolution. That’s not how science works, so they have been rightfully shunned by the scientific community.

  501. Interested Observer Says:

    To the editor:

    “…maybe the critics will evolve to a higher state….

    A better, clearer term I SHOULD’VE used was ” its’ advocates”, rather than “the critics” in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding of my intent. Please feel free to correct this, and thanks!

  502. Bad Says:

    Bill, you don’t seem to be listening to what anyone is saying. The issue is whether “the question” is legitimately in the realm of science in the first place. Legitimate science requires a testable hypothesis. “Something that can do anything at all did it” is not testable: it isn’t really even an “explanation” because it doesn’t explain anything.

    Those that claim that people are not allowed to air their opinions are simply lying and misrepresenting things. The issue is not holding or even speaking opinions, but what people try to pass off as science.

    Science is not atheistic: it’s mundane and empirical. Countless scientists are religious and speak about their religion and even talk about how their love of science and religion interact. Many of these people are the most respected and well-known in academic circles around.

  503. Brian Barkley Says:

    $1,000,000.00 will be awarded to the person who can give me just one fact that proves evolution to be true.

    Hey, come on, your catch phrase is, “there is overwhelming evidence that proves evolution to be true.”

    However, I want just one little fact. Come on, I’m waiting.

    Tick . . Tick . . Tick ! !

    I didn’t think so . . .

    All of this talk about Darwinian evolution being a fact is just so much hot air.

  504. C.W. Says:

    Science thrives where scientists are free ask questions, even when those questions may not lead anywhere.

    Yes, science thrives on controversial theories. The problem with ID is that it doesn’t provide a testable theory, let alone any testing or data to support it. It’s kind of difficult to keep an open mind towards a theory that doesn’t exist. Hence the ridicule.

    Maybe Intelligent Design is much ado about nothing, but we’ll never know, because anyone who dares peer down that particular rabbit hole is ridiculed, belittled, and given their walking papers.

    Funny how the vast evolutionist gag conpiracy prevents IDers from doing actual science, but doesn’t stop them from producing whiny PR and conspiracy theories.

  505. fraxnoz Says:

    Rob and Firemancarl,

    Demonstrating typical dearth of logic skills by athiests/evolutionists, you assume that proving God exists is a pre-requisite for exposing “natural selection/random mutation” as a fraud.

    “If there appears to be order in the universe, then there might be an intelligent designer.”

    As any elementary student of logic knows, it is not necessary to prove the existence of an ID for the above to be a true statement. To assume that it is false because there is no absolute proof is illogical.

    RE: order emerging from randomness, please provide as many testable examples here as you can. Since you apparently require such proof for your beliefs, surely you must be able to cite verifiable evidence to that effect.

    (I won’t hold my breath…)

  506. fraxnoz Says:

    500lbsofToothpaste,

    ID isn’t science. It’s not testable, it predicts nothing, and there’s no supporting evidence.

    LOL!! The same could be (and frequently is) said about macro-evolution and natural selection. What a goof…

  507. Eric Proph Says:

    Just for a quick reply to Craig in 471:
    I think I emphasized a point that was not what I intended to be the center point for the post.
    I think here that the biggest issue has nothing to do with ID and Darwinism. It may as well be the argument over whether or not cigarettes cause cancer. There is both proof and counter-proof to both sides. But in all fairness you never see any widespread publications supporting cigarettes, when there is indeed some study and proof, because the anti-tobacco movement has gained such strength.

    This is the exact same issue that plagues the bias in creationism and origin arguments.

    And yes, Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, but he was more a mathematician, and I believe he also did some probability figuring for life coming from other planets by way of drift and meteors and such, since the chance of life developing on a planet as young as ours is so dismal. The results for that were also astronomical.

  508. Michael Einziger Says:

    There is no hiding the religious agenda here. THERE JUST ISN’T ANY HIDING IT…aren’t there places where people of religious faith can get together and discuss their religious beliefs? aren’t those places called churches? Last i checked there was no shortage of churches in this country….in fact, i’m betting this “film” will be played in churches only, that’ll be very telling of the nature of its content…I have no problem with religion, just don’t try and pass it off as scientific.

  509. GermanJulian Says:

    Thank god the rest of the world laughs at america :)

  510. Robert O'Brien Says:

    Mr. Stein,

    I look forward to your documentary. Please disregard the din of the vapid rabble mobilized by PZ Myers and others.

  511. Ceven Starr Says:

    Tom Aquines:

    I don’t know why you bring up a quote on consensus. I specifically pointed out that all facts support evolution. Evolution isn’t true because people agree that it’s true, but because of the huge amounts of evidence for it.

    But hey, you’ll do anything to avoid having the lie you are living destroyed by facts.

  512. Steven Carr Says:

    It is all about *freedom* folks! That is what the movie is about.

    People who believe in intelligent design should have the freedom to get paid for having a job in a university while doing no research in intelligent design.

    That way their afternoons are free for them to do whatever they want.

    All they are asking for is freedom - Monday free, Tuesday free, Wednesday free, which leaves Thursday and Friday free to point out how much research they would be doing on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays , if they were not being suppressed by the Big Science Academy.

  513. subson Says:

    #174…Plenty of supporters of evolution are and will be thrilled to see this movie come out, especially during the primaries. The backlash will be strong, and those respected scientists whose views were assaulted will have ample opportunities to launch counterarguments. Unintended consequences will emerge.

    In the end, truth will prevail. While biologists have a pretty good idea where that lies, all the different kinds of creationists (young earth, old earth, Muslim, Christian, etc.) and IDers are gonna have to work overtime to present a united front.

  514. Bob Evans Says:

    Great posts, Matusieo!(256+409) The only thing I’ll correct you on is that it was Plato and Aristotle who were fond of the term “first cause.” Aquinas, who was a great admirer of both of these gentlemen gave spiritual substance to the term by changing it to:”first mover”.

  515. Alan Thomas Says:

    A bunch of thoughts:

    1) From the way the trailer presents itself, Stein isn’t per se advocating ID, but rather ID as a “freedom of thought” issue.

    2) I’m an evangelical Christian, but while I believe ID is true, it doesn’t belong in the lab or science classroom because it isn’t science. I also don’t have a problem with Darwinian evolution as basically true (but it doesn’t belong in the philosophy classroom…).

    3) The discrimination experienced in science is over religious belief. It is real and does happen. I have never elsewhere seen the kind of bigotry as exists among elite scientists against students and peers who are sincere believers. (And, yes, I’ve witnesses this personally.)

    If the film focuses on this discrimination on the basis of religious belief (rather than ID support), more power to it. There are plenty of religious scientists who don’t support ID and yet are dragged through the mud by their peers.

  516. GK Says:

    Chris writes:
    “Those who claim the universe was created by an “intelligent designer” need to 1) prove the existence of such a designer using the scientific method and 2) explain who created the designer. If they fail, their “hypothesis” should be discarded and they should indeed be expelled. This mockumentary surely must be a joke!”

    You require an explanation of who created the designer, we must ask of you the same thing in regard to evolution. Evolution is predicated on the “Big Bang” which required the existence of hydrogen to happen. Is hydrogen something or nothing? Of course it is something, so can you you explain where it came from?

    Would you have us intelligent, rational beings believe that hydrogen just appeared from nothing?

    The demand you make of ID or more accurately Creationism is also required of you, explain how something came from nothing. You refer to this documentary as a joke, the joke is on you as you demand of others what you cannot produce yourself. Tell us, where did hydrogen come from?

  517. Jbagail Says:

    A response to “I am a scientist who uses the theory of evolution in my work on viruses: I too am a scientist and work on pathogens. It was my work that convienced me the molecules to humans evolution is not true. Read Michaels Behe’s new book for a review of the research. My work with bacteria pathogens convienced me evolution has clear limits and I have seen no evidence that Darwinian mechanisms can go beyond these limits. A comment by Adam S. WILKINS (editor of the BioEssays Journal) is also my experience

    “The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, Most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” p. 1051

    WILKINS, Adam S.
    2000 Intro (issue on Evolutionary Processes) pp. 1051-1052
    BioEssays vol. 22 no.12 December

  518. ermine Says:

    Javascript - I see that, like all the others, you claim the question has been answered, but you don’t actually give us the answer or even a link or pointer to it. Funny, that’s just how all the other pro-ID folk are responding!

    I just scrolled through the whole thread again, looking for any pro-ID links to actual data, studies, or answers to the questions and rebuttals by the pro-science side. I didn’t see a single one that wasn’t a link to an avowedly christian apologetics site. Perhaps you could point some of them out for us?

    Not one person from the pro-ID side has responded to any of the reams of answers provided at the talk.origins links, not to ask follow up questions, nor to try to point out errors. I wonder why?

    Every ‘proof’ of ID given so far has been an attempt to poke holes in the Theory of Evolution. This entirely overlooks the fact that, even if you were able to prove the ToE wrong, that doesn’t do anything to prove the ‘theory’ of Intelligent Design RIGHT. Those are not the only two possible alternatives! But one of them, (The Theory of Evolution), has not yet been falsified by any of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of peer-reviewed studies, studies that can be found at PubMed.com among other places, studies and experiments that have been done for over 100 years now, and STILL Evolution stands tall as the only consistent answer.

    There really ARE a lot of ways that the theory could be shown to be false. Fossil rabbits (or any other modern species) found in Cambrian or Jurrassic strata, or a multicelled species whos DNA didn’t fit into the nested heirarchy that *every other species on earth* fits neatly into now. (Do you even know what that MEANS?)

    A dog giving birth to a cat would do it - I keep seeing people holding that up as proof that evolution doesn’t happen, ‘We’ve never seen a dog give birth to a cat!’, when that would actually be quite a strong sign that there was something seriously WRONG with the theory.

    I’m amazed at how many people claim to see all the pro-evolution posts as saying ‘Shut up!’ I don’t actually see anything like that. I see a lot of people speaking their mind, while giving the rest of you every chance to speak yours as well. No one is telling you to shut up, we’re just saying that this crap shouldn’t be taught in schools or treated with respect until its proponents actually DO SOME RESEARCH! We’ve got lots, see all the links? Follow some of them and do some reading, you might learn something!

    Funny, Every poster who claims to be a real scientist or work in the biosciences are all on the Evolution side, whether they believe in God or not - and some of them DO, as they’ve stated here. Some claim that we are all atheists, but there are plenty of scientists who are quite open about their religion, and no one has threatened their jobs or tenure.

    Pretty much all the links I see in these posts are by the pro-evolution side. They seem like good links, too!

    Here’s a recap of some of the most informative ones. Before accusing us of close-mindedness, could you read some of these and explain why they’re wrong?

    What are some evidences of evolution/macroevolution?

    Where are the transitional fossils?

    Answers to over a dozen common objections to Evolution.

    Many, MANY objections debunked. Quite a lot of these have appeared in this very thread, but no one from the pro-ID side ever seems to read or respond to these answers, they just keep asking the same oft-debunked questions over and over..

    Speciation observed. More speciation events observed!

    I do see one person on the pro-ID side has posted several links. AnswersInGenesis.org? ChristianAnswers.net? ApologeticsPress.org? For a completely scientific, non-religeous ‘theory’, why are all these links to christian apologetics sites? Why so many posters here talking about the christian god? I thought Intelligent Design was being careful not to postulate anything whatsoever about who/what/where/how/when/why the Designer did whatever he/she/it/they did?

    Have any of you read the details of the Kitzmiller Trial in Dover, Pa? Have you read the Wedge Document, in which the Discovery Institute admits that their purpose is to ‘Reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.’ and ‘To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.’

    This is not a scientific theory being laid out, it’s a plan to sneak religion into schools under the guise of science - And they admit it!

    Ermine!

  519. Jbagail Says:

    A response to “I am a scientist who uses the theory of evolution in my work on viruses”: I too am a scientist and also work on pathogens. It was my scientific work, not religion (I was an atheist), that convienced me the molecules to humans evolution theory is not true. Read Michael Behe’s new book for a review of the research. My work with bacteria pathogens convienced me evolution has clear limits and I have seen no evidence that Darwinian mechanisms can go beyond these limits. A comment by Adam S. WILKINS (editor of the BioEssays Journal) is also my experience.

    “The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, Most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” p. 1051

    WILKINS, Adam S.
    2000 Intro (issue on Evolutionary Processes) pp. 1051-1052
    BioEssays vol. 22 no.12 December

  520. Steven Carr Says:

    JBagail has a point.

    Let us see how Darwinists think pathogens could have evolved without a God to design them.

  521. Open Minded Says:

    Please explain your research to us because I did read Behes book and find plenty of refutations by numerous biologist including the Christian who supports Darwinian Natural Selection and not ID, Ken Miller.

  522. Tarvosen Timppa Says:

    Ah, Borat-movie about fundamentalist christian nutballs, this should be great!

  523. Interested Observer Says:

    “There is no Mafia, and we’ll kill anyone who says there is!” - Old 60’s joke
    One can’t help but notice the almost immediate resort to personal insults (”moron” has been said at couple of times I think.), attacks on credentials, personal beliefs, etc. Frankly, making vicious remarks on an individual’s core beliefs doesn’t impress me as a valid argument, in and of itself. It does, however, lead you to question the attacker’s motives and rationale. Not to mention that it proves Stein’s contention of academic intolerance, and suppression of ideas because they may have connections to religious or theological premises. The reactions and responses on this blog are evidence of it. And a one-way ratchet based on it will never be a sufficient answer.

  524. Jim Auran, MD Says:

    Ben

    In consideration of the phrase ‘intelligent design’, perhaps ‘intelligent’ should be deleted, substituted by ‘unintelligent,’ ‘malevolent’, or perhaps the more neutral ‘planned’. Humans are riddled with ‘design’ flaws: retinas that are not physcally attached to the eye wall (making them prone to detachment), fragile vascular suppy to key structures (like the optic nerve), an appendix (the only function of which is to cause appendicitis), a chaotic lower back architecture (we all know about back pain), weak knee ligaments (you play tennis?), an immune system prone to turning against our own bodies (diabetes, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, etc), childbirth charaterized by intense physical suffering by the mother, and apoptosis or programmed cell death (our bodies are programmed to die after a set duration of time… how compassionate!). That doesn’t even take into account the mental flaws of humans, who through greed, lust for power, and religious fervor, kill and destroy each other and the environment on a massive scale. I’d think that if a loving intelligent being were directing evolution, we would have ended up lot different than we are now.

    Jim

  525. RobbieC Says:

    @ Brian Barkley, just google: 29 evolution.

    I’ll let you guess what the 29 means.

  526. Lord Timothy Says:

    Thom wrote:
    “Hey Ben, the Pope called. He said, “Ben Stein is an absurdity.””

    Yes I know this was one of the first comments, but I couldn’t help not the irony that someone who seems so torn up about the religious weighing in on science would use the POPE’s statment as ammo against Ben Stein and to weigh in against him. This wreaks of opportunism and is clearly a double standard. I suppose religion is ok as long as it has no heart, and/or makes every admission to a materialistic philiosophy that according to these anti-religionists themselves subverts and undermines it.

  527. CKT Says:

    Re: #249

    Here’s George Will on Intelligent Design:

    “The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school’s science curriculum.”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8358264/site/newsweek/

    Try again.

  528. Mike Lee Says:

    Yes, ad hominem attacks are juvenile, and do not counter any argument. So speak not of whatever latent racism Darwin had or of Dawkins’s seeming confrontational attitude, as they in no way invalidate their research. And trying to focus on said personal attacks while ignoring all the solid evidence in other arguments above assists you not in the realm of science. Has Mr. Stein not heard of Tiktaalik? Or read of the Dover trial proceedings? Here, allow me to provide:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

  529. Jon Says:

    I will admit, that i am quick to throw any thoughts on ID in the garbage (where I think it belongs).

    I do not think you can blame those that don’t tolerate it. Time and time again, biologists and others have been asking ID supporters for evidence, or research to support their hypothesis (that’s what science is all about).

    Instead, what we get is people that ignore the requests, and continue trying to poke holes in evolution, usually ones that have already been answered a million times before (I can’t believe people say it has never been observed. A few researchers caused speciation in fruit flies already, clearly those who use the “I accept micro but not macro evolution “are just plain ignorant)

    No one is saying that we know ALL the answers for sure, nor can we predict everything thus far. I’ll admit, I haven’t the slightest clue where hydrogen came from, though I have read some thoughts on the subject, things like the multiverse theory and such.

    However, even though evolution *may* have holes in it, it does not for one second mean that ID is credible at all.

    Can you show me one scientific paper that shows some proof the human body was designed? Biological proof. Any? Please, I will gladly wait. Is it really too much to ask for? So far, no one on the ID side can give us any, but if you can, go win the nobel prize, because a lot of people would love to see it.

    Stop assuming that even if you proved that evolution is IMPOSSIBLE that your ID thoughts (not theory) are any more plausible, because they don’t even begin to follow the scientific method.

  530. Lord Timothy Says:

    “Every ‘proof’ of ID given so far has been an attempt to poke holes in the Theory of Evolution. This entirely overlooks the fact that, even if you were able to prove the ToE wrong, that doesn’t do anything to prove the ‘theory’ of Intelligent Design RIGHT. Those are not the only two possible alternatives! But one of them, (The Theory of Evolution), has not yet been falsified by any of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of peer-reviewed studies, studies that can be found at PubMed.com among other places, studies and experiments that have been done for over 100 years now, and STILL Evolution stands tall as the only consistent answer.”

    You are missing the larger points. Intelligent Design does not simply rule out evolution as plausible then postulate design because evolution is no longer plausible, rather, it is because there are no plausible mechanisms, evolution, jelly beans, whatever. By ruling out both random and natural mechanisms for generating complexity, the only type of mechanisms that remain are teleological. As for the peer-reviewed studies, you need more than simply a glossy veneer on actual research to provide evidence for evolution. If one has a flexible enough conceptual framework, one could fit anything into it, but does it qualify as evidence? hardly. The real issue is that evolution is still troubled with the same problems it had from the very beginning when Darwin formed the theory for example the cambrian explosion… and arguments like Haldane’s Dilemma continue to be an unaddressed problem there have also been many new problems pointed out, like the molecular clock.

    “For a completely scientific, non-religeous ‘theory’, why are all these links to christian apologetics sites?”

    Clearly Christians are arguing for the existence of a creator they would probably think the Designer is God. I see no particular problem with that.

    “Why so many posters here talking about the christian god?”

    Probably because they are baited or they are simply used to being baited. I have tried to have discussions about ID with many evolution advocates, and there at least 90% of the time it is they who bring up “God” not we.

    “I thought Intelligent Design was being careful not to postulate anything whatsoever about who/what/where/how/when/why the Designer did whatever he/she/it/they did?”
    See the above response.

  531. Lord Timothy Says:

    One last thing Ermine, the Talkorigins nonsense that you are parroting like a Bible has been shot down over and over and over.

  532. DAVESCOT Says:

    “Brian Barkley Says:

    August 25th, 2007 at 1:29 am
    $1,000,000.00 will be awarded to the person who can give me just one fact that proves evolution to be true.”

    WEVE SEEN IT HAPPEN, BRIAN.

    I TAKE PAYPAL!

  533. Dudeness Says:

    I see many from the science community here demanding proof of this and that. They state that ToE can not be proven to be false. Well, looks like your chickens have come home to roost people. Apply the same grid to yourselves that you ask of others…BOTH ARE FAITH BASED. BOTH ARE A RELIGION.

    Prove where the matter came from that caused the Big Bang. Prove that ID is false. Prove there is no God. Prove that the theory of evolution is true. For decades you guys have spent billions of dollars and not been able to do any of the above. It’s time that we explore some other ideas. Now, sit down and be respectful, or we will take away your grants!!!

  534. Open Minded Says:

    # Lord Timothy Says:
    August 25th, 2007 at 10:58 am

    One last thing Ermine, the Talkorigins nonsense that you are parroting like a Bible has been shot down over and over and over.”

    Please provide a source timothy for your claim. I’ve never seen anyone refute talkorigins.

  535. Jon Says:

    Dudeness, maybe people would take you seriously if you learned what an appeal to ignorance was.

    Evolution is hardly faith based. Do you even know what it is? Clearly you don’t, because the theory does not talk about the big bang at all.

    It is not up for us to prove Id false, thats where you are appealing to ignorance. You have to prove it true, since that is where the burden of proof lies. Science is not about proof, it is about probability. In the case of Evolution, the probability it happened (after looking at the evidence) is extremely high. However, biological science, as well as many other fields, does not work on proving things like a court of law would.
    People have linked a lot of evidence for it above, and if you would take the time to read those, you would find the proof. Or you could simply take a high school biology course, both would suffice.

    I have a feeling your just trolling/flaming, and have little if anything original to say. So just move along please.

    Lord Timothy, You seem to be talking like ID is an actual theory, and actually can make at least one testable hypothesis, that predicts results. If you dont understand a scientific method, read about it here:
    http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

    Now if ID follows all the steps, then please show me how it does, because I just don’t see it.

  536. Tom Aquines Says:

    511# Ceven Starr Says: I don’t know why you bring up a quote on consensus. I specifically pointed out that all facts support evolution.

    Tom Aquines says:

    All I’m saying is that Dawinoids will go down in history, like brilliant 1923 American Nobel Laureate in Physics, Robert Millikan, who said “There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.”

    This used to be a “fact”.

  537. esaskar Says:

    I applaud your courage to take on such a contentious topic! Most of these people already know they are right and so they ridicule you before even seeing the film. I think you are going to lose a lot of fans and make a lot of enemies, but go one you are right.
    Something very significant is going on with “pseudo-science” like ID. Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution, is a good example.
    Virtually all the critics of the book have been scientists. Why is that and why is it significant? If Intelligent Design isn’t science why don’t these scientific critics just pass the book on to philosophers or theologians? They don’t, and they don’t criticize the book on the basis of it not being science, either. They critique it, not very sucessfully in my opinion, on the basis of the merits of its scientific claims.
    Now this is very odd. If ID is not science then many scientists are reviewing a book that discusses matters on which they have no expertise, and no one seems to think this inappropriate. Somebody call Judge John Jones who ruled in the Dover case that ID wasn’t science. Maybe he can help us understand this phenomenon.

  538. G. Finch Says:

    A discovery last month has proven evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/ENN.htm

    Someone should tell Ben.

  539. Andy Says:

    We can all agree on the fact that Intelligent design is religious in nature. The wedge document and the Dover trial established that as a fact.

    Let’s keep religion in the church and science in the laboratory.

    Let’s teach ID in philosophy class and evolution in science class.

  540. Brian Says:

    I’m enjoying your blog, Ben, and looking forward to seeing Expelled in February. I’m sure you already have thick enough skin, but here’s a quick encouragement for you to be prepared for all the usual bluster, anger, slings and arrows from the self-styled “free-thinker” crowd. They’re a merciless bunch and probably already hate you as much as the God they keep trying to explain away. Godspeed, my friend, and here’s wishing you a fascinating journey! It’s an honor and a pleasure to greet you and wish you well. Let freedom ring!

  541. Craig Says:

    GK said: “Evolution is predicated on the “Big Bang” which required the existence of hydrogen to happen.”

    Evolution is not predicated on the Big Bang at all. Even if some day we find out that God created the universe after all, that doesn’t affect the validity of the theory of evolution at all.

    And the Big Bang did not require the existence of hydrogen. The current theory is that everything, time, space, matter (including hydrogen) is the *result* of the Big Bang.

    “Would you have us intelligent, rational beings believe that hydrogen just appeared from nothing?”

    How would you react if I told you that everywhere in space, particles and antiparticles are being constantly created out of nothing and then quickly annihilating each other? This is a consequence of quantum mechanics and can actually be demonstrated.

    “Tell us, where did hydrogen come from?”

    Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang and scroll down to the section labeled “Overview”. The protons at the core of hydrogen atoms were made about a millionth of a second after the Bang. It didn’t cool down enough for the electrons to join with the protons to form hydrogen atoms until about 380,000 years later.

  542. Craig Says:

    Dudeness said: “They state that ToE can not be proven to be false.”

    Huh? I challenge you to find a single scientist who will tell you that the theory of evolution cannot be proven false. All we would need to do is find a fossil elephant in, say, undisturbed Cretaceous strata and that would indicate that something was fundamentally wrong with the theory. :)

    “Prove that ID is false. Prove there is no God.”

    You cannot prove a negative. Prove that there isn’t a small purple giraffe under your bed right now.

    “Prove that the theory of evolution is true.”

    Scientific theories can *never* be proven true. They can only be proven false. This is why we still refer to things like “the germ theory of disease”. Einstein himself said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    “It’s time that we explore some other ideas.”

    Scientists are always ready to explore other ideas, provided they are scientific ideas.

  543. Glenn Says:

    Ben, I am laughing out loud at the comments skewering you. They just prove your point over and over and over for as long as I want to read. I can’t wait to see your movie.

  544. Craig Says:

    Interested Observer said: “Not to mention that it proves Stein’s contention of academic intolerance, and suppression of ideas because they may have connections to religious or theological premises.”

    There is no suppression of ideas. What is being suppressed are inherently religious ideas that are being presented as science.

    Would you want a geology professor who taught that the earth was flat and had four corners because the Bible says so? Or believed, as the ancient Greeks did, that earthquakes are caused by the god Poseidon?

    Would you want an astronomy professor who thought the heavens were a crystal sphere or that the sun revolved around the earth?

    Would you want a meteorology teacher who asserted that lighting was caused by Thor, the god of thunder and war, swinging his hammer Mjolnir?

    The situation is exactly the same with evolution.

  545. G. Finch Says:

    #539 Andy Says: Let’s keep religion in the church and science in the laboratory. Let’s teach ID in philosophy class and evolution in science class.

    Gloppy Finch sez: YES! Separate but equal! In worked with Jim Crow laws. It should work now!

    http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/Separate.html

  546. Pierre Charles Dubreuil Says:

    You claim to be for free-spech.
    Will you have the courage to go as far as giving some time in your movie to a third possibility for the explanation of how life began on this earth ?

    This possibility is that the ¨God¨ of the Bible (a hebrew plural word: ELOHIM) was or more exactly ¨were¨ a group of extra-terrestrial scientists who created US in their image thanks to genetic knowledge and cloning in a laboratory that was poetically named in the bible; the ¨Garden of Eden¨ ?

    I hope you will not expell smart ideas from your movie !

  547. AiG4Life! Says:

    I can’t wait to see Mr. Stein’s movie. He has this exactly right. Science isn’t only about facts and figures, testable hypotheses, and experiments. It’s about FREEDOM. Freedom to think and experiment on whatever you want. Jesus made all the animals 6000 years ago. 4000 years ago, a great flood washed all over the world, and Noah took pairs of all the animals onto the Ark. Even the dinosaurs. The AiG museum in KY makes this perfectly clear.

    Great scientists like Ben Stein, Ken Ham, Dr. Ken Hovind, and Dr. Michael Behe have been kept out of the public schools for too long. It’s the rabid atheists that keep the TRUTH away from america’s children, damning us all to H-E-double hockey sticks. They hoard all the grant money so that AiG, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute can’t do any science.

  548. Dudeness Says:

    “# Andy Says:
    August 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    We can all agree on the fact that Intelligent design is religious in nature. The wedge document and the Dover trial established that as a fact.

    Let’s keep religion in the church and science in the laboratory.

    Let’s teach ID in philosophy class and evolution in science class.”

    FINE, THEN STOP TRYING TO USE MATERIALISM TO TRY AND DENY THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR GOD…DO YOUR SCIENCE AND LEAVE THE THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY OUT OF THE SCIENCE LAB!

  549. Craig Says:

    fraxnoz said: “RE: order emerging from randomness, please provide as many testable examples here as you can.”

    OK, here are some pictures of order emerging from randomness:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cyclone_Catarina_from_the_ISS_on_March_26_2004.JPG
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bentley_Snowflake4.jpg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Giants_causeway_closeup.jpg
    http://www.crystalinks.com/mexicocrystals.html

  550. Dudeness Says:

    “It is not up for us to prove Id false, thats where you are appealing to ignorance. You have to prove it true, since that is where the burden of proof lies.

    Then you need to prove evolution true and not hide behind the “hypothesis” excuse.

  551. Steven Carr Says:

    The film will explore the influence of Darwinism on Hitler?

    Hitler never once mentioned Darwin, Darwinism or natural selection.

    Hitler did say the following though (as recorded in Hitler’s Table Talk)

    ‘Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.’

  552. Izaach Says:

    PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

    The Ebola

    Such a small creature. For starters, it has the ability to cause high fever, severe headache, muscle, joint, or abdominal pain, severe weakness and exhaustion, sore throat, nausea, and dizziness.

    It can further inflict diarrhea, dark or bloody feces, vomiting blood, red eyes due to distention and hemorrhage of sclerotic arterioles, petechia, maculopapular rash, purpura, and internal and external hemorrhage from orifices, such as the nose and mouth, as well as from incompletely healed injuries such as needle-puncture sites.

    It doesn’t stop there. Next come hypotension, hypovolemia, tachycardia, organ damage (especially the kidneys, spleen, and liver) as a result of disseminated systemic necrosis, and proteinuria.

    All these, if the infected is lucky, can last to at least even days. If the person just has bad luck, expect another week before the final rest.

    Isn’t that amazing? It couldn’t have risen by random chance. No way! It must have been designed by a really, I mean really, intelligent being.

  553. esaskar Says:

    This is not a movie that comes from the Discovery Institute. So why did Stein and the movie producers decide to make this movie? I’d say the clues from their web page are rather obvious. Apparently, the widespread media attention to Sternberg’s treatment and the decision to deny Gonzalez’s tenure got somebody’s attention. Imagine that. Adding to this is the significant role played by none other than Richard Dawkins, whose popular anti-religious crusade now includes telling people to “shut up.” In other words, it looks like the words and behavior of the critics of ID suceeded in getting Stein et al.’s attention.

    http://telicthoughts.com/validating-expelled/

  554. Michael Says:

    Javascript @ 494:

    It must be hard for you to get through the day with that incredibly dense noodle resting on your shoulders. Just point me to the evidence. It certainly hasn’t been provided on this blog and if I’ve overlooked it, give me the post #. I’m afraid Answers is Genesis doesn’t cut it. Just one more disingenuous creationist.

    As Judge Jones said in Dover:

    “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

    “ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”

    Who has missed the bus?

  555. Jacob Evilsizor Says:

    I think the point that most of you ardent atheistic evolution supporters are missing, is that evolution and creationism both REQUIRE an initial starting point. I think that we can all agree on that, right? What creationists are trying to point out to you is that you cannot simply ignore this part of the discussion and simply assume that “evolution did it.” It’s simple enough for you to hypocritically berate creationists for saying “God did it,” and using that as your basis for better credibility, but you are trying to point out the splinter in our eye, without concern of the log in your own eye. The basic question of how everything began is not just a side-note of little significance, it IS the question. If you cannot explain life WITHOUT a creator, then you have no basis for a theory excluding one; because logically, if life cannot come from non-life, then it must have been constructed by an intelligent agent.

    For those who use the Miller-Urey experiment as support, they are missing the point. The conclusion of the experiment was that intelligent human beings could not create the building blocks required for even a single protein; and not just in a laboratory setting, but in a highly controlled, highly intentional laboratory environment in which oxygen was left out, and traps were set to quickly separate the particles produced from the electrical stimulation before they were destroyed by the very energy that created them. It’s also worth pointing out that in this experiment they managed to make less than a 2% amino acid mixture and approximately 85% toxic carcinogenic mixture we know as tar. Two things should also be noted about this process:

    1) Oxygen destroys amino acids, yet oxygen is needed to make ozone, which protects the earth from harmful ultra-violet radiation which destroys amino acids. This is just one of the many “chicken and the egg” problems that pose as a barrier for the beginnings of evolution. In the oldest, deepest rock strata, carbon remnants are found to be oxidized, which suggests an oxygen rich environment from the time the earth was created.

    2) The few amino acids that were created during the Miller-Urey experiment were racemic in nature (equal amount of right and left-handed products), as are all amino acids that are produced outside of living organisms. This is due to the nature of amino acids, whose tendency is to move toward equilibrium. In fact, even if you somehow isolated all the left-handed amino acids in a group, in time they would return to a 50:50 mixture. The problem with this, is that practically all known life-essential proteins are specifically left-handed, and not only is there no known natural process that can isolate these two variables, but just one right handed amino acid will render an otherwise stable protein useless.

    So what does this tell us about the subsequent beginnings of life? Well for one, even fifty years later we still cannot intelligently synthesize the basic components of life, much less life itself. And this is the generation that has broadband internet, cell-phones, plasma TVs, and particle accelerators. Even if (and that is a big if) scientists could synthesize actual life in a laboratory, all that would prove is that intelligence WAS REQUIRED to create life! Think about the logical inference of that for a second. Let it soak in. Yes, a human being with 100 trillion extremely complex cells working together is far more complex than a few amino acids; so how do we propose we got to this point? You assume evolution. Why? Because natural selection, a process that refines and diminishes DNA content (i.e. not creates or builds upon) allows organisms to adapt to variable environments. That sounds like an intelligent mechanism for survival, not a random chance occurrence.

    So if you cannot explain how evolution started (without saying “God did it”) and you have no mechanism that increases genetic complexity in information content (which evolution requires on a massive scale), what makes you think that the visible evidence (i.e. fossils, geological phenomena, DNA comparison, etc.) is not subject to interpretation?

    Basically the whole theory of evolution is based on a series of unverifiable assumptions. “Life began from non-life.” How? Why? Where is your evidence? “Well, evolution requires it.” And creationism requires a creator, which we have a historical account of, and a highly designed universe that cannot be explained otherwise. “Commonalities in DNA structure mean everything came from a common ancestor.” Why not a common designer? Why aren’t the commonalities distributed uniformly throughout nature? For example: there is a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. Comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. The number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46. A chimp has 48; a human and mouse share more than 90% of the same genes, and close to 50% with bananas. Why can we not attribute this to a common designer? Furthermore, what reason would evolution, a completely arbitrary process, have for utilizing the same DNA and protein structures anyways? One would think that if we all had completely different DNA composition, this would be more evident of a random process such as evolution than a common designer. Biologic universals such as Cytochrome c, a life-essential protein that is prevalent in almost all known living organisms, do not make sense if all species diverged from a single, common ancestor. How does a non-thinking, reasonless process such as evolution create critical benchmarks for what is to be deemed necessary for life? How then would that reference point be passed on, and what would it be passed on to exactly? It’s not the fact that there are biologic universals that is the problem per se, but that there are hundreds if not thousands of them that set the precedence for what defines a living organism. Randomness does not create functioning models, from which structural integrity is derived. “Radioactive dating proves long ages.” What evidence do you have that the assumptions you use for dating are valid? These assumptions include:
    1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
    2. Decay rates have always been constant.
    3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

    Also, when dating objects of known age, results are often not even remotely close, and are off by hundreds of thousands to millions of years. How then can you confidently claim the dates given to objects of unknown age are incontrovertible? “Humans evolved over millions of years from a single-celled organism.” Why then do you not have a viable mechanism that creates new information as evidence of this? Polyploidy and gene duplication only copy existing information; no new information is added. Mutations cause a loss and scrambling of existing information, they cannot create new, useful information for specific coding processes. “Organisms developed new characteristics that helped them to survive and in turn passed these on to latter generations.” Besides the lack of any information increasing mechanism, there are two problems with this: 1.There are no fossils which leave a clearly defined transition between any particular family (kind) of creature, so any observed characteristics of individual organisms do not necessarily preclude those from being specifically designed for that creature; nor do they discount the possibility that there were originally specific, created kinds that within 4500 years have utilized rapid speciation (which we presently observe at rates millions of times faster than evolution predicts) to account for all the species we now know. Assumptions to the contrary are only conjecture, not evidence for evolution. 2. Any sub-change to an already functional mechanism of an organism would certainly be detrimental to survival rather than favorable. Imagine a reptile with a proto-wing/leg trying to escape a predator; he wouldn’t survive long enough to reproduce, and certainly would not be appealing to mates with his freakish appendage. The same can be said for irreducibly complex mechanisms which require specific biological parts which would otherwise be useless on their own, and would be a hindrance to survival rather than a benefit. “Homology proves common descent.” This is nonsense. We do not argue that because transistors appear similar to capacitors or that diodes appear similar to resistors that they are in fact derived from one another or have the same electrical significance; nor are they any less uniquely designed because the designer chose similar shapes, features, or materials to create them. This argument is baseless at best, and cannot be used as evidence any more than commonalities inferring a common designer. “Dinosaurs died out 65-68 million years ago.” Why then are we finding dozens of specimens of dinosaur soft-tissue attached to bone? We are also finding mummified dinosaurs as well. A few things to consider: The word dinosaur was actually not invented until the mid 1800’s by Sir Richard Owen. Prior to this, there are many examples from every major culture of legends of dragons and dinosaur-like creatures existing with humans. Also, most dinosaurs were rather small, unlike the T-Rex and Brontosaurus (theropod and sauropod respectively) which were gigantic. These larger reptiles were more than likely hunted to extinction due to their threatening stature in light of man. Such is the case in present times when dangerous creatures such as bears, tigers, sharks, or wolves threaten territorial cohabitation with man; man hunts them to [near] extinction. Also, most reptiles never stop growing throughout their lifetime, so if people, and there also reptiles, lived much longer prior to the Flood (men lived 900+ years; shortly after the flood closer to 400; and then just over 100 years) they would have grown much larger in the past. Some creatures such as monitor lizards, Komodo dragons, Gila monsters, iguanas, crocodiles and alligators, and the many species of lizards we know of would probably be considered dinosaurs today if they were to live a couple hundred years or more. On a side-note, Genesis 6:3 is an astonishing prediction about the average length of life humans will ultimately not surpass, and which we now observe. “The Geologic Column is a representation of the timeline of evolution.” Why is the Geologic Column not found in whole anywhere on earth except in the textbooks? Why are “out of place” fossils ignored when they do not fit the accepted geologic model timeline? How can different levels of strata be posited as millions of years apart when polystrate fossils cut through several layers of these strata? Why are index fossils used to date certain rock strata or rock strata used to date these fossils depending on whether the desired results correspond with the presupposed model or not? “Fossils support evolution.” Fossils are only evidence that something died in the past, nothing more. Interpretation of these fossils is at best a guessing game, because it is based on one’s presuppositions of our origins and history. Fossilization is a rare occurrence in all actuality. In fact, in most cases fossils do not form unless there is some kind of cataclysmic event such as flooding or mudslides to rapidly cover the organism in sediment. So why do we find literally billions of fossils worldwide, including mass fossil graves, polystrate fossils, fossils of fish eating other fish, jellyfish fossils, organisms in the middle of giving birth that are fossilized, not to mention the Cambrian Explosion? It seems to me that something pretty catastrophic happened some time ago involving lots of water and mixing of sediments; but again, that is only my interpretation.

    FOR ALL OF YOU THAT ARE YEC BIBLE BELIEVERS, DO NOT LET THE WILLINGLY IGNORANT DISHEARTEN YOU; THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES THAT PEOPLE WILL BE WILLINGLY IGNORANT ABOUT THE FLOOD AND HIS CREATION AND ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE:
    (Romans 1:20)“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse”
    (2 Peter 3:5-7) “For this they willingly are ignorant of…Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”

    It’s simple; there is no excuse for not seeing the amazing creation and knowing that there is a designer behind it all, and in turn seeking out that designer. Scientists are certainly not among the least of these; for their work gives them firsthand insight into the immense complexity of the universe that substantiates the undeniable need for a creator, and therefore they must be held accountable for perpetuating this subterfuge; which quite obviously many people are surreptitiously indoctrinated into (as I once was) from a very young age.

    For more information, or for a different perspective, check out:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

    My email is bioliquid2fusion@yahoo.com if you wish to email me. Thank you.

  556. Ceven Starr Says:

    Glenn, how do the comments skewering him prove his point? Never mind. Let’s return to…

    Steven Carr Says:
    August 25th, 2007 at 3:26 am

    “People who believe in intelligent design should have the freedom to get paid for having a job in a university while doing no research in intelligent design.”

    And they do. So what’s your problem?

    Look up Ken Miller.

    That way their afternoons are free for them to do whatever they want.

    All they are asking for is freedom - Monday free, Tuesday free, Wednesday free, which leaves Thursday and Friday free to point out how much research they would be doing on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays , if they were not being suppressed by the Big Science Academy.

  557. Ceven Starr Says:

    Oh, and pathogens:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html

  558. Steven Carr Says:

    Compare the censorship of Intelligent Design with the freedom in religious circles.

    Noted Christian apologist Gary Habermas says here Habermas on the resurrection> ‘Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it.’

    Christians claim one in 4 Biblical scholars doubt the empty tomb.

    But do you hear claims that these scholars should be EXPELLED from the academic Biblical community?

    Of course not!

    Christians are perfectly happy with the idea that one in 4 scholars doubt the empty tomb, yet Darwinists howl if one biologist in 10,000 even questions Darwinism.

  559. Ceven Starr Says:

    Jasonx10 Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm

    “I am no scientist, but i am equipped to answer your questions.”

    Apparently NOT:

    “Intelligent Design is the belief that - rather than an origin of order resulting from chaos and matter from nothing”

    This is not what evolution teaches. Try again. Without straw men this time.

    the entirity of empirical science we observe today does a greater job of pointing toward an intelligent designer - a God”

    Wrong. You will only come to this conclusion if you ignore the actual evidence.

    “a self-evolving universe that contradicts the norm of entropy.”

    When will creationist nuts learn to stop using straw man arguments and factual errors?

  560. Ceven Starr Says:

    I managed to mess up my answer to Steven Carr. My point was that his position is, as always for creationists, ignoring the facts and making up crap.

  561. Brad Says:

    Ben,
    I must say I for one am glad someone is finally making a stand on this issue. I find that most evolutionists are sorely lacking in facts much like the THEORY they cling to so desperately. A few years ago, it was widely publicized a professor was fired for his acceptance of intelligent design. As for the nay-sayers most of the so called evidence for evolution has been publicly proven false and the theory constantly being modified to explain away evidence that does not fit. Fossils of a fish that still exist are use to date rock strata at millions of years old, But the intellectual elite turn a blind eye to this gaping hole in their theory. In short I hope that these close minded people can for a moment open up and see the truth in your film. But I am afraid that our nation is too set in it’s little lies to recognize the truth.

  562. StephenB Says:

    Materialists are normally not capable of grasping the big picture, otherwise they would not be materialists. The study of science isolated from the tempering influence of philosophy and history creates in them a dull shield that renders them impervious to reason. They simply don’t know enough about the subject to be embarrassed by their isolation. If they knew the difference between Aristotle-Aquinas-Paley and Tertullian-Augustine-Anselm, they would certainly know the difference between creation science and intelligent design. I don’t blame them any more than I blame the educational system that cheated them. Brainwashed in Darwinism, they embody exactly what the established elite wanted them to—dutiful little worker bees.

  563. Bsti Says:

    If freedom were a “God-Given Right”, Ben, The Simulator wouldn’t have expelled It’s Prototypes from the Garden for, as you endorse, the pursuit of the Freedom Of Inquiry.

    Your own God kicked out His Creation for their want of knowledge.

    It should also be noted that Your God endorsed and encouraged slavery. So I guess that’s a “God-Given Right” as well.

  564. Matteo Says:

    Can there be the slightest doubt how most of these folks would behave if they were on tenure/hiring committees and were faced with an ID advocate? Ben, your point is amply proven here. These guys remind me of nothing so much as jihadis screaming “Call Islam a violent religion and we will kill you!”

  565. Tony Says:

    Re: #537

    Esaskar,

    The proponents of ID have packaged their personal religious theories in a way that they claim is compatible with the methods of science. To see if that is so, scientists evaluate these theories by applying the scientific method. This methodology is not optional. All scientifically testable theories, however crackpot they may be, are studied using the same scientific processes.

    The application of the scientific method, to any theory at all, imparts no credence to the theory itself. In a similar way, being hit by a bat doesn’t make you a baseball.

    Scientists generally do not care what the theory is, so long as it holds up to the scrutiny. Scientists simply follow the evidence. Not one bit of testable evidence shows there is a god. However, if new evidence appears and that leads to a god, then nearly all of science would surely follow. Science, much more than any religion, fundamentally loves change.

  566. Benny Cemoli Says:

    I love these comments that state that criticism of Mr. Stein somehow validates his point. What planet does that make sense on?

    Perhaps Mr. Stein is being criticized because ID is make-believe science put forward as a stalking horse to cover a religious agenda? Could it be that simple?

  567. Steve Schaper Says:

    The slanderers here kinda prove, the point, don’t they?

    What are they so afraid of?

  568. SBF Says:

    I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of, Steve. I’m afraid of living in a world where the future leaders of the most powerful and influential nation on Earth are brought up to believe that over 100 years of scientific progress are trumped by a magic book. That’s what I’m afraid of.

  569. Tom Aquines Says:

    “Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism.”

    Thomas Sowell

  570. Resolved Controversy Says:

    I was under the impression that Intelligent Design was an observation that random chance processes have failed to explain what is going on.

    How did we get from that idea to “Liars for Jesus?” Unless, bigogtry is actually going on against theists in the Scientific community.

    But, for the critics. The conservation of energy when applied to the big bang requires something other than the universe to be its cause. But, unless the universe itself is a black hole, recapturing the background radiation will never work. Thus, only a finite number of pre-universes could ever have existed. Each is finite in time, so an ultimate birthdate of the universe must exist. — and, what ever caused that universe to be born… could not have been the universe or a pre-universe. Then, the universe itself is a measurable consequence of an “else” or “other” that meets the ordinary definition of the word, “God”.

    If it exists, it must do some thing measurabe. The universe exists and is finite in age, the energy in the universe needs an ultimate source. Call it what every you like, but I think the conservation of engergy is a valid scientic principle. Why don’t you?

    While we are asking science questions. When will biology stop lying to the public by saying, “Evolution is as true as the law of gravity.” It took 150 years for the theory of gravity to produce a mountain of evidence for its critics to review: moon by moon, planet by planet, star by star, stellar pair by stellar pair, cluster, galaxies, black holes and even sub-atomic forms of gravity. I humbly ask for the mountain of genetic evidence that biology ought to have for its critics.

    Pick any two creatures. Show me exactly which sequence of genes chagned in order — without killing the creature due to genetic disorders — that changed to evolve it from creature A to creature B. Gene technicques have been in the public domain for 27 years. (Darwin’s finches have been studied and they have not evolved a new gene.) Where can critic see this mountain of data genetic data? Who is collecting it? When can I see it?

    Without it, saying that Evolution is as true as the law of gravity is a deliberate lie the public. Why would such a truthful crew as scientists lie like that? Perhaps religious passion for atheism motivates them. Why not just show us the science? The mountain of data? The type that critics are allowed to view.

    Firing Scientists for thinking independently will only deplete your side. Why the game?

  571. Resolved Controversy Says:

    Note: Virus’ do add and remove genes. Even though the definition of a virus as being alive is controversial — even in side biology — I consede that a virus can evolve. (Moon by Moon; Planet by Planet ; Star by Star.) Show me the evolution of the next larger creature. Where is it? Who has it? When will they get it? Does it even exist?

    Stick with simple stuff like creatures where genetic change samples might even be obtainable. show me the non-lethal, evolving gene cascade sequence from creature A to B. Do not complain about the size of the number of species. Do you have any idea how many stars and atoms that the theory of gravity must account for?

  572. Tom Aquines Says:

    “If you need the truth, then he’s a moral coward and an intellectual bully. Like most academic men, he’s terrified of new ideas or anything that challenges what he was taught.”

    Anne Perry, “Brunswick Gardens.”

  573. Resolved Controversy Says:

    If Moses was not convinced he got his information directly from “God”, for penning Genesis 1:1, he would otherwise have been considered as great among the ancient world scientists.

    To pen a statement of Astrophysics that remains an accurate account of the best synthesis of modern scientific astronometric data without even so much as a telescope for guidance remains an impressive feat.

  574. No Scientific Proof Says:

    Let’s get something straight - in applying the scientific method, ONLY microevolution can be observed and proved. There is absolutely NO observable and provable evidence of macroevoultion . . . none.

    Now - as far as applying the scientific method to the God of the Bible - who says that CANNOT be observed and proved? There are clear evidences of an Intelligent Designer that science is constantly finding, which in point, proves that there is an Intelligent Designer. One needs only look around to see clearly that there is a designer to all things in nature. On top of this there is historical record and research that goes back centuries (archaeology, paleontology) that have shown the accuracies of the Bible, and therefore the workings of God (therefore His existence).

    I find that it is only the people who don’t want to live by the rules that God has set in place to be the only ones who choose to deny God’s existence and an Intelligent Designer.

  575. Brian Says:

    What is Darwinism supposed to be, anyway? ‘The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection’ may be a mouthful (which is why it’s usually abbreviated to the ‘Theory of Evolution’), but it’s far more accurate than a term that suggests that people take the works of Charles Darwin - as insightful as they were, for his time - for some kind of canon. Nothing could be farther from the truth! The Origin of Species contains errors - Darwin’s support for the supposed mental superiority of men to women is a good example. More than that, it’s very incomplete, from a modern standpoint - Darwin wrote many years before the nature of DNA was established, for instance.

    It may be difficult for someone whose world is based on the assumption that a two-thousand-year-old book is unchanging, absolute truth to understand that there is no such concept in the scientific community.

  576. Brian Says:

    Resolved Controversy,

    Look up ‘gene doubling’ and ‘mutation’. The synthesis of these two concepts should answer your question. Do you have access to a university library?

  577. DAVESCOT Says:

    “academic Biblical community”

    oh dear

  578. Tom Aquines Says:

    #577 DAVESCOT Says:
    “academic Biblical community”
    oh dear

    Tom Aquines sez: Hey Dave! Button your shirt. Your religious bigotry and shallow preconceptions about Christianity are showing.

  579. Michael Terry Says:

    Evolution and ID are not opposites. Fanatical anti-open minded folks seem to make this mistake incredibly often. I believe in evolution. I’m open to the idea of ID. These don’t contradict.

    Maybe some (or even most) folks proposing ID are thinly veiling their disbelief in evolution and belief in a Christian God. It doesn’t follow that intellectual bullying is Ok.

    Let’s put a stop to the ridiculous criticism that ID “doesn’t provide a testable hypothesis”. Correctly conceived, ID doesn’t belong in the realm of science. ID is not at the same level as, say, evolution. ID is metaphysics. Science is not equipped to contradict it. Please try to understand this. It’s very basic and easy to comprehend. Note that this does not imply ID does not belong to the realm of logic and reason.

    Evolution does not violate ID. ID is metaphysics. Proper ID theories can’t be disputed by science. Please see the work of Christopher Langan for more details. Hint: He is a lot smarter than you.

  580. genembridges Says:

    Emphyrio said:

    Will the film present the ID explanation for men having nipples?

    Or why whales have pelvises that serve no function, since they don’t walk?

    Ben, you’re so smart. You may look back in embarrassment one day for letting these folks flatter you into this.

    >>>

    This is a gem of a post. Creationism proper and ID don’t deny the possible or actual existence of vestigial organs. Is there something about being an Darwinist that renders people utterly ignorant of the position they are opposing?

    Both positions accept that some organs may degenerate under some conditions, like blind cave dwelling or deep ocean dwelling organisms. That’s called adaptation. That’s called microevolution.

    How are vestigial organs at odds with special creation? The assumption, I suppose, is that if God was perfect then creation would reflect it. That’s a nonsequitur. Finitude is not an imperfection. Creatures embody a finite mode of existence. They are not deified. It’s not a design flaw if the design was never intended to be as perfect as machine replication.

    2. I’d also point out that the whale’s pelvis happens to be considered functional by some Darwinians, like Ridley,who unlike Futuyma, regards the pelvis and femur of whales as function. So, whom are we to believe? Your objection, if true, undercuts Darwinians. Good work!

    3. Appeal to vestigial organs turns on the very principle that Darwinians accuse ID theorists of committing: appealing to a “god of the gaps.” In this case, the evolutionist is taking refuge in the Darwin-of-the-gaps.

    4. And the very appeal assumes design. Unless one has an idea that the organ has a function and a purpose, then how can one call it “useless?” Distelelogy assumes teleology and vice versa, so, you’re secretly assuming what you are seeking to deny.

  581. genembridges Says:

    >>>The proponents of ID have packaged their personal religious theories in a way that they claim is compatible with the methods of science

  582. PanDeism Fish Says:

    Ben, I ask you to consider Pandeism, the belief that a rational Deistic God created the Universe by becoming a Pantheistic Universe!! In short, the mechana of the Universe were designed, but all of the design took place before the moment of Creation (the Big Bang)…. and everything that science reveals about cosmology, quantum physics, and the multi-billion year process of evolution by natural selection, all of that is evidence of the intelligence behind the Creation not of particular animals plopped on the face of the World, but of the much more elegant and intelligent Creation of rules governing a Universe that is itself designed to suit the organic complexity that permits us to exist!!

    I must insist, that if any spiritual basis is to be taught in our schools, it must be Pandeism, for that is the first such system to be driven entirely by rational examination of the World as it is presented to us…. and if ours is any other system but Pandeism, then God is cast as a liar, leaving no distance between God and the devil of popular myth.

  583. CRasch Says:

    What are the Criteria of Science?:
    Science is:

    Consistent (internally & externally)
    Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
    Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
    Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
    Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
    Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
    Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
    Tentative (admits it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

    Is Intelligent Design logically consistent?:

    Intelligent Design is usually internally consistent and logical within the religious framework in which it operates. The major problem with its consistency is that Intelligent Design has no defined boundaries: there is no clear way to say that any particular piece of data is relevant or not to the task verifying or falsifying Intelligent Design. When you deal with the non-understood supernatural, anything is possible; one consequence of this is that no tests for Intelligent Design can really be said to matter.

    Is Intelligent Design parsimonious?:

    No. Intelligent Design fails the test of Occam’s razor because adding supernatural entities to the equation when they are not strictly necessary to explain events violates the principle of parsimony. This principle is important because it is so easy for extraneous ideas to slip into theories, ultimately confusing the issue. The simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate, but it is preferable unless very good reasons are offered.

    Is Intelligent Design useful?:

    To be “useful” in science means that a theory explains and describes natural phenomena, but Intelligent Design is not able to explain and describe events in nature. For example, Intelligent Design cannot explain why genetic changes are limited to microevolution within species and don’t become macroevolution. A true explanation expands our knowledge and understanding of events, but saying that “God did it” in some mysterious and miraculous way for unknown reasons fails in this.

    Is Intelligent Design empirically testable?:

    No, Intelligent Design is not testable because Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Intelligent Design relies on supernatural entities which are not only not testable, but are not even describable. Intelligent Design provides no model that can be used for making predictions, it provides no scientific problems for scientists to work on, and does not provide a paradigm for solving other problems unless you consider “God did it” to be a satisfactory explanation for everything.

    Is Intelligent Design based upon controlled, repeatable experiments?:

    No experiments have ever been performed that either demonstrate the truth of Intelligent Design or suggest that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed. Intelligent Design did not originate out of a series of experiments that produced anomalous results, something that has occurred in science. Intelligent Design has, instead, developed out of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians in America. Leading Intelligent Design’ists have always been open about this fact.

    Is Intelligent Design correctable?:

    No. Intelligent Design professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. When you believe that you already have the Truth, there is no possibility of future correction and no reason to look for more data. The only real changes which have occurred in the creationist movement is to try and push the biblical arguments further and further into the background in order to make Intelligent Design look more and more scientific.

    Is Intelligent Design progressive?:

    In a sense Intelligent Design could be considered progressive if you say “God did it” to explain all previous data as well as previously unexplainable data, but this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense, Intelligent Design is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what came before and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

    Does Intelligent Design follow the scientific method?:

    No. First, the hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the religion. Second, as there is no way to test the theory, Intelligent Design cannot follow the scientific method because testing is a fundamental component of the method.

    Do Intelligent Designists think Intelligent Design is science?:

    Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific Intelligent Design) admit that Intelligent Design is not scientific in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says:

    “We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.”

    This is a statement of religious faith, not a statement of scientific discovery.

    Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes:

    “We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”

    So, even leading Intelligent Designists basically admit that Intelligent Design is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and “verification”) of their ideas. If Intelligent Design is not considered scientific by the movement’s own leading figures, then how can anyone else be expected to take it seriously as a science?

    Simply put INTELLIGENT DESIGN ISN’T SCIENCE!

  584. BobRyan Says:

    Creationists should not be fooled by the wrong-headed ranting of some on this thread that claim that ID is in fact “creationism”. It is in fact an alternate form of evolutionism that is not “hostile” to the possible outcome that there is “intelligence” SEEN in the architecture and design of living systems.

    The “Dover Case” mentioned on this blog is a good example of rank “dark ages censorship” being practiced in favor of atheist-darwinism by puppets of the ACLU.

    The Dover board simply stated the following –

    “The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

    Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

    Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

    As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”

    For the crime of “ADMITTING” that this book “EXISTED” and for the crime of ADMITTING that atheist darwinism is the guesswork that it in fact IS — the court decided that the plaintiffs were owed 2 million dollars as a way to scare all other schoolboards away from “allowing” Students to be informed about the gaps in darwinism and the open-minded possibility of intellegence that could be SEEN in the architecture and design of living system.s

    Ben Stein is simply asserting that these attempts at dark-ages style censorship intended to block open-minded, objective, unbiased study of nature … can not prevail in the long run.

    It is to be “expected” that faithful devotees to the beliefs of atheist-darwinism would fervently object with the same devotion that they have shown on this blog!

    Nothing new there.

    BobRyan

  585. BobRyan Says:

    RESOLVED CONTROVERSY said previously -

    “I was under the impression that Intelligent Design was an observation that random chance processes have failed to explain what is going on.

    How did we get from that idea to “Liars for Jesus?” Unless, bigogtry is actually going on against theists in the Scientific community.

    But, for the critics. The conservation of energy when applied to the big bang requires something other than the universe to be its cause.”

    BobRyan Responds –

    No need to go so far back to see the utter collaps of the myths story-telling and just plain “bad science” of atheist-darwinism.

    Isaac Asimov states clearly that the story-telling that tries to meander through a contrived maze “from molecule to human mind” requires a “massive DECREASE in Entropy” to tell it’s story.

    Game over!

    BobRyan

  586. BobRyan Says:

    Michael Einziger wrote

    “There is no hiding the religious agenda here. THERE JUST ISN’T ANY HIDING IT…aren’t there places where people of religious faith can get together and discuss their religious beliefs? aren’t those places called churches? Last i checked there was no shortage of churches in this country….in fact, i’m betting this “film” will be played in churches only, that’ll be very telling of the nature of its content…I have no problem with religion, just don’t try and pass it off as scientific.”

    What a great comment. If only the blind devotees to the junk-science myths and fairytales of atheist darwinism would take this to heart. If only they could be awakened to understand that their devotion to this mythology belongs in some kind of ocmmunity-clinic or therapy group where they can vent and leave science unbent and unbiased in it’s pursuit of actual facts!!

    However what we “see” that many devotees to atheist-darwinism prefer to “imagine” that story telling when it comes to abiogenesis, andve story-telwhen that needs a “massive decreases in entropy” to “come true” should be left to their little special interest group therapy sessions - without having to compromise science to get there.

    BobRyan

  587. BobRyan Says:

    MattP said
    Really? Could you list a few of these rejected proposals? The ID crowd is pretty good at pointing out their supposed oppression, so it shouldn’t be hard to turn up. Also, the leading ID figures say that ID is not a religious proposition. Why would their proposals have anything about God in them?

    That should be easy – try the Schoolboard decision to “admit” that a book exists in the Library!!

    Here is the language that atheist Darwinist seek to censor —

    [b]
    “The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence.

    “A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

    “As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”
    [/b]

    For the crime of “ADMITTING” that this book “EXISTED” and for the crime of ADMITTING that atheist darwinism is the guesswork that it in fact IS — the “thought police” decided that the plaintiffs were owed 2 million dollars

  588. Open Minded Says:

    Well Yeah Bobryan and that massive decrease is allowed because the sun our energy supply. Ever heard of solar energy? Derrrrr?

  589. Tom Aquines Says:

    A Perspective on the Relation of Science and Christianity

    Let’s put this question of the relationship between science and Christianity with as broadest, most reasonable perspective we can. The relation between science and other intellectual pursuits has not always been easy. Therefore, many feel there has been a terrible warfare between science and Christianity. But I feel this is not the whole story.

    For example, the recent literature text by Susan Gallagher and Roger Lundeen says,

    Because in recent history, literature has often found itself in opposition to science, to understand modern views about literature the dominance of science in our culture. For several centuries, scientists have set the standards of truth for Western culture. And their undeniable usefulness in helping us organize, analyze, and manipulate facts has given them an unprecedented importance in modern society.

    Not everybody has liked that. For example, John Keats, the great romantic poet, did not like Isaac Newton’s view of reality. He said it threatened to destroy all the beauty in the universe. He feared that a world in which myths and poetic visions had vanished would become a barren and uninviting place. In his poem Lamia, he talks about this destructive power. In this poem, he calls “science” “philosophy”, so I will try to replace the word “philosophy” with “science” because that is what he means.

    Do not all charms fly
    At the mere touch of cold science?
    There was an awful rainbow once in heaven
    We knew her woof and texture.
    She is given in the dull catalog of common things.
    Science will clip an angels wings,
    Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
    Empty the haunted air and gnome’s mind,
    Unweave a rainbow.

    My point is there has been some sparring between science and virtually every other intellectual endeavor. So it should not be entirely surprising if there weren’t a bit of that between science and Christianity.
    Has Science Disproved God?

    Nevertheless, the position is commonly stated that “science has disproved God.” C. S. Lewis says, in his autobiography Surprised by Joy, that he believed that statement. He talks about the atheism of his early youth and credits it to science. He says,

    You will understand that my atheism was inevitably based on what I believed to be the findings of the sciences and those findings, not being a scientist, I had to take on trust, in fact, on authority.

    What he’s saying is that somebody told him that science had disproved God and he believe it, even though he didn’t know anything about science.

    A more balanced view is this by one of my scientific heroes, Erwin Schrodinger. He was the founder of wave mechanics and the originator of what is the most important equation in science, Schrodinger’s equation. He says,

    I’m very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

    People do tell good stories. Scientists do tell some interesting stories about religion. This one is from Chemistry in Britain, which is kind of like the Time Magazine of they chemical profession in England. Talking about the release of a new book on science policy, they explore an interesting idea.

    If God applied to the government for a research grant for the development of a heaven and earth, he would be turned down on the following grounds:

    * His project is too ambitious.
    * He has no previous track record.
    * His only publication is only a book and not a paper in a refereed journal.
    * He refuses to collaborate with his biggest competitor.
    * His proposal for a heaven and earth is all up in the air.

  590. BobRyan Says:

    Plaintiffs arguments in the Dover case

    The newer edition states: “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly though an intelligent agent … .”
    “When we talk about an intelligent designer,” argued plaintiffs’ attorney Eric J. Rothschild, “with the ability to design and create and build biological life, we are talking about God. … Science has no way of proving or measuring supernatural or divine action.”
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/06/DESIGN.TMP

    FLAW in the Plaintiff’s argument (attempts by devotees to atheist darwinism to hide their motives).

    The ID argument does not try to measure God or to define how God does something. The point was simply a red herring on the part of the devoted faithful among believers in atheist darwinism.

    But in making that statement the faithfull followers of atheist darwinism unwittingly exposed their motives because they are stuck with a distinctively atheist solution to the problem of origins. The problem with ID is NOT that it argues that God created the world in 6 days — (for it does NOT) — the problem with ID is that it ADMITS that naturalism alone can not account for what is SEEN in the lab and that we have experiments to prove it!!

    The salient point in the real debate is that Atheism can not SURVIVE if one is allowed to ADMIT to a process, design or architecture that CAN not be solved by naturalism “alone”.

    That is IT! That is the single line that atheism will not tolerate and so those who “believe in it” have to censor any thought - and experiment (even to the point of simply ADMITTING that “a book exists in the library”) that would allow student so “consider alternatives” to atheist darwinism!!

    How sad!

    BobRyan

  591. BobRyan Says:

    Plaintiffs arguments in the Dover case

    The newer edition states: “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly though an intelligent agent … .”
    “When we talk about an intelligent designer,” argued plaintiffs’ attorney Eric J. Rothschild, “with the ability to design and create and build biological life, we are talking about God. … Science has no way of proving or measuring supernatural or divine action.”
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/06/DESIGN.TMP

    FLAW in the Plaintiff’s argument (attempts by devotees to atheist darwinism to hide their motives).

    The ID argument does not try to measure God or to define how God does something. The point was simply a red herring on the part of the devoted faithful among believers in atheist darwinism.

    But in making that statement the faithfull followers of atheist darwinism unwittingly exposed their motives because they are stuck with a distinctively atheist solution to the problem of origins. The problem with ID is NOT that it argues that God created the world in 6 days — (for it does NOT) — the problem with ID is that it ADMITS that naturalism alone can not account for what is SEEN in the lab and that we have experiments to prove it!!

    The salient point in the real debate is that Atheism can not SURVIVE if one is allowed to ADMIT to a process, design or architecture that CAN not be solved by naturalism “alone”.

    That is IT! That is the single line that atheism will not tolerate and so those who “believe in it” have to censor any thought - and experiment (even to the point of simply ADMITTING that “a book exists in the library”) that would allow student to “consider alternatives” to atheist darwinism!!

    How sad!

    BobRyan

  592. Brian Macker Says:

    Ben,

    Some people just can’t understand certain concepts and are only equipped to memorize and not to think critically. I’m sad to see you are in that category. ID is not science.

  593. Brian S. Says:

    I will gladly support the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes the day that all churches allow the teaching of evolution in their Sunday school classes.

    Intelligent design is not science. It is theology pure and simple. To claim it as anything else is either ignorance or deception. Pick your poison.

    Quite simply, the arena for scientific debate should stay in the reputable peer-reviewed journals where it belongs. If ID wants to be taken seriously, it HAS TO EARN IT on that field of battle first. If it can’t survive there it doesn’t deserve further discussion. Except for in Sunday school.

    Peace through Reason!

  594. Interested Observer Says:

    SIGH…..
    Craig, whenever an supposed academic debate degrades into unwarranted personal attacks and name-calling, it betrays a certain predjudice or bias on the part of the one attacking. Wry comments and sharp, witty satire are one thing, but I’m not seeing that here. The first blogs here were not calm refutations or well reasoned arguments. They were attacks on the messenger, not the message, as were many others. And, I’m sorry to rebut your remarks so bluntly, but it DOES buttress and reinforce Mr. Stein’s contention of intellectual bigotry and intolerance.
    Next, in reference to BSTI’s comments on theology: this was extremely poor exegesis, to be candid. Insasmuch as this isn’t a discussion on Biblical interpretation or review, I won’t go into an involved rebuttal here. However, if you were any further off base, you’d be out of the ball park altogether, I’m aftaid. That’s not said to antagonize, but it’s simply the case. If you prefer, we could discuss your comments point by point in another mutually agreed upon forum, after exchanging e-mail contact info. I’d welcome the chance to clarify the points you brought up.
    Just a thought.
    DaveScpt says: WE’VE SEEN IT HAPPEN, PAL! Perhaps I’m misreading him here, but I thought this process requires thousands, if not millions, of years for evolutionary development to happen. Yet, he and some other unspecified witnesses have seen or are still watching it occur? Explanation, please. What’s been seen?

  595. ermine Says:

    BobRyan, #584

    Why was the Theory of Evolution being treated differently than any other theories? Why was there no similar statement read to the classes about the theories of Gravity, Plate Tectonics, Electromagnetism, Atomics, Relativity, the Germ Theory of Disease, etc?

    ALL of those are theories, NONE of them, while strongly supported by multiple studies by many different people and groups, are ‘proven 100%’.

    Just as it is impossible to prove that God DOESN’T exist, it’s impossible to prove any of these theories 100%. (You also can’t prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist - it’s impossible to prove a universal negative without being able to scour all of the universe at once.)

    You can get the confidence in the theory high enough that you could, for example, calculate gravity and trajectories to send a spacecraft all the way to saturn using almost no fuel, once you’ve gotten out of earth’s gravity well - We’ve done that! You can use Germ theory to make flu vaccines that save millions every year, (We’ve done that too!), but there’s always the possibility that some new theory will better explain why things work as they do.

    The fact that the Theory of Evolution was picked out specificly was one of the clear indicators that the reasons behind it were religious, NOT scientific. None of the other theories received even a moment’s notice. Since they didn’t contradict the local religion’s teachings, they were accepted without question and taught as Truth. Evolution was attacked SOLELY for religious reasons, and it was obvious enough to the (Christian, Republican, Bush-appointed) judge that he ruled against the school district.

    For the CRIME of trying to push religion into the science classroom, For LYING over and over again about the sources of the money they used to buy the panda books for the school, and for making it patently obvious that none of them knew enough about Evolution OR Intelligent Design to make an informed choice, the school board was fined quite a lot of money. You’d think they’d learn not to do it again! But here you are, trying to defend their actions and rewrite history.

    I have yet to see any of the pro-evolution folk saying that ID should be supressed or censored. I’ve seen a lot of ‘We’ll listen as soon as they can show us a testable hypothesis or some peer-reviewed studies.’, but that’s a completely different sort of thing.

    Nobody wants the ID folks to shut up, we just don’t intend to give them any respect until they earn it, the same way all the other accepted theories did - with DATA, proper scientific studies, and most of all, a bloody testable hypothesis!

    Some of these posters are trying so hard to pick at any flaws. ‘2 out of 500 people said ‘moron’, so you evilutionists are being rude and attacking us!’ This is a blog on the internet. Get a grip. If being called a moron when you demonstrate your ignorance bothers you, LEARN SOMETHING! Expect a bit of incivility from random people on both sides, (we’ve had that!), and try to argue the case on the facts.

    When your side learns enough about the scientific method to even present an argument, then perhaps less of us will think of you as morons when you try to claim that you know more than the experts in their fields. Those of you who haven’t read the links provided to talk.origins - if you fail to read the fact presented, yet still claim that your side has the answers while we don’t? You’re morons, plain and simple.

    That’s not ad hominem, either! Claiming so just shows us that you don’t understand THAT, either. You parrot nicely though. :)

    ‘You are a moron, therefore we can ignore your argument.’
    That’s ad hominem. Attacking the man instead of the argument.

    ‘Your argument fails because X, therefore you are a moron.’
    This is NOT ad hominem. This is explaining why your argument fails, thus proving our argument while proving that you’re a moron at the same time, get it? The argument is debunked, the namecalling is just an added bonus.

    On the other hand, pointers to any studies, evidence, even so much as a simple ‘This is the ID hypothesis:’ explanation have NOT been provided by the pro-ID crowd.

    Why are we supposed to give them the same respect that is accorded to well-researched and never-yet-falsified theories?

  596. sparc Says:

    There is a life after EXPULSION.

  597. voodoomage Says:

    HEY YOU MATERIALIST, where do we come from? The “Big Bang”, where did that originate… out of nothing? Show me one case of modern day macro evolution! Where are the transition fossil? Why do index fossils get excluded when a living one is found? You put more faith into your religion than we do…That’s our bad, we will put more in to God. Thanks for opening our eyes.

  598. Tom Aquines Says:

    The Alternatives to Belief in the Sovereign God of the Universe

    Lev Landau

    I want to give examples of two atheists. The first is Lev Landau, the most brilliant Soviet physicist of this century. He was the author of many famous books with his coworker Lifchets. I actually used some of these books as a student at M.I.T. This is a story about Landau from his good friend and biographer Kolotnikov. This appeared in Physics Today. This is a story from the end of Landau’s life. Kolotnikov says

    The last time I saw Landau was in 1968 after he had an operation. His health had greatly deteriorated. Lifchets and I were summoned to the hospital. We were informed that there was practically no chance he could be saved. When I entered his ward, Landau was lying on his side with his face turned to the wall. He heard my steps, turned his head, and said, “Kollat, please save me.” Those were the last words I heard from Landau. He died that night.

    Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

    Chandrasekhar was a famous astrophysicist. He won the Nobel prize in physics in 1983. He was a faculty member at the University of Chicago for many years. At the back of his biography is an interview. Chandrasekhar says,

    In fact, I consider myself an atheist. But I have a feeling of disappointment because the hope for contentment and a peaceful outlook on life as the result of pursuing a goal has remained largely unfulfilled.

    His biographer is astonished. He says:

    What? I don’t understand. You mean, single–minded pursuit of science, understanding parts of nature and comprehending nature with such enormous success still leaves you with a feeling of discontentment?

    Chandrasekhar continues in a serious way, saying:

    I don’t really have a sense of fulfillment. All I have done seems to not be very much.

    The biographer seeks to lighten up the discussion a little saying that everybody has the same sort of feelings. But Chandrasekhar will not let him do this, saying:

    Well that may be, but the fact that other people experience it doesn’t change the fact that one is experiencing it. It doesn’t become less personal on that account.

    And Chandrasekhar’s final statement:

    What is true in my own personal case is that I simply don’t have that sense of harmony which I’d hoped for when I was young. I’ve persevered in science for over fifty years. The time I’ve devoted to other things is miniscule.

    Is it Possible to be a Scientist and a Christian?

    So the question I want to explore is the one that I was asked by that young man after my freshman chemistry class at Berkeley, “Is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian.” The student and his high school chemistry teacher obviously thought it was not possible.
    C. P. Snow

    Let me begin from pretty neutral ground by quoting two people with no particular theistic inclination. The first one is C. P. Snow. C. P. Snow used to be very famous as the author of a book called The Two Cultures. C. P. Snow was a physical chemist at Oxford University. He discovered about halfway through his career that he also was a gifted writer and he began writing novels. They are about university life in England. One in particular is called Masters, which I would recommend. C. P. Snow became quite wealthy doing this and then he was able to sit in an in–between position, between the world of the sciences and the world of literature.

    He wrote this book, which in it’s time was very famous, about the two cultures—the sciences and the humanities. He said statistically slightly more scientists are in religious terms, unbelievers, compared with the rest of the intellectual world, although there are plenty that are religious and that seems to be increasingly so among the young. So is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian? C. P. Snow, who was certainly not a Christian, said yes.
    Richard Feynman

    Richard Feynman, Nobel prize in physics in 1965, was a very unusual person. He said some 9 years before receiving the Nobel prize, “Many scientists do believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistent way.” So is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian? Yes according to Richard Feynman.

    A good summary statement in this regard is by Alan Lightman, who has written a very well–received book called Origins. He’s an M.I.T. professor who has published this book with Harvard University Press. He says,

    References to God continued in the scientific literature until the middle to late 1800’s. It seems likely that the lack of religious references after this time seem more from a change in social and professional conventions among scientists rather than from any change in underlying thought. Indeed, contrary to popular myth, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public.

    Now one could regard that statement as strictly anecdotal. Americans love statistics. Here’s the result of a poll of the professional society Sigma Zi. Three thousand three hundred responded, so this is certainly beyond statistical uncertainty. The headline says, “Scientists are anchored in the U. S. mainstream.” It says that half participate in religious activities regularly. Looking at the poll is that 43% of Ph.D. scientists are in church on a typical Sunday. In the American public, 44% are in church on a typical Sunday. So it’s clear that whatever it is that causes people to have religious inclinations is unrelated to having an advanced degree in science.
    Michael Polanyi

    Let go a little deeper with a statement from Michael Polanyi, professor of chemistry and then philosophy at the University of Manchester. His son, John Polanyi, won the Nobel prize in 1986. I think that it’s probably true that when John Polanyi’s scientific accomplishments, which have been magnificent, have been mostly forgotten, his father’s work will continue.

    Michael Polanyi was a great physical chemist at the University of Manchester. About halfway through his career, he switched over to philosophy. He was equally distinguished there. His books are not easy to ready. His most influential book is called Personal Knowledge. He was of Jewish physical descent. He was born in Hungary. About the same time he switched from chemistry to philosophy, he joined the Roman Catholic church. He said,

    I shall reexamine the suppositions underlying our belief in science and propose to show that they are more extensive than is usually thought. They will appear to coextend with the entire spiritual foundations of man and to go to the very root of his social existence. Hence I will urge our belief in science should be regarded as a token of much wider convictions.

    If you read the rest of the book, you will probably make the same conclusion that I make. I’ve concluded that Polanyi is pointing out that the observer is always there in the laboratory. He always makes conclusions. He is never neutral. Every scientist brings presuppositions to his or her work. A scientist, for example, never questions the basic soundness of the scientific method. This faith of the scientist arose historically from the Christian belief that God the father created a perfectly orderly universe.

    Now I want to give you some evidence of that.
    Science Developed in a Christian Environment

    I’d like to begin with an outrageous statement that always causes reaction. This is a statement from a British scientist, Robert Clark. It will make you think. He says,

    However we may interpret the fact scientific development has only occurred in a Christian culture. The ancients had brains as good as ours. In all civilizations, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, India, Rome, Persia, China and so on, science developed to a certain point and then stopped. It is easy to argue speculatively that science might have been able to develop in the absence of Christianity, but in fact, it never did. And no wonder. For the non–Christian world felt there was something ethically wrong about science. In Greece, this conviction was enshrined in the legend of Prometheus, the fire–bearer and prototype scientist who stole fire from heaven thus incurring the wrath of the Gods.”

    I’d prefer if he had said “sustained scientific development.” I think he’s gone a little too far here, but this will certainly give people something to think about.
    Francis Bacon

    Let’s explore the idea involved in the statements that Clark and Polanyi made, that is, that science grew up in a Christian environment. I was taught that Francis Bacon discovered thescientific method. The higher critics now claim he stole it from somebody else and just popularized it. We’ll leave that to the science historians to settle.

    One of Francis Bacon’s statements is called the two–books statement. It’s very famous. He said:

    Let no one think or maintain that a person can search too far or be too well studied in either the book of God’s word or the book of God’s works.

    He’s talking about the Bible as the book of God’s words and nature as the book of God’s works. He is encouraging learning as much as possible about both. So right at the beginning of the scientific method, we have this statement.
    Johannes Kepler

    Johannes Kepler posited the idea of elliptical orbits for planets. He’s considered the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion. He was a devout Lutheran Christian. When he was asked the question “Why do you do science?”, he answered that he desired in his scientific research to obtain a sample test of the delight of the Divine Creator in his work and to partake of his joy. This has been said in many ways by other people, to think God’s thoughts after him, to know the mind of man. Kepler might be considered a Deist based on this first statement alone. But he later said:

    I believe only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ. In him is all refuge and solace.

    Blaise Pascal

    Blaise Pascal was a magnificent scientist. He is the father of the mathematical theory of probability and combinatorial analysis. He provided the essential link between the mechanics of fluids and the mechanics of rigid bodies. He is the only physical scientist to make profound contributions to Christian thinking. Many of these thoughts are found in the little book, The Pensees, which I had to read as a sophomore at M.I.T. (They were trying to civilize us geeks at M.I.T., but a few years later decided that it wasn’t working, so we didn’t have to take any more humanities courses.)

    Pascal’s theology is centered on the person of Jesus Christ as Savior and based on personal experience. He stated:

    God makes people conscious of their inward wretchedness, which the Bible calls “sin” and his infinite mercy. Unites himself to their inmost soul, fills it with humility and joy, with confidence and love, renders them incapable of any other end than Himself. Jesus Christ is the end of all and the center to which all tends.

    Pascal also said:

    At the center of every human being is a God–shaped vacuum which can only be filled by Jesus Christ.

    Robert Boyle

    Robert Boyle was perhaps the first chemist. He developed the idea of atoms. Many of my freshman chemistry students know Boyle’s law. Every once in a while I’ll meet one of my former chemistry students. I ask them “What do you remember from the course?” Occasionally they will say: pv = nrt. Then I know I was successful. This is the ideal gas law of which Boyle’s law is a part.

    Boyle was a busy man. He wrote many books. One is The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation. He personally endowed an annual lectureship promoted to the defense of Christianity against indifferentism and atheism. He was a good friend of Richard Baxter, one of the great Puritan theologians. He was governor of the Corporation for the Spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England.
    Isaac Newton

    Although I disagree, a recent poll on who the most important person of history was gave that honor to Sir Isaac Newton. Newton was a mathematician, physicist, co–discoverer with Liebnitz of calculus, the founder of classical physics. He was the first of the three great theoretical physicists. He wrote about a lot of other things. He tried to do chemistry, but was a little bit before his time. He wrote more books on theology than on science. He wrote one about the return of Jesus Christ entitled Observations on the prophecy of Daniel and the Revelation of Saint John. He said:

    This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

    One might assume from this statement that Newton was a Deist (system of natural religion that affirms God’s existence but denies revelation). However, quotes like this shows this is not true:

    There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.

    One concludes that Newton was a Biblical literalist. It was not enough that an article of faith could be deduced from Scripture, he said:

    It must be expressed in the very form of sound words in which it was delivered by the apostles. For men are apt to run into partings about deductions. All the old heresies lie in deductions. The true faith was in the Biblical texts.

    George Trevellian, a secular historian, summarized the contributions of these individuals as follows:

    Boyle, Newton and the early members of the Royal Society were religious men who repudiated the skeptical doctrines of Thomas Hobbs. But they familiarized the minds of their countrymen with the idea of law in the universe and with scientific methods of inquiry to discover truth. It was believed that these methods would never lead to any conclusions inconsistent with Biblical history and miraculous religion. Newton lived and died in that faith.

    Michael Faraday

    My very favorite—and probably the greatest experimental scientist of all—is Michael Faraday. The two hundredth birthday of Michael Faraday’s birth was recently celebrated at the Royal Institution (multi–disciplinary research laboratory in London). There was an interesting article published by my friend Sir John Thomas, who said if Michael Faraday had been living in the era of the Nobel prize, he would have been worthy of at least eight Nobel prizes. Faraday discovered benzene and electromagnetic radiation, invented the generator and was the main architect of classical field theory.

    Let me contrast the end of his life with the end of Lev Landau’s life. Faraday was close to death. A friend and well–wisher came by and said, “Sir Michael, what speculations have you now?” This friend was trying to introduce some levity into the situation. Faraday’s career had consisted of making speculations about science and then dash into the laboratory to either prove or disprove them. It was a reasonable thing to say.

    Faraday took it very seriously. He replied:

    Speculations, man, I have none. I have certainties. I thank God that I don’t rest my dying head upon speculations for “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto him against that day.”

    James Clerk Maxwell

    The second of the three great theoretical physicist of all time would certainly have been James Clerk Maxwell. Someone has documented Maxwell’s career this way:

    Maxwell possessed all the gifts necessary for revolutionary advances in theoretical physics—a profound grasp of physical reality, great mathematical ability, total absence of preconceived notions, a creative imagination of the highest order. He possessed also the gift to recognize the right task for this genius—the mathematical interpretation of Faraday’s concept of electromagnetic field. Maxwell’s successful completion of this task resulting in the mathematical [field] equations bearing his name, constituted one of the great achievements of the human intellect.

    I disagree with one statement made above. If Maxwell indeed had a total absence of preconceived notions, he would have accomplished a total absence of science. So this is obviously written by somebody who is not a scientist (a squishyhead). However, this statement is basically good.

    Maxwell said:

    Think what God has determined to do to all those who submit themselves to his righteousness and are willing to receive his gift [of eternal life in Jesus Christ]. They are to be conformed to the image of his Son and when that is fulfilled and God sees they are conformed to the image of Christ, there can be no more condemnation.

    Maxwell and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Many wonder what he thought of Darwin’s theories. In fact, once he was to go to a meeting on the Italian Riviera in February to discuss new developments in science and the Bible. If you’ve ever spent time in Cambridge, England, you know it is very gloomy in the wintertime. If I had been a faculty there, I would have taken an opportunity to go to the Italian Riviera at this time of the year.

    Maxwell turned down the invitation. He explained:

    The rate of change of scientific hypotheses is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretation. So if an interpretation is founded on such a hypothesis it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.

    This is true. An example of this is the steady–state theory, which was popularized by Fred Hoyle and many others. It is one of the two competing theories of the origin of the universe. The steady–state hypothesis basically says that what you see is what was always there. It became less tenable in 1965 with the observation of the microwave background radiation by Arnold Pansias and Robert Wilson. There are not very many people left who believe in the steady–state hypothesis. It is interesting to go back to about 1960 and find commentaries on the book of Genesis and see how they explain how the steady–state hypothesis can be reconciled with the first chapter of Genesis. Any reasonable person can see that Genesis is talking about a beginning from nothing (ex nihilo), so it takes interesting explanations to reconcile a beginning with the steady–state hypothesis.

    The steady–state hypothesis is going to be, within about 20 years, gone and forgotten. These commentaries will probably still be available in libraries and no one will be able to understand them.

  599. DAVESCOT Says:

    Tom Aquines sez: Hey Dave! Button your shirt. Your religious bigotry and shallow preconceptions about Christianity are showing.

    Thanks Tom. My “shallow preconceptions about Christianity” are just as vald as yours, as neither of us were there and none of it gets reapeated nor confirmed by experiment. Thanks!

  600. Michael Terry Says:

    Brian Macker,

    You’re right, ID isn’t science. It’s metaphysics. It’s a sure bet your misunderstanding stems from other fundamental misunderstandings of the debate here. For example, you don’t also believe that ID contradicts evolution, do you?

  601. subson Says:

    I’m not aware of ANY branch of science that accepts “a miracle happened here” in its phenomenology. Biology is under a lot of pressure to do exactly that because its findings contradict a literal reading of the Bible and Koran. To those who claim that ID has nothing to do with Abrahamic religion, note that ID’s big guns, Behe and Dembski, are both church-going Christians. Note also that you don’t hear these ID arguments coming from areas of the world that aren’t Abrahamic (Japan, China, etc.). Buddhists and Hindus, in fact, are often quite sympathetic to evolution, as they’re familiar with exceptionally long time frames (measured in “kalpas”), and they have some vague idea that there’s an improvement or learning process going on over history.

    Around 50% of the U.S. population believes the earth was created in six days. I suppose Stein, in his quest for fairness and free speech, would like to see 50% of all U.S. university biochemists and biologists profess this belief.

  602. javascript Says:

    Dear “Ermine” and “Michael”

    You want someone to do your homework for you I suppose.

    Ok, I apologize to the rest of you for doing this but for the benefit of those who keep slandering the movie and ID without reading anything on the site that actually reflects the true nature of the film or the the links to the articles that describe in detail the injustice that has been bestowed upon certain scientists or the numerous posts on this blog that go into scientific detail about the studies and reasons ID “is” a legitimate science, I will re-post a number of examples of what you fail to read or acknowledge…

    To follow…

  603. javascript Says:

    Re-post from Jeff… For the reading impaired who keep claiming that ID is not a science based or that it only has the Bible as it’s foundation:

    Jeff | willys36@bak.rr.com | IP: 75.38.86.153 wrote:

    Your documentary is highly anticipated Ben. Sounds like it will be spot-on in shedding light on the hatred and vitriol exhibited by the anti-God posters on this blog and in the scientific community in general. I agree, it is an incredible display of politically correct bigotry foisted against honest inquiry.

    However it is not unique in history. Have you ever read the book, “The 5 Equations that Changed History”? I read it a few years ago and one thing that emerged from that compilation of mini-bios of the rock stars of science is that every one of them suffered severe distain from mentors, colleagues, and the scientific community in general for their contrary opinions. We ID Neanderthals are not unique in history for being ostracized by the established ‘truths’.

    Some angry bloggers here ask for proof if ID. They claim we have NOTHING to base our witchcraft upon. I submit they are working from emotion rather than rational thought. ID has several rock-solid, foundational scientific principles on its side. I know the other side will throw up a deluge of high sounding arguments ‘proving’ I am wrong but that doesn’t change the facts that these principles DEMAND an intelligent designer. I am a 35 year practicing engineer and work with permutations of these laws daily. I’m glad they are there or I couldn’t do my job!!

    1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
    2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.
    3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes gradual evolution of innumerable living constructions.
    4. The law of information is absolute proof of intelligent design. These learned men would scoff at anyone claiming the Encyclopedia Britannica (do they still sell those door-to-door or even publish it any longer or is it all on the web now?) spontaneously assembled itself. However they have no problem believing a strand of DNA, a compilation of precise information that makes the Britannica look like a Dr. Seuss book, just decided to come together one day.

    Again, there will be a storm of inordinately angry rebuttals to this list (calm discussion of them on a scientific level is not allowed by the other side) but since they are laws, the rebuttals always sound kind of silly don’t you think?

  604. javascript Says:

    Re-post from Dave… For the reading impaired who keep claiming that ID is not science based or that it only has the Bible as it’s foundation, AND that there are no scientists being unjustly treated:

    Dave Hawkins Says:
    August 24th, 2007 at 7:19 am
    Thanks Ben for this project! Much needed. I searched the page for posts about the Rick Sternberg affair and only found Ed Brayton’s pro-Darwinist piece. So I think readers of this blog should hear the other side. Here’s an excerpt from the U.S. House of Representatives Investigation … Read the rest of the excerpt at my blog … http://afdave.wordpress.com
    UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DECEMBER 2006

    _____________________
    INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN SMITHSONIAN’S TOP OFFICIALS PERMIT THE DEMOTION AND HARASSMENT OF SCIENTIST SKEPTICAL OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION

    There is substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers. Given the factual record, the Smithsonian’s pro-forma denials of discrimination are unbelievable. Indeed, NMNH officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution. On September 13, 2004, Dr. Jonathan Coddington, chair of the zoology department, wrote to crustacean curator Dr. Rafael Lemaitre that he could not find a legal basis for terminating Sternberg, but added: “I suppose we could call him on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?”3 A few hours later, Dr. Lemaitre responded that “a face to face meeting or at least a ‘you are welcome to leave or resign’ call with this individual, is in order.”4 Finally, in an email on October 6, 2004, Dr. Coddington (in his capacity as Dr. Sternberg’s “supervisor”) stated that he was planning to meet with Dr. Sternberg to convey the message “that if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.”5 Clearly, the NMNH management was trying to make Dr. Sternberg’s life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave, since they knew they had no legal grounds to dismiss him.

  605. javascript Says:

    Re-post from Dave C. For the reading impaired who keep claiming that ID is not science based or that it only has the Bible as it’s foundation.

    Dave C. Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
    Most of the above seems relatively content-free, but there are some good points. Some of the not-so-good ones:
    1) Dover settled it - ID isn’t science! Please - a judge with no scientific credentials copies an ACLU brief, and that’s supposed to have determinative value? Bah.
    2) ID isn’t a scientific theory! Sure it is - just because you don’t understand it (or don’t want to) doesn’t mean it isn’t scientific. See below for more detail.
    3) Expelled misrepresented itself, so they’re bad people! Possibly true, but irrelevant to the validity of the argument they’re going to make in the movie. Tell me - if 60 Minutes uses a hidden camera, are they automatically wrong?
    4) ID makes no predictions! This is really a dumb one. By definition, if you make an assertion, any assertion, its testable in some fashion. Even universal negatives (there are no pink dragons) are testable to some extent (I can test whether there are pink dragons here!) Want to falsify ID? Simply demonstrate something (other than life, which would be begging the question) that gives a false positive as having been designed, when it wasn’t.
    5) Ken Miller (et. al.) is religious and not-persecuted, so you’re wrong! Uh, guys, the movie is about people who object to materialistic Darwinism and allow the possibility of a religious element as having active involvement - not about people who happen to be religious but believe in a non-participatory God (aka Miller).
    6) Abiogenesis is not relevant to Evolution! Phah - Evolution’s foundation is that only materialistic explanations are allowed. If it requires God to create the first life, there’s no longer a valid reason to exclude Him from the rest of the process either. Either everything that happened from “big bang” is explained by naturalistic processes, or you can no longer exclude non-naturalistic processes from any given point.
    Back to my assertion that ID is a scientific theory. In my words, ID says this: “It is possible to determine whether an object is the result of natural, non-directed processes, or the result of intelligent design and directed processes, by measuring the complexity of the entity”.
    Interestingly enough, ID isn’t necessarily or even essentially about life, or origins. If ID didn’t carry implications for Neo-Darwinian Evolution, the same scientists who are so frenetic to discredit it now would probably applaud the science/math behind it. Basically, all ID says is that design requires a designer - and that it is possible to measure/detect design. Unfortunately for both Evolution and ID, life appears designed. So - either Materialistic Evolution which says life is undesigned is wrong, or ID which says that design requires a designer is wrong. Neither side would disagree that Life appears designed.
    So - where do we, and will we, see resolution? What predictions does ID make that differentiate it from Evolution? One such would be “Junk”, or undesigned elements to life. For some time, it was believed that most (upwards of 90%) of human DNA was unnecessary - remnants of the random evolutionary process. This would certainly imply ID was wrong - why would a designer put worthless elements in the base code of life? Current scientific thought is, however, that DNA is not only not mostly “junk”, but almost entirely functional (even if non-coding). Now evolutionists may (and have) argue that Darwinian processes have filtered out the worthless DNA (evolution is ultimately flexible - everything can be explained, and therefore nothing is), but ID theory is clearly supported by the findings.
    As for the argument that no scientists use ID theory - nonsense. Ever hear of Biomimetics? Scientists use the Design they find in life to help them improve our technology. This is inherently relevant to ID - you wouldn’t copy the design of something that wasn’t designed, would you?
    I’m a YEC, myself, so I have a dog in this fight only so far as I certainly see the design of life as evidence for a designer. And, as a YEC’er, let me give you some scientific predictions using my Theory of origins.
    1) Abiogenesis will not be solved. Scientists will never be able to “create life”, even using intelligent intervention in a lab
    2) Within the next 10 years, DNA will be found in more fossilized remains of creatures supposedly 100’s of millions of years old.
    3) No experimental process will ever be able to mutate a species beyond a certain boundary (years of experiments with mutated bacteria will result only in - a mutated version of recognizably the same bacteria, not a new type of bacteria).
    4) Increased research will increase our understanding of the complexity of life, and find complexity that we don’t currently recognize (e.g. the light pathways recently found in human’s “inverted” retina)
    5) Gene sequence comparisons and molecular phylogenies will only further muddy the “tree of life”
    6) SETI remains a colossal waste of time and effort
    7) Improvements in technology will allow new telescopes to take pictures of “20Billion-year-old” galaxies, in our “14Byo” universe.
    Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain the ultimate Fudge Factor.
    9) Evolution Research will remain mired in “just-so-stories” and gene sequence comparisons, because any interesting experimentation that might prove evolution possible (as opposed to “true” which is not possible with a historical science) lead to dead ends (e.g. Miller’s OOL experiment).
    9) We’ll still be having these same conversations, with noone’s opinions much changed.

  606. javascript Says:

    Re-post from Jacob Evilsizor, For the reading impaired who keep claimin that ID is not science based or that it only has the Bible as it’s foundation.

    Jacob Evilsizor Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
    Ben,
    Congratulations on your courage to come out and publicly stand up for what you believe in. Truly that is a rarity in Hollywood to say the least.
    What many of the “willingly ignorant” here are in fact doing, is a proving the point of just how effective the indoctrination method works on humans from a very young age. The irony is that evolution is a de facto theory which is only maintained by brain-washing the proverbial “masses” by consistently proclaiming pure conjecture to be absolute fact; a very efficient and effective method used by the Nazi party in Germany not so long ago. This is why you have empty-headed no-nothings proclaiming with ideological zeal that evolution is an indisputable fact and has “tons of evidence” and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers; as if the argument from authority method was in fact a fitting substitute for actual, credible evidence.
    Never mind that there are many scores of contradictory evidence that defy evolution; because the definition of evolution is so ambiguous, it can literally mean anything from the obscure “change over time” to “change in allele frequency of an organism due to genetic drift and natural selection via mutational variation compounded over millions of years to form increasingly complex entities of organizational matter.” Notice how much wiggle room there is in-between those two descriptions? Subsequently, evolution duplicitously disguises itself as science using a tactic known as bait ‘n’ switch. Bait ‘n’ switch is a tactic oft used by salesmen to get a prospective customer to buy into one thing by luring them in with something completely different. The salesman is the evolutionist, the promised item is natural selection, and the resultant product is molecules-to-man evolution. People buy into it all too easily, because we as a society have been conditioned not to question science for any reason. The truth is that natural selection is an ingenious design application allowing creatures to adapt to their environment, but it is always represented by an inherent loss of functional genetic information. This means that it can never “create” organisms of higher complexity, because this requires a massive increase in DNA coding language needed to direct new proteins.
    Mutations have the same problem because they also do not increase the net information content of DNA. Predominantly, mutations are either neutral or detrimental. For the most part, mutations caused by radiation exposure are seriously life threatening because the information structure (which is highly organized in the DNA molecule) is vital to a healthy, functioning cell, and radiation causes disorder and destruction within the cells. The only examples of beneficial mutations caused by radiation are in comic books. Mutations are also caused by the loss and scrambling of necessary genetic information due to copying errors in processes such as gene duplication/replication and polyploidy, but are never represented by an increase in functional genetic information content. On rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial, such as beetles losing their wings on a windy island where they might otherwise be blown out to sea. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the occurrence of beneficial mutations is sparse; but even given this arcane event in nature, and considering the result of gene duplication and polyploidy (which is subsequent to photocopying a page out of a book), we still have yet to witness an increase in the overall genetic information content of a single organism.
    Evolution works on the idea of random changes. But in the case of DNA, these changes are only good if they add not just information, but specific information in a coherent, structured fashion. In the case of a human being, that would be about 3 billion base pairs. And don’t forget that the genetic information is useless unless there are specific proteins that they are coding for in the first place. After all, what is the point of a coding mechanism if it has nothing to code for? Because the fundamental changes to DNA that evolution requires are ones that both are conducive to survival, and fundamentally increase functional genetic information that is specific and coherent to the DNA coding procedure. A simple example to illustrate my point might be: if you have the word CAT, and you randomly add characters to it, you cannot arrive at the word CATCHER unless you have specific letters that make the word coherent and meaningful. This does not even take into account the fact that this particular word, and the letters that are used in it, are both part of a structured, intelligently designed language system called English. Incidentally, if you add random Arabic letters to the end of CAT, you are never going to get the word CATCHER, in one coherent language. It just isn’t possible. And remember with something like human DNA, you are talking about literally billions of letters that together create a coherent, functioning coding mechanism (language) necessary for life.
    So if evolutionists cannot produce a viable mechanism for evolution that produces a single example of increased functional genetic information content, much less the astronomical increases that would be necessary to go from a single-celled organism to a human being containing over 100 trillion cells, DNA with over 3 billion base pairs of complex coding language, as well as the synthesized proteins which they code for to do specific jobs, and a brain with over 100 billion neurons, each with tens of thousands of individual synaptic connections, which functions around the clock from the time you are in the womb to the time you die, controlling hundreds of necessary biological systems within your body without a single thought; and yet they emphatically and dogmatically claim “tons of evidence” to support their so-called theory that cannot be subjected to the scientific method; has a history of hoaxes that are used as factual evidence for literally decades at a time; proclaims every single fossil discovery as a missing link or transitional fossil without contention or debate; uses bogus dating methods that cannot accurately date objects of a known age, and yet they claim that the results they get for objects of unknown age are incontrovertible (while simultaneously admitting that the method depends on certain unverified assumptions); ignores the fact that written human history only goes back 4-6 thousand years, and ignores the fact that the Bible is a written account of human history that is supported archeologically on many levels; ignores dozens of specimens of dinosaur soft-tissue and mummified dinosaurs (Google it), dogmatically proclaiming that dinosaurs died 65-68 million years ago; ignores the Cambrian Explosion which contains almost every major phyla of animal, yet Pre-Cambrian rock does not present any examples of ancestors of diminishing complexity at all; cannot produce a viable explanation for the initial “creation” of life (abiogenesis) without invoking aliens or a creator, and yet cannot concede that complexity warrants design (as is logical), and that the same creator that started life (if they concede an ambiguous creator) could have done it just how He said He did in a written account of history; will not consider other viable theories such as Flood geology to explain billions of fossils worldwide (fossils are quite rare occurrences except in catastrophic conditions, i.e. a flood) including mass fossil graves; dogmatically pushes a phony geologic column that is not found in whole in any one place on earth (only in textbooks), and ignores polystrate fossils that cut through several layers of strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years, as well as tightly bent rock strata that support the flood theory; deceitfully fabricate characteristic of extinct apes like Lucy to make them look like humans (because they don’t have any real transitional fossils), such as adding human facial features, and also human hands and feet to pictures and models, even though the specimen had long, curved, ape-like fingers and no feet; ignores the concept of irreducible complexity a priori, because the concept infers an intellectual injection of cause and reason into an arbitrary and meaningless process that has no motivation to surpass boundaries or benchmarks in any pseudo-creative endeavor as is implied by evolution; ignores the concept of physical laws (gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc.) that govern our universe and support our reality with mathematical inductive reasoning and logical structure (which imply an intelligent architect); and pretty much denies logical reasoning and common sense observation altogether, replacing them instead with ad hominem attacks, character-assassination, and virulent name-calling. But decide for yourself…
    For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant):
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
    http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
    http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
    http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
    http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
    http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
    http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site

  607. javascript Says:

    Last but not least from Jacob Evilsizor for the reading impaired:

    Jacob Evilsizor Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
    Ben,
    Congratulations on your courage to come out and publicly stand up for what you believe in. Truly that is a rarity in Hollywood to say the least.
    What many of the “willingly ignorant” here are in fact doing, is a proving the point of just how effective the indoctrination method works on humans from a very young age. The irony is that evolution is a de facto theory which is only maintained by brain-washing the proverbial “masses” by consistently proclaiming pure conjecture to be absolute fact; a very efficient and effective method used by the Nazi party in Germany not so long ago. This is why you have empty-headed no-nothings proclaiming with ideological zeal that evolution is an indisputable fact and has “tons of evidence” and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers; as if the argument from authority method was in fact a fitting substitute for actual, credible evidence.
    Never mind that there are many scores of contradictory evidence that defy evolution; because the definition of evolution is so ambiguous, it can literally mean anything from the obscure “change over time” to “change in allele frequency of an organism due to genetic drift and natural selection via mutational variation compounded over millions of years to form increasingly complex entities of organizational matter.” Notice how much wiggle room there is in-between those two descriptions? Subsequently, evolution duplicitously disguises itself as science using a tactic known as bait ‘n’ switch. Bait ‘n’ switch is a tactic oft used by salesmen to get a prospective customer to buy into one thing by luring them in with something completely different. The salesman is the evolutionist, the promised item is natural selection, and the resultant product is molecules-to-man evolution. People buy into it all too easily, because we as a society have been conditioned not to question science for any reason. The truth is that natural selection is an ingenious design application allowing creatures to adapt to their environment, but it is always represented by an inherent loss of functional genetic information. This means that it can never “create” organisms of higher complexity, because this requires a massive increase in DNA coding language needed to direct new proteins.
    Mutations have the same problem because they also do not increase the net information content of DNA. Predominantly, mutations are either neutral or detrimental. For the most part, mutations caused by radiation exposure are seriously life threatening because the information structure (which is highly organized in the DNA molecule) is vital to a healthy, functioning cell, and radiation causes disorder and destruction within the cells. The only examples of beneficial mutations caused by radiation are in comic books. Mutations are also caused by the loss and scrambling of necessary genetic information due to copying errors in processes such as gene duplication/replication and polyploidy, but are never represented by an increase in functional genetic information content. On rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial, such as beetles losing their wings on a windy island where they might otherwise be blown out to sea. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the occurrence of beneficial mutations is sparse; but even given this arcane event in nature, and considering the result of gene duplication and polyploidy (which is subsequent to photocopying a page out of a book), we still have yet to witness an increase in the overall genetic information content of a single organism.
    Evolution works on the idea of random changes. But in the case of DNA, these changes are only good if they add not just information, but specific information in a coherent, structured fashion. In the case of a human being, that would be about 3 billion base pairs. And don’t forget that the genetic information is useless unless there are specific proteins that they are coding for in the first place. After all, what is the point of a coding mechanism if it has nothing to code for? Because the fundamental changes to DNA that evolution requires are ones that both are conducive to survival, and fundamentally increase functional genetic information that is specific and coherent to the DNA coding procedure. A simple example to illustrate my point might be: if you have the word CAT, and you randomly add characters to it, you cannot arrive at the word CATCHER unless you have specific letters that make the word coherent and meaningful. This does not even take into account the fact that this particular word, and the letters that are used in it, are both part of a structured, intelligently designed language system called English. Incidentally, if you add random Arabic letters to the end of CAT, you are never going to get the word CATCHER, in one coherent language. It just isn’t possible. And remember with something like human DNA, you are talking about literally billions of letters that together create a coherent, functioning coding mechanism (language) necessary for life.
    So if evolutionists cannot produce a viable mechanism for evolution that produces a single example of increased functional genetic information content, much less the astronomical increases that would be necessary to go from a single-celled organism to a human being containing over 100 trillion cells, DNA with over 3 billion base pairs of complex coding language, as well as the synthesized proteins which they code for to do specific jobs, and a brain with over 100 billion neurons, each with tens of thousands of individual synaptic connections, which functions around the clock from the time you are in the womb to the time you die, controlling hundreds of necessary biological systems within your body without a single thought; and yet they emphatically and dogmatically claim “tons of evidence” to support their so-called theory that cannot be subjected to the scientific method; has a history of hoaxes that are used as factual evidence for literally decades at a time; proclaims every single fossil discovery as a missing link or transitional fossil without contention or debate; uses bogus dating methods that cannot accurately date objects of a known age, and yet they claim that the results they get for objects of unknown age are incontrovertible (while simultaneously admitting that the method depends on certain unverified assumptions); ignores the fact that written human history only goes back 4-6 thousand years, and ignores the fact that the Bible is a written account of human history that is supported archeologically on many levels; ignores dozens of specimens of dinosaur soft-tissue and mummified dinosaurs (Google it), dogmatically proclaiming that dinosaurs died 65-68 million years ago; ignores the Cambrian Explosion which contains almost every major phyla of animal, yet Pre-Cambrian rock does not present any examples of ancestors of diminishing complexity at all; cannot produce a viable explanation for the initial “creation” of life (abiogenesis) without invoking aliens or a creator, and yet cannot concede that complexity warrants design (as is logical), and that the same creator that started life (if they concede an ambiguous creator) could have done it just how He said He did in a written account of history; will not consider other viable theories such as Flood geology to explain billions of fossils worldwide (fossils are quite rare occurrences except in catastrophic conditions, i.e. a flood) including mass fossil graves; dogmatically pushes a phony geologic column that is not found in whole in any one place on earth (only in textbooks), and ignores polystrate fossils that cut through several layers of strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years, as well as tightly bent rock strata that support the flood theory; deceitfully fabricate characteristic of extinct apes like Lucy to make them look like humans (because they don’t have any real transitional fossils), such as adding human facial features, and also human hands and feet to pictures and models, even though the specimen had long, curved, ape-like fingers and no feet; ignores the concept of irreducible complexity a priori, because the concept infers an intellectual injection of cause and reason into an arbitrary and meaningless process that has no motivation to surpass boundaries or benchmarks in any pseudo-creative endeavor as is implied by evolution; ignores the concept of physical laws (gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc.) that govern our universe and support our reality with mathematical inductive reasoning and logical structure (which imply an intelligent architect); and pretty much denies logical reasoning and common sense observation altogether, replacing them instead with ad hominem attacks, character-assassination, and virulent name-calling. But decide for yourself…
    For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant):
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
    http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
    http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
    http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
    http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
    http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
    http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site

  608. John Says:

    I find it amusing that an actor seems to think that he is a higher authority on what is good science than the scientists themselves. I can think of only 1 who can actually credible opinion on the subject of ‘good science’.

    Lets assume that the credibility of one’s critique on science is completely irrelevant to his/her background.
    So if I were to apply Stein’s rant regarding the suppression of academic freedom in the sciences to other fields of acadamia, I can state the following:

    1) 4x^2 - 6x +14 =0
    Where x= 521

    2) Christopher Columbus discovered America, and was the Indians best friend. He helped the Indians win their war against Frederick Douglas, and freed the Hebrews from
    Napoleon, and discovered France.

    3) 1 M HCl is safe to drink because it is has a neutral pH concentration.

    4) The world and the universe was created by Thor, Galactus, and a race of omnipotent beings who we perceive as mice who can simultaneously inhabit this dimension and a dimension higher than our own. That we perceive our universe the way it is, be it science, math, religion, and etc, is all guided by these omnipotent mice.

    With that said, if we allow a type of academic freedom that Stein so strives for, than all the above comments should be taken into serious consideration without suppression and/or ridicule. Either that, or you’re a hypocrite. If you want to apply a paradigm of thought to one level of academia why not apply it to all fields whether it be science, math, or religion. You can’t be discriminatory now.

    I am primarily annoyed that there is an assumption that any statements regarding science ( or any academic field) should be considered seriously without any kind of peer review, or else you’re considered a fascist. If that was the case then:

    “There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, …..”
    - Ben Stein

    Because everyone is trying to come up with what can happen, while people who say ” no that can’t happen”, would ( under Stein’s view of academic freedom) be vilified. Figuring out what can’t happen is just as important as what will most likely happen.

    We have the freedom to say all the little examples I made above, thats OK. But ultimately 1+1 does not = 3, 1M HCl will dissolve my trachea, and the fourier coeffs of *insert any periodic function* will not be the numbers of my birthdate, no matter how much I call my teacher a closed minded god hating atheist.

    Notice how I have not even mentioned ID, god, or creationism….. well up till that last sentence. If the inclusion of any kind of supernatural being and/or the “God Variable” will make science easier and more accurate, scientists would have done so. Hell I would’ve done it if it meant keeping myself from doing a multiple page proof involving the Kronig-Penny model.
    For example:

    F= dp/dt= m*(dv/dt)+ v*(dm/dt)+ ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!’
    for constant mass ‘m’ F= m*(dv/dt)+ ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!’

    F= m*a+ ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!’

    So what does ‘ INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!’ contribute to Newton’s 2nd law that makes it more accurate than the good ol’ F=m*a ( assuming aforementioned m=constant).

    The answer: Nothing. Nothing more, nothing less then what is already known. It doesn’t tell what happened, will happen, and what can’t happen. So what can be done with it? NOTHING.

    I need a beer now…

  609. esaskar Says:

    Darwinists at George Mason University, Ohio State, Baylor, SMU, University of Idaho, the Smithsonian Institution and a number of other universities and research centers have been hunting down and trying to disgrace and intimidate scientists and educators for daring to defy the Darwinian orthodoxy. Most recently we saw the witch hunt return to Iowa State University and focus on astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez.
    • The National Center for Science Education sent out a letter urging all 50 state governors to restrict teaching the controversies of Darwinian evolution.
    • The Ohio State Board of Education was pressured by the ACLU to repeal its Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan and revert to teaching only those items which support Darwinism, essentially censoring the state’s science teachers from expressing any criticism of Darwinian evolution at all.
    • Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson lost her job at a state university after she gave a lecture on scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory to a group of honors students.
    • Law professor Francis Beckwith had his tenure challenged at Baylor University because he had expressed a professional opinion that it was constitutionally acceptable to teach intelligent design in public school classrooms.
    • Three days before graduate student Bryan Leonard’s dissertation defense was to take place, Darwinist professors at Ohio State University accused Leonard of “unethical human-subject experimentation” because he taught students about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory.
    • High school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school simply because he wanted his students to learn about both sides of the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution.
    • Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota wrote this about anyone supporting intelligent design or even just questioning modern evolutionary theory: “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.”

    Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Let’s hope Stein can use Expelled like an ice cutter to break through. Scientists and educators deserve all the protection and support they can get.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/new_ben_stein_flick_expelled_b.html#more

  610. Mike Lee Says:

    “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.”

    Thomas Aquinas

  611. Mike Lee Says:

    “Beware of the person of one book.”

    Thomas Aquinas

  612. Mike Lee Says:

    “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”

    Thomas Aquinas

  613. subson Says:

    Javascript, you win. I will now convert to young earth Christianity. How could anyone possibly compete with such long, paragraph-free posts, and well-established “laws of information” and “laws of irreducible complexity”? You’re a real trooper for Jesus. Keep up the good work.

  614. John A. Davison Says:

    While there is no tangible evidence for a living God, it is unthinkable that one would even dream of denying a past presence for one or more such entities. Yet that is exactly what such compulsive atheists as P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins continue so arrogantly to proclaim. Several months ago I managed to introduce on RichardDawkins.net forum the following thread for discussion -

    “God or Gods are dead but must have once existed.”

    During about a week it attracted over 60,000 views after which I was summarily terminated along with my viewing rights to his forum. I achieved a similar honor at ARN and have been banned from all the major forums with the exception of ISCID’s “brainstorms” where I am still allowed to hold forth. While I am a Creationist, I have rejected both the Darwinian and the Christian Fundamentalist camps, which apparently is the primary reason I am anathema to both. I welcome any comments at “brainstorms, here, or anywhere else. I will probably not respond to anonymous posters. A person who cannot put his name to his words is a coward. The internet teems with such. It should never have been permitted.

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  615. Zack Says:

    I’m really excited about this Ben! I’m promoting it on my website and I hope that interview the right guys.

    For what’s is worth, the Bible actually says that this is a sinking ship. Regarding belief in God, it says that those who are wise in their own esteem are also ‘willingly ignorant’… or ‘dumb on purpose’ when it comes to the topic of God.

    I pray that this film will make it a little bit more difficult though!

  616. Steve Holmes Says:

    The pontificating ignorant comments on here by pseudo scientists who rabidly defend their government sponsored education, income and basis for piss poor policy decisions just beats all. But then again when they look at the stars in the sky and fail to see intelligent design, they are not only showing their ignorance, but sealing their eternal fate, for as God’s own word says, they will be without excuse- for they truly are denying his eternal power and the essence of what he is.
    I’ve been “in” heaven and I’ve “seen” God- or at least I could see his form: he was wearing the stars of the entire universe as his vest. I can assure you when this happened to me, I felt no need for the approval of nor any use for the current dogma of the government owned scientific community. In fact, that community and their government sponsors have made themselves out to BE God, an error that is clearly folly to those of us who have been enlightened by the one who spoke the universe into existence based on HIS intelligent design.
    Get over it folks, he made you too, gave you a free will and a mind that is unhindered. Every single one of you knows that you have zero ability to control anything once you exhale HIS air from your lungs for the last time, however I can tell you this for certain: On that day you WILL bow down and acknowledge that he IS what he has already shown you and told you he his.
    Enough of your small minded, black and white “scientific method and nothing eles” thinking. That’s what has given us all of your wonderful gifts like nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
    And as for the religious right who prostitute yourselves for positions of power in the USA, your arrogance and pseudo knowledge of God has earned us the specifics of Revelation chapter 18. Go ahead and call me a zealot and a quack. At least I’m an expert in the field you have willing chosen to pretend you understand…and I’m about done with interceding for his mercy to cover your filthy, selfish, wars of conquest, etc, because God is about fed up with listening to me about it.

  617. subson Says:

    The Christians have been invoking the “methinks you doth protest too much” argument more than I’ve ever seen. Call it the “Ted Haggard Effect”.

  618. Jim Says:

    I’m sure there are good, well thought out arguments that are pro-Intelligent design but the fact is the integrity and merit of this movie has been under-cut when your producers LIED to interviewees on the nature of this movie.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

    This is a blogger that after being lied to about the movie he was interviewing for is then praised of being “confronted” in your press release.
    Absolutely dishonest and appalling. I wouldn’t believe a single word said in this movie now because its very obvious that its going to be extremely bias. So great job at promoting and shelling out the bigs bucks for a giant piece of propaganda.

  619. Brian Barkley Says:

    I produced a 2-hour documentary on the Kansas Science Hearings. In fact, 23 witnesses testified over 4 days and gave proof of Intelligent Design. You will not doubt Ben Stein’s credibility after you view it.

    For a DVD, send $20 to:

    New Liberty Videos
    P.O. Box 25662
    Shawnee Mission, KS 66225-5662

  620. Ben Stein is now officially one of the most hated people in America… « DOXOBLOGY Says:

    […] Ben Stein is now officially one of the most hated people in America… …and since he’s not a criminal, he has become one of my mostest favoritest people in America. […]

  621. BobRyan Says:

    Brian S. Says:
    August 25th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    “I will gladly support the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes the day that all churches allow the teaching of evolution in their Sunday school classes.”

    Bobryan responds:

    This is another sad example of just how far in the dark our atheist darwinist friends are lagging behind reality.

    The sad truth is that the vast marjority of Christian institutions TEACH EVOLUTIONISM!! (that would be Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Episcopal and many others)

    The sad truth is that EVEN ID is most often presented as just ANOTHER form of EVOLUTIONISM!

    So “now” let’s “see” if the atheist darwinist argument that they could ever be talked into being open minded is true. …. waiting….

    hmm “didn’t happen”

    How “unnexpected”

    Brian says:

    “Intelligent design is not science. It is theology pure and simple.”

    Only an atheist would argue that point since any admission that architecture and design SHOWS intelligence destroys the religion of atheism.

    But that the fact that atheism relies on bogus arguments - does not invalidate the fact that intelligence CAN be detected in architecture and design. The “issue” is whether or not to admit to the design that we SEE in nature.

    [quote]
    Quite simply, the arena for scientific debate should stay in the reputable peer-reviewed journals
    [/quote]

    Been there done that. The PROBLEM is that atheist like to “redefine peer-review” to mean “atheist-peer” or “darwinist-peer” and “no other peer”.

    Sad bit of censorship on their part - but glaringly obvious to the unbiased objective reader.

    BobRyan

  622. Y. From Chicago Says:

    Creationists seems to have short memory (Dover)
    I hope mentioned universities will sue Ben’s ass off.

  623. Steve_C Says:

    I still haven’t seen what the ID hypothesis is and how the “many” scientists that support it intend to test it.

    I mean, if it’s science, where’s the hypothesis?

    The once common thread of the Anti-Evolution League… they all believe in god.
    Something for which there is no evidence. When the AEL are confronted with piles of evidence for evolution they ignore it.

    They can’t even agree on how old the earth is.

  624. ck1 Says:

    BobRyan:

    Scientists can and do acknowledge that there are unsolved questions out there - that is why we still have working scientists.

    “I don’t know” is a legitimate response to questions about such unsolved problems. On the other hand “Goddidit” is not a legitimate scientific response. Accepting a supernatural explanation rather than continuing to formulate hypotheses and seek new data is counterproductive to advancement of knowledge.

  625. ck1 Says:

    esaskar, When working scientists in relevant fields do not recognize the “controversies of Darwinian evolution” you refer to, what business do public school teachers have teaching their students otherwise? None. If you want to teach something as science, you first need to convince scientists, not school children.

    And when people are not competent, they should be taken to task.

  626. Dave Mc Says:

    Tom Aquines said:

    “Dave Mc is an atheist dressed up as an intellectually bankrupt blogger.”

    Dave Mc says: Actually that’s quite funny :)

    While I can safely say that this is about as much blogging as I have ever done, it is rather presumptuous of you to call me an atheist, don’t you think? Is it that obvious from my entries?

    Not like me calling you “The quotemaster” since you haven’t come up with anything original in this blog.

  627. Gwyn Says:

    Wow, there is a lot of venom being spewed here. Why all the anger and hate talk? If you aren’t interested then don’t watch it….vote with your feet - there is no need to slam someone just because he/she doesn’t agree with your values/beliefs.

    It is, after all, just a movie looking at suspected supression of an alternative view. No one is saying Ben is a scientist - he’s just investigating whether individuals are being silenced for a opinion that contradicts evolution, which is also just “a theory”.

    Science is after all the process of proving theories so, one would hope that these scientists can be allowed the same freedom to explore their theories and maybe change how we view things. What is the scientific community afraid of - do they think that by allowing research on ID that evolutionists will be out of a job? If they feel in their core that evolution is true and they believe they have proved it then they should welcome a challenge. Stir up some debate - make it interesting….

    Just my opinion!

  628. Howard Weinberg Says:

    Yikes!
    Ben, I respect your economic views and your concerns over freedom of inquiry. And if academic freedom is being curtailed and power abused, we should object.

    But from an economic point of view, how do you propose that public resources be allocated for scientific research? If we don’t rely on experts, on whom should we rely to allocate resources? (Thomas Kuhn became famous for showing how worthy but unpopular theories (like Einstein’s) eventually overturn the previous orthoxy or “paradigm”, so there is historical evidence that the “truth will out.”
    Evolution is a lively scientific discipline with lots of controversy. There is plenty of criticism of current evolutionary theory that is funded and published.
    The “ID” criticisms that I have read are unimpressive and not among those taken very seriously. I would not give them scarce public resources for research nor would I do so by including them in curricula.
    If private resources are spent on these ideas, I have no objection, but please don’t advocate spending my money on third-rate science (that happens enough without encouragement). If Ben Stein’s Money is allocated to the “ID” proponents, you are of course FREE to do so.

  629. Steve Foltz Says:

    Natural selection is a bogus theory and has never been proven. Show me, please, where a “new” animal has ever been produced by such a thing!

    Many kinds of dogs, roses and other things have been “created” by man, but NONE of them are a different animal or plant! God’s Word plainly states that everything will produce offspring like itself. Hybrid fruits will also not reproduce normally but require constant human intervention to survive. Where it is successful to merge two kinds of animals (donkey + horse) it is only because those animals are from the same family that an offspring is produced. But…the offspring is sterile! So much for evolution.

    Evolution is a theory still. It has never been proven! So, based on the logic of some comments, we should also reject evolution as faulty science. When we see a completely new animal arise from “natural selection(not a mutant that cannot reproduce!) maybe this theory will carry some weight. And when someone can explain to me how a microbe, who couldn’t detect light, decided there was light and therefore needed to produce eyes, I’ll listen. Or how evolution, which supposedly builds things haphazardly and keeps those things it finds useful could produce an ear (made up of many very precise parts) when the many parts cannot function to any purpose by themeselves? Why would an eardrum form without an accompanying stirrup or anvil, or cochlea? How would a developing organism design such a complicated things without having first worked out the details BEFORE “mutating” into a workable protoype at least?

    Intelligent design is behind everything and those who refuse to see it are blinding themselves to truth. Let’s see any one who believes in evolution invent a new primary color, a way to read other’s thoughts (surely we should have evolved past needing ears by now, wouldn’t you think?) or a new sense.

    Evolution is a science designed for the express purpose of assuaging men’s minds who do not want to believe in a Creator.

  630. The American Street » Blog Archive » The Elephant in the Middle of the Room Says:

    […] and have friends in that community. It was PZ Myers who alerted me to this latest outrage by the Christianist wingnuts. I’ll go to see the movie just to see how they twist PZ’s words, he’s interviewed […]

  631. Steve_C Says:

    THERE’S NO ID THEORY! GOD DID IT IS NOT A THEORY.

    Evolution IS THE ALTERNATIVE to the ancient idea of a creator.
    ID isn’t new or even original.

    I keep asking, but never get, what the hypothesis is or how they plan to test it.

  632. Steve_C Says:

    Steve Foltz once again proves the ignorance of some religious people.

    Evolution is theory AND a fact. Just like gravity.

    http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

    Do I expcet Foltz to read it, or even understand it? Not really.

  633. Zach Says:

    I wish that it was possible for you to challenge indoctrinated science with even the smallest ounce of credibility. I would give much more respect if you could be objective and analytical about your dissension. Unfortunately, the only people you can name as your allies are a self absorbed rock star, a scientist who did not believe in a personal god, and someone from the 16th century who predated Darwin and his ideas by about 200 years. Really, is there anyone at all with even the smallest bit of credibility involved with this piece of sensationalist trash?

  634. ck1 Says:

    Gwyn,
    No. Science is not about “proving theories”. Nothing is ever proven in science. As the saying goes - “proof” is a valid concept in math and alcohol. Science is about seeking data that supports or falsifies hypotheses.

    And developing a theory is the highest goal of science.

  635. guitarzan Says:

    I believe that a tornado, given enough time and materials, can swirl around in a junkyard and put together a Mercedes-Benz. (p.s. I am also an evolutionist).

  636. X-Evolutionist Says:

    I’ve been promoting this movie in message boards I frequent. Already, this movie is stirring up a lot of dust.

    I’m happy that this issue is going to be on everybody’s lips. Hopefully, more and more people will get brave and stop following the crowd and look at the evidence for themselves.

    It took me over forty years, but I looked at the evidence for myself, and I changed my life, hence my screen name.

    X

  637. ck1 Says:

    Science is not like literary criticism where multiple differing opinions can be valid. Except for the leading edge of science where data is still limited and alternative hypotheses are being evaluated, science is about selecting the best explanation and discarding the rest.

    After all, we do not give equal time to the geocentric and heliocentric views of the solar system to school children and ask them to pick the one they like best.

  638. Salvador T. Corodva Says:

    Having been one of those interviewed for this movie [it remains to be seen if my footage doesn’t end on the cutting room floor], I would like to offer a clip from a 6-part half-million dollar, nationally televised series which featured some of the names in Ben’s movie.

    The movie features Dr. Crocker (who was in the Expelled preview), Ed Sisson, and myself:

    See:
    http://tinyurl.com/mtay5

    Whether ID is ultimately right or wrong is not the real issue. The real issue is whether it is permissible to explore ID after one has realized that Darwinism has failed as scientific explanation.

    The issue is one of freedom of inquiry, and the fact that Darwinist dogma is just plain bad for business, bad for science, and bad for humanity.

  639. John Says:

    The most damning thing I’ve observed thus far, is not only how rabidly the religious people on this blog have pushed for I.D, but how they co-mingled the term ‘I.D’ to their christian god, when the whole original purpose of I.D was to describe speciation without having to invoke any kind of religious undertones. Thank you for proving what scientists have been saying about I.D ever since it’s inception; It’s Creationism in sheep’s clothing.

    -”This is another sad example of just how far in the dark our atheist darwinist friends are lagging behind reality.

    The sad truth is that the vast marjority of Christian institutions TEACH EVOLUTIONISM!! (that would be Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Episcopal and many others)

    The sad truth is that EVEN ID is most often presented as just ANOTHER form of EVOLUTIONISM!”

    Strawman. Accredited Christian institutions that teach evolution, teach the subject in classrooms. However, they do not teach evolution during Mass or Sunday Prayer. Which they should be required to do if they attempt to push creationism in science classes.

    “So “now” let’s “see” if the atheist darwinist argument that they could ever be talked into being open minded is true. …. waiting….”

    Last I checked, people who attempted to preach a wiccan’s view on creation would be escorted out of a Christian Church. Here’s an example of christian open mindedness
    http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_065160805.html

    “But that the fact that atheism relies on bogus arguments - does not invalidate the fact that intelligence CAN be detected in architecture and design. The “issue” is whether or not to admit to the design that we SEE in nature.”

    Stupidity is actually observed in nature. Almost as if it were a random process. Anyone who has studied biology or engineering even, basically someone actually qualified because they had spent many years studying about the subject rather than flipping through literary science magazines haphazardly, can point out severe biological and structural flaws in nature. I mean, why the hell would anyone in their right mind design a biological entity to have their passageway for breathing and swallowing food, share the same entryway?

    Steve Fotz wrote:
    “Evolution is a theory still. It has never been proven! ”
    Gravity is a theory but we know it occures. Electricity and magnetism is a theory but anyone who wrapped a coil of copper around a magnet, while connected to a lightbulb sees the E/M theory occuring. The semiconductors that are in your computer right now, which allows this form of communication, is based off of solid state physics which is based on quantum theory. None of the theories above have never been proven, true enough. But its damn accurate enough for people to build computers or any kind of electronic devices for that matter.

  640. Agiel Intelligence Says:

    I have tried, so very hard, reading as many of these responses, to stay unbias and open-minded to the concepts and arguments presented on both sides of the debate.

    But frankly, you guys have not been making it easy.

    Pro ID: I already had concerns unaddressed about how we went from molecules to humans that may or may not be later addressable, which I have been reminded about.

    I have also already wondered about the concepts of ‘Big Bang’ and that which came with it that I hadn’t concerned myself with addressing that you are.

    Lastly I have already put thought into the being many refer to as ‘the creator’ though my theories on the matter differ greatly from many others.

    Pro Evolution:
    ‘natural selection’ is pretty obvious, and something that over time we are weening out simply because being ‘naturally selected’ no longer sits well with humans.

    The prospect of an intelligent creator creating us is at this point as likely as atoms forming some gloop that would become a human later on, at this point in time.

    Con both sides:
    You’re acting childish, resorting to mockery, satire, name-calling and flat out “I’m not listening lalalala!!” on both sides.

    I found this worst when one particular responder, when faced with evidence that the prospect behind ID was not what he had been advertising, chose to flat-out ignore it, since “its not addressed in this film.”

    When it comes to what IS advertised in this film, namely the discrimination of those who support ID, I agree they shouldn’t be treated badly for their beliefs. We should be well beyond that level of mockery, especially with the intelligence level of scientists. Mockery and satire is what I expect of teenagers in a playground. We are not teenagers in a playground (most of us) and shouldn’t resort to such low-level absurdity. Those who feel they have to resort to such levels should be ashamed.

    Now, I have looked into ID, as, curiously, I’ve only recently come across the subject. Now, I have a few questions in regard of the subject:

    QUESTION 1:
    Are ID and Creationism separate? If so, how so? Is it that one includes God (Creation) and the other does not (ID)? If this is the case, how does this mean those supporting the Creationism are winning this argument, if what they are specifically trying to advertise is not up for debate? And if ID is nothing to do with religion, why do so many people seem to keep referring back to it? Especially when later people will again turn around and say “Its got nothing to do with religion.”

    QUESTION 2:
    WHAT DOES ID STAND FOR?!?
    Is it really just there to try and disprove evolution? Why? What on Earth does it matter? Why are you not out and proving what makes your theories sound, like the evolutionists have with fossils and whatnot?

    QUESTION 3:
    What makes ‘intelligent selection’ (the survival of the better design) and ‘natural selection’ (the survival of the better ‘design’) different? How is this helping you and not the evolutionists, especially since you seem to seek to keep them so far apart?

    QUESTION 4:
    How does the intelligent designer or diety change us over time to adapt to circumstance? It is clear this happens or we wouldn’t have different races of people at the least. If it isn’t through the evolution of freaky-runt mishaps in DNA that turn out to be stronger than the masses, then what causes it instead? How is our design re-shaped, especially if we cannot see it shaping us? By which I mean there doesn’t appear to be a giant hand that tweaks us to make us who we are. So what does?

    QUESTION 5:
    How/why does this creator exist? Its not enough for one like myself to hear there is a diety we cannot see… as to quote Deedee from Dexter’s lab “You can’t see air, but we know THAT exists.”

    So how does one begin finding out how this diety or designer works? How do we test to see HOW this diety changes us? WHY does this diety see fit to change things that may, as happens in life, in fact hinder us instead of help us develop, and lead to an extinct species? How does this Diety/designer exist outside of our knowledge? Why does he not present himself to us?

    QUESTION 6:
    Is science used to prove ID as a science?
    I ask because from the responses in this blog it would appear not. I see maths (which is fair), philosohpy (which is less so) and a type of psuedo-science that means nothing (which is not right) being used to explain how ID works, but I haven’t seen biology, chemistry or physics used in the way of explanation as of yet. I imagine ways wouldn’t be hard to find.

    I will bring up here as well, how does the ‘proof’ system work exactly? Like many of the other 600+ responders I have seen people mention tests that have not gained funding but not seen any evidence or outlines of the tests that are being rejected which could potentially prove ID. So I wonder if someone could help me on that?

    QUESTION 7:
    This is not so nice a question.
    If the concept of ID is to be taken seriously, why did the people running this lie to the interviewees about the premise behind it? I just don’t see a valid reason for the dishonesty.

    Added to that, how does generalising everyone against ID as atheist help the cause, either? This doesn’t seem right but so many of the supporters here accuse those who want to see valid proof of ID of being atheists. Not to say that calling those who support ID ‘morons’ ‘pathetic’ ‘ignorant’ and whathaveyou is any better, but you have something to prove here. Take the higher ground, don’t stoop lower!

    Please understand I don’t care for scientifical mumbo-jumbo. I also have little interest in Bible quotes or declarations of ‘faith’. I have my own theory on how ‘faith’ has come to be so powerful in the modern World and how even if we turned around and told people “God doesn’t exist” there will be a ‘miracle outbreak’ that will automatically ascertain for those with faith that the opposition are wrong. This theory also builds on how the power behind this is man-made and not an entity beyond us but more an entity because of us. Crazy? Probably. Does this stop me hearing what an entire following has to say in the way of proof of their beliefs and theories on the creation of life and existance? Nope. In fact it makes me more interested.

    (If anyone’s interested in my weird and not-normal theory (science, creationism, ID or random atheist/agnostic/religious follower), mail me @ lalalakibi@googlemail.com. :) I’d love to get proved wrong and let it rest or find new backbone to support it.)

    ON THE SUBJECT OF DISCRIMINATION AND DISALLOWMENT OF THE TEACHING AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS:

    I have already said I don’t think people should be discriminated against for the beliefs, but I do think that until ID has solid ground it should not be taught as neccessary criteria in schools. However this doesn’t mean those who wish to teach about Intelligent Design should be forced into silence. If asked about their views on evolution theory, that teacher should have every right to say ‘I don’t believe in it’, and if a student wishes to learn about the ID alternative, that child then has the freedom to approach that teacher and learn about it. If it becomes criteria, it will not be well recieved by the majority of students who already care little for the school systems. But a student who wishes to learn should be given the opportunity. But it should be their option.

    As far as discrimination of scientists between scientists go, its very similar to religious jeering and the prospect of mathematical jeering should someone come up with a theory that is difficult to prove. It happens. It shouldn’t, but we seem to do it anyway, and that’s not nice. But, once proof is shown, a good deal of the non-stubborn (or less stubborn) jerks will shut up, and things will move on. Until then there will be ridicule, and those who support the theory should ride it and wait out for the proof that, if they’re right, will show up.

    ….

    A final question, but has anyone thought to bring up the subject of ‘breeding’ as a form of selection, since it could go either way depending on how it is presented? How we choose to breed things can be classed as ‘intelligent’ design, so would this work as a theory on the for? Or since this happened probably millennia before we got involved (looking into non-domesticised animals) it could also be classed as ‘natural’ selection as well?

    Its a form of selection either way, so I’m surprised to see it brought up less.

  641. Steve_C Says:

    Sal,

    People are free to investigate ID in seminary school all they want.

    No one here has shown there’s any science to ID.

    They’ve only shown there’s faith, of course no evidence is required.

  642. Salvador T. Corodva Says:

    John wrote:

    Thank you for proving what scientists have been saying about I.D ever since it’s inception; It’s Creationism in sheep’s clothing.

    Not really:

    ID is a lineal descendent of William Paley’s Argument from Design (Paley 1803,)

    Eugenie Scott
    NCSE

    I pointed out more details in

    http://tinyurl.com/yqo3am

    The assessment you provide is clumsy, intellectually shallow, and simplistic.

  643. javascript Says:

    subson… The idea is not to try and change anyone’s mind… No one can do that but you alone. The point is to force change in the scientific community, that will put an end to the suppression of scientists who want the right, respect and funding to “scientifically” study I.D. WITHOUT the bigotry, conjecture, name calling, hatred and demeaning attitudes that you just once again so plainly put on display here for all to see. I have not once mentioned Jesus or anything whatsoever to do with a religion or faith and yet you jump at the opportunity to demean and belittle anything I’ve said by labeling me a “trooper for Jesus.” You have just proven the need for this movie… and YES, “me thinks you doth protest too much.” LOL… to say the least.

  644. DAVESCOT Says:

    Sal. Doesn’t ID need a theory first, before it can be explored? Doesn’t it need to make testable predictions? Doesn’t there need to be experiments about ID (Not handwaving around Darwinism can’t do this or that.. that’s not Pro ID anything).

    See you back at UD. I’ve gotta go fix Denyse’s chair lift.

  645. Jbagail Says:

    In response to “the integrity and merit of this movie has been under-cut when your producers LIED to interviewees on the nature of this movie” I have learned from a few bad experiences that PZ Myers cannot be trusted. He is a doctrinaire Darwin Fundamentalist who seems out to do what he can to suppress the rights of all Darwin Skeptics. He is also very unkind to those he disagrees with, as is obvious if you read his blog much. Also, if you read the blog at issue carefully, you will not see any evidence of lying, at least I could not find any. I have been interviewed many times by the media on this issue and, in my judgment, they were not fully honest, not even once, but in my experience their goal was only to slander Darwin skeptics in spite of stressing they planed to be fully fair. I am sure PZ Myers felt the goal was the same when he was interviewed and was shocked when he learned that their goal was to try to show the other side. This is something he does not want to happen. What Darwin skeptics want is a place at the table and what Doctrinaire Darwinists want is to not even allow us into the room. In a free society this will not work forever, especially in view of the fact that each new discovery, especially in molecular biology, creates more and more problems for Darwinism, as is obvious from the weak attempts on here to discredit ID.

  646. Richmond Lauman Says:

    Mr. Stein, I thought you were much smarter than this.

  647. Tom Simpson Says:

    From my understanding, “Expelled” is not about ID being a testable theory. It is about academic freedom. Would anyone here deny treatment from a Indian doctor if their life depended on it because he believed in multiple gods. How about if that same doctor worked at the university setting, should he/she be denied to work there because of his belief. That is the point that we are coming to. Yet the same people that think it is OK for Pinker and Ward Churchill to have academic freedom, do not support people with religious beliefs. Western atheism is as much a religion now as it is a philosophical view.

  648. John A. Davison Says:

    What happened to my message?

  649. voodoomage Says:

    Yeah, but you can study magnetism and electricity….
    You can see it happening here and now….NOT evolution.

  650. The Rowdy One Says:

    The mocking vitriol of those who believe evolution should not be critically thought about is very telling. If the evidence for evolution were so rock solid and irrefutable, there would be no need for the name calling and rants seen above. As fact, it would simply stand on its own. Those above who attack and mock in the posts above seem to be proving the very point Ben is making … and why a film like this was needed.

    When scientists, biologists, and others question and challenge evolution as a theory, that doesn’t represent an attack by religion on science. What you have are two different interpretations of the same scientific evidence.

    Again, it’s very telling when the Theory of Evolution is challenged and those who have determined evolution to be Fact feel the need to shout down those who seek to critically challenge it.

    Interestingly, the post above this equates evolution to gravity as a way to some how prove its infallibility. Gravity however has proven scientific laws attached to it; evolution, alas, has not.

    Hence, the debate … and why the Theory of Evolution should continue to be challenged, despite the rants of some.

  651. John A. Davison Says:

    Excuse me. I found it. Incidentally, I have been banned by the IDists as well. Apparently, even as a confirmed, baptized Roman Catholic, I am not “Christian” enough for them. They cater to Protestant Baptists!

    It is hard to believe isn’t it?

    I love it so!

    “Let my enemies devour each other.”
    Salvador Dali

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  652. Cory Schwartz Says:

    The bulk of the scientific evidence refutes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. This needs to be communicated to the public. It is a scientific issue, not a religious one. Both the archeological and biological record dispute Darwinism. The fact that so many people who have blogged on this site are unfamiliar with the scientific basis of this is exactly why Ben Stein’s film needs to be seen and heard.

  653. Graham Says:

    There is a deep philosophical question that none of us can answer. That is: Why is there order and not chaos? Although some scientists may argue it is not a valid question, most I think remain agnostic as to the answer to this question.

    The evidence points to the fact that consciousness is a product of this universe. This certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility of a conscious prime mover, but it doesn’t provide evidence for it either.

    If we can be honest then we would find that we are asking the same questions. As a geologist I would be delighted to find a fossil precambrian bunny rabbit, my reputation would be made. But I won’t hold my breath as the probability of this happenning based on all observations to date is negligable.

    The main reason for the science versus religion debate is not the honesty of scientific methodological naturalism, it is the intellectual dishonesty of religious phylosophical supernaturalism.

    More often than not, after demonstrating that philosophical naturalism is an assumption just like supernaturalism, religionists proceed to confuse phylosophical naturalism with the methodological naturalism of science and declare all bets are off.

    Science is based on empiricism, by definition it is the not the forum in which to put faith in subjective experience…that is for the phylosophy class.

    Scientists can certainly test the god hypothesis should they choose to try, but I think it is significant that rather than try, organisations like the Discovery Institute prefer to throw their money at public disinformation campaigns. I’d be very interested to see an independant search of the various genomes, including those of humans to discover if there is any code sequence that appears to have been tampered with from outside of the evolutionary process.

    How come I see scientists with tha SETI screen saver searching for extraterrestrial life in EM radiation patterns, but I don’t see fans of the Discovery Institute with an equivalent screen saver searching for evidence of intelligent design in the human genome sequence? I get the impression that they really are not that interested in evidence. Like this movie it is all a matter of culture for them and not a genuine interest in truth.

  654. Steven Carr Says:

    The people saying that the movie is about freedom of inquiry are quite right.

    People who believe in intelligent design are free to do research in that subject.

    But they can’t do any, because they can’t think of any research to do.

  655. Brian Barkley Says:

    The pro-evolution responses thusfar is positive proof that they care not for truth. They wouldn’t admit to the truth if it bit them on the rearend. They’re taking a stance and circling the wagons with a closed mind and, more importantly, a closed heart.

    That the pro-evolution people are being critical of a movie they have not seen, and that is six months away from being released, is proof of their rebellion, not toward Ben Stein, but toward their creator.

    It will be an eternal tragedy to all of those to do not waiver from this position.

    Like the people of New Orleans who refused to leave their homes because they refused to believe the truth, the pro-evolutionists will ultimately meet their eternal destiny. Like the Nazis and others, they are dead sincere, but dead wrong.

  656. Agiel Intelligence Says:

    #629; Steve Folz

    Mutts. Mix-breed animals.

    If you’re referring to making entirely new animals and entirely new species you’re getting the wrong end of evolution.

    If an evolutionist is trying to tell you the animal that comes out the other side is completely different to the animals that breed it, THEY have the wrong end of evolutionism and need to re-check the meaning they’re fighting.

  657. Javy Says:

    To all antitheist comments! What a way to prove the thesis of the movie!

  658. Andrew Says:

    1. ID makes no falsifiable claims, it is not testible and inspires no actual research.
    2. There are reams of empiracle evidence that ID’s claims are false, that tests of ID have failed, and that its research findings are mischaracterized as supporting ID.

  659. Jediforhire Says:

    By the mere fact that all these comments are mostly negative tells me this movie will work. How can advocates of one theory (evolution) criticize another theory of intelligent design? These God-haters are simply wouded little muffins who cry because someone told them that they had to be accountable to someone besides themselves. The church has it wrong in alot of areas but don’t shoot the messenger. The very fact that atheists seeth at even the notion of a God tells me their is a God barring any further proof. Why hate something or someone or in some atheists words want to eradicate from the planet entire faith systems? To all these pompous, self inflated atheists who want to save america from faith or God by discounting the opinions and faith based beliefs like my own, I say good luck. We’re not going away. In fact, keep it up, it makes our resolve stronger.

    Jediforhire

  660. jb Says:

    John said:

    Accredited Christian institutions that teach evolution, teach the subject in classrooms. However, they do not teach evolution during Mass or Sunday Prayer. Which they should be required to do if they attempt to push creationism in science classes.

    No need, John. There already exists a Religion of Evolution, complete with circuit riding evangelists, formal rituals, parables, Holy Writ, child indoctrination, prayer beads, creation mythology, ‘love offerings’ and for sale books and videos.

    I’m quite sure they’d welcome your monetary contributions and wouldn’t mind at all if you were to show their videos in public school science classrooms.

  661. ermine Says:

    Javascript -

    Many of those points in that paragraphless spew have already been soundly debunked, both here in this thread and in the talk.origins and other links. Your very first copy-and-paste (is that really the best you can do??) was torn to pieces, and yet you blithely repost it again without a single rebuttal.

    Look at this crap!

    1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.

    This was answered on talk.origins AND here. The second law of thermodynamcs says no such thing! And how does this in any way offer positive evidence for ID? It doesn’t, it’s just a poke at the ToE. Hell, even the Answers In Genesis site you listed in your cut-and-paste lists this as a stupid argument, one not to be used by anyone with any sense. FAIL!


    2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself

    The laws of probability make it millions to one that anyone will win the lottery, and yet someone seems to win it EVERY TIME. Your misunderstanding of the ‘laws’ of probability is not our problem. Again to fail to make any response to the previous rebuttal here AND on talk.origins. Again this contains not one iota of positive evidence for ID. Another useless poke at the ToE.

    3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes
    4. The law of information is absolute proof

    Care to give us a link to where these ‘laws’ are mentioned in any real science? You made them up! Why should we give any attention to an obvious liar?

    Once again you’ve given us exactly what I/we said you would - Obvious lies, pointers to christian apologets sites, and attacks on the ToE without any evidence whatsoever FOR your own ‘theory’.

    This movie? Exactly the same sort of thing. It’s obvious that the ID crowd could get the money to do at least a couple of basic studies if they wanted to, at least one institution advertised an offer to fund any ID research they could find, but didn’t get a single response. No one is keeping them from publishing anything!

    Gonzales? He wasn’t denied tenure because of his views on ID, he was denied because he hadn’t published but a handful of papers in 15 years, and he’d brought in NO new funding in all that time. THESE are things that tenure boards look for in prospective professors. If he’s not going to bring in any funding, he’s going to be more of a burden than he’s worth.

    Can you rebut that, or will you just repeat the same tired claims? I know where my money is going..

    ‘Teach the controversy’ BS? That’s funny, one of my links pointed to -exactly- why that’s no good. The Kitzmiller case in Dover discussed that point in detail. ‘Teach the controversy’ is ONLY brought up for Evolution, not any of the other theories that are equally unproven. None of the lesson plans involving ‘teach the controversy’ actually do that at all, they just take more swiped at the ToE without ever following them up with the answers the questions raise. They are once again nothing more than a thinly-disguised attack by religion, an attempt to get a wedge into the door around the seperation of church and state.

    So every one of the points raised in this first copy and paste were answered, and your response is to simply repost them, even less legibly than the first time. That’s just about what I expected.

    You have provided not a single link to any actual science. The links you’ve provided are all obvious christian apologetics sites. Not a very scientific response, is it?

    Thank you for answering exactly as predicted. Until you can actually raise some point that I can’t answer by pointing at the Index of debunked creationist claims on talk.origins, you’re not worth answering again.

    Ermine!

  662. Pondering God Says:

    I guess the world is still flat, the sun revolves around us and Constantine was right by forming his version of the Roman Catholic church to push only ideas that help his control.

    hmm sad you would take up such a cause Ben, when you could be working to get our wacked out Government out of office to actually help people. Teaching Mythos in school is not my idea of higher learning.

  663. ck1 Says:

    According to the “RESOURCES” section of this website, there is an effort to recruit individuals to help in the campaign to introduce ID into public schools. But this entire recruitment effort is focused on students. Not parents or scientists or educators.

    How are students best qualified to make curriculum decisions about what topics should be covered in science class? Why are scientists/parents/educators only asked to help in recruiting students?

    So the plan is to pit students against professional scientists to argue what is and what is not science?

    OKayyy…

  664. subson Says:

    Ben Stein…great work. While the majority of the American population believe in a creator God, polls show that very few biologists or biochemists do (less than 4%). What could be clearer evidence of discrimination, if not downright conspiracy?

    Champion of fairplay that you are, I’d like you to consider a future documentary exploring the systematic culling of short people from basketball teams from the high school level through the professional ranks! This is certainly no fluke and, in fact, my own research shows that there’s a roughly 1/10^17598 chance that this effect would appear by purely random processes!

  665. Merri Ellen Says:

    Wow, how do seemingly intelligent men and women look at scientific data and insist on saying that they came from monkeys? Well, it’s simple, really. Just think of your rebellious teenager.

    Just look at the data on the complexity of the human mind. To say, that it was a mistake with no purpose, well, it may remind you of a rebellious teenager saying that they don’t have to listen to authority. They want all the control with no responsibility.

    Quite simply. Since the beginning of time, humankind refuses to yield to God. Instead it digs in with its heels- kicking and screaming like a toddler’s temper tantrum. Have you ever tried to reason with a tantruming toddler? Exactly. Let that same toddler grow up with no regard for authority and let her get her scientific degree, and there’s still no wisdom or understanding.

    As the non-creationist information theorist Hubert Yockey observed over 20 years ago (and he has not revised his opinion since):

    ‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. (He admits that there’s no evidence for evolution).

    …One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’

    So straight from an evolutionist, he admits that evolution has never been proven. In fact, there’s more evidence to support the creation story! Ouch, that one hurts the evolutionists.

    The truth is: God created us (science reveals this) and history (http://www.everystudent.com/au/features/bible.html) tells us he loves us that he sent his son to take our place for the price of our rebellion (That would be Jesus if you haven’t yet heard). What a bonus! We have a purpose AND we are loved! You mean we aren’t mistakes? You mean we don’t have to act like animals? You mean we aren’t worthless? Wow!

    To learn more: http://www.everystudent.com/au/features/bible.html

    For those of you who are scientifically minded:

    There’s an interesting report entitled ‘The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models’ and can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf

    Reference

    Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

  666. Charly Gardel Says:

    I am now thoroughly convinced, and renounce the errors of my ways. Intelligent Design is so worthy of consideration that I will adopt it in my own discipline as well, which is History.

    From now on I will simply tell my students that the United States became an independent country because an Intelligent Designer made it that way. Slavery used to be common in the USA because an Intelligent Designer wanted it that way, and when he thought it should end, it just did. The Great Depression? The Designer’s will.

    Wow. I bet I can teach all of human history in just two lectures! Evidence? Bah! The cause of everything and the answer of every question is simply “it was made that way by an Intelligent Designer.” My students will be so grateful that they don’t have to do no more book learnin’!

    Thinking was always so hard! Thanks, Ben Stein, for showing us all that it is no longer necessary!

    (Oh, and if any of these opportunities to make money by selling your soul come up, and you can’t do it yourself, I’d love to get in on the action!)

  667. go ben Says:

    these critics are a waste of time. they live on talk origins, and wikipedia all day. I am sorry people, any time you use wikipedia in an argument, you defeated yourself by using an edible document as a credible source, then you claim Ben is misinformed? As for all these people who are saying “who is losing tenure for belief in ID”, do a search on Guillermo Gonzalez. He is well recognized for his work on habitable zones, and is losing tenure for supporting ID. I love how all these reviewers insist that Ben is misinformed, but then give their opinion without any backing… Great way to make your points guys. If you dont like the movie dont watch it. When I see all these pathetic complaints it makes this movie look even better. If you were so confident you wouldn’t worry about this movie or take hours putting quotes from editable documents or talkorigins.com. Get a girlfriend or a job or something!

  668. Jon Says:

    Actually Merri Ellen,

    Long before your God was made up, there was Zeus, he created us. And even before that, there was some other nonsense that created us.

    No one is saying we came from monkeys, like many people that have replied, you need to go back to high school biology. You don’t even understand the basics. Maybe this is why its so frustrating arguing with some ID supporters.

    lets now point out your flawed logic. First, you thought that biology is about proof. Its not, thats not how science works (if you scroll up you can read more about that). Second, you thought that just because an evolutionist said that there’s more evidence one way, that THAT way is correct (aka, you appealed to authority). Finally, he didn’t even admit what you suggested.

    You disagree, fine. However, if you expect Intelligent Design to be taught in a science class, it needs to be playing the rules of science, and as many people have pointed out, it just is not.

    This is all a bunch of crap. If you want Intelligent design to be taught in the science room, then you should also want Astrology to be taught in the Astronomy class, and Numerology in the math class. It’s as simple as that.

  669. Steve_C Says:

    We don’t come from monkeys.

    We share a common ancestor.

    Why is that so hard to understand.

    There is no god. IF there is… where’s the evidence?

  670. Tom antonetti Says:

    I love how the self proclaimed internet intellulectuals attack you. Sigh….What would science do without us Christians. trust me no one would dare say anything to you face to face. This is the internet

  671. John A. Davison Says:

    The only person I am interested in reaching is Ben Stein. What does it take?

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  672. subson Says:

    #665…Quoting scientists out of context seems to be an avocation for creationists and IDers. Here’s Yockey’s website, run by his daughter: http://www.cynthiayockey.com/pages/1/index.htm .

    He does argue, quite logically, that the origin of life is ultimately unsolvable (we can’t expect to find primordial RNA/protein replicators embedded in 3.5 billion year old rocks), but you’ll see that he’s strongly anti-ID, and strongly pro-Darwin.

  673. Jacob Evilsizor Says:

    It is truly a hopeless pursuit trying to get evolutionists to respond to the actual issues (such as the ones I presented). It’s like trying to get liberals to stop bashing Bush for one minute and present a better course of action. There HAS been a plethora of arguments from authority, dodging the issues, name-calling, ad hominem attacks, handwaving, conjecture, character assassination, arguments from ignorance, and arguments from personal incredulity given here by evolutionists, but nothing of real substance or consequence to the relevant questions raised by creationists.

    As many times as I have tried to debate evolutionists online, this seems to be the extent of the response that I get; that and several links to talkorigins webpage. Hello?! I have links to answersingenesis’ webpage which has several more qualified PhD scientists (many graduated from secular universities) than talkorigins; so why should your obviously biased webpage overrule mine? This is the point of the ad hominem attacks though; you are attacking our worldview and thus delude yourself into thinking that this alone disqualifies us from challenging your assumptions because you consider people who question and openly criticize your beliefs to be inferior. Try to think for yourselves just once, and answer the questions please. It’s okay to use websites as a reference, but don’t just copy and paste nonsense from talkorigins. At least give us the impression you have a clue what you are talking about by critically analyzing the points that are made refuting your beliefs and answering in your own words.

    The thing that I don’t get, is that if there is so much evidence for evolution, why then can you not respond to my valid points; and then in turn, I can refute your observations and present reciprocal evidence, and so-on-and-so-forth? Your method of argumentation is subsequent to a dictatorship mentality; where opposing viewpoints are not just discouraged, they are rabidly squelched by elitist ideologues who cannot afford to allow open discussion and critical thinking. It’s very much like Lysenkoism in many regards.

    As frustrating as it is, it does comfort me knowing that what I believe–although not supported within government institutions and funded by our tax dollars–is true, and is actually supported by the evidence. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, about evolution. Your refusal to present any evidence for evolution, or a logical response to my valid points, is confirmation of the complete lack-thereof. Do yourselves a favor all you Darwinians: actually study the observable evidence and consider opposing ideas and contradictions to evolution instead of just accepting everything on faith. Okay, now you may proceed with the content-free personal attacks and question-dodging…

  674. Tom Aquines Says:

    Science is Inherently a Tentative Activity

    In a famous cartoon of one scientist talking to another, the caption says “What is most depressing is the realization that everything we believe will be disproved in a few years.” I hope that is not true of my work in quantum chemistry. I don’t think it will be true, but there is some truth to this in that science is inherently a tentative activity. We come to understandings that are subjected to, at least, some further refinement.

    Somebody who obviously not an admirer of the Christian of Faraday and Maxwell said:

    “The religious decisions of Faraday and Maxwell were inelegant, but effective evasions of social problems that distracted and destroyed the qualities of the works of many of their ablest contemporaries.”

    What he is saying is that because they were Christians, Maxwell and Faraday did not become alcoholics nor womanizers nor social climbers as their able colleagues appeared to do.

    Organic Chemists

    William Henry Perkin

    I need to put a little organic chemistry in here so that my colleagues on the organic side will know that I paid a little attention to them also. William Henry Perkin represents perhaps the first great synthetic organic chemist. Discoverer of the first synthetic dye and the person for whom the Perkin transactions of the Royal Society of London is named, Perkin sold his highly profitable business and retired to private research and church missionary ventures at the age of 35 in the year 1873.

    George Stokes

    We can read about George Stokes in any issue of the Journal of Chemical Physics, which is the best journal in my field. In recent issues, Coherent Anti–Stokes Romin Spectroscopy (CARS) has been a subject of discussion. He is one of the great pioneers of spectroscopy, study of fluids and fluorescence. He held one of the most distinguished chairs in the academic world for more than fifty years, the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge—a position held by Sir Isaac Newton and currently by Stephen Hawking. He was also president of the Royal Society of London.

    Stokes wrote on other topics besides organic chemistry, including the topic of natural theology. Concerning the issue of miracles, Stokes said:

    Admit the existence of a personal God and the possibility of miracles follows at once. If the laws of nature are carried out in accordance with his will, he who willed them may will their suspension….

    William Thomson

    William Thomson was later known as Lord Kelvin. Thomson was a fantastic scientist. He is recognized as the leading physical scientist and the greatest science teacher of his time. His early papers on electromagnetism and heat provide enduring proof of his scientific genius. He was a Christian with a strong faith in God and the Bible. He said:

    Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.

    J. J. Thomson

    In 1897, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron. He was the Cavendish professor of physics at Cambridge University.

    The old Cavendish laboratory sits in the middle of Cambridge campus. So much was discovered there that it was turned into a museum. A total of fifteen Nobel Prizes resulted from work done there. Inscribed over its door is a Latin phrase “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” [A new] Cavendish laboratory was rebuilt out in the country. However, it also has this sentence from the book of Proverbs written over the door, but in English rather than Latin.

    J. J. Thomson made this statement in Nature,

    “In the distance tower still higher [scientific] peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

    Theoretical Chemist

    Charles Coulson

    Charles Coulson is one of the three principal architects of the molecular orbital theory. He probably would have received the Nobel prize but he did not pass the first test. The first test to get the Nobel prize is to live to be 65 years old. The second test is to have done something very important when you were about 30 years old. Coulson did very significant work when he was in his thirties, but he died at 64, thus disqualifying himself from the Nobel prize.

    Coulson, a professor of mathematics at Oxford University for many years was also a Methodist lay minister. He was a spokesman for Christians in academic science and the author of the term “God of the gaps” theology.

    From the biographical memoir of the Royal Society after Charles Coulson’s death, we read a description of his conversion to faith in Jesus Christ in 1930 as a 20–year–old student at Cambridge University. Coulson testified:

    “There were some ten of us and together we sought for God and together we found Him. I learned for the first time in my life that God was my friend. God became real to me, utterly real. I knew Him and could talk with Him as I never imagined it before and these prayers were the most glorious moment of the day. Life had a purpose and that purpose coloured everything.”

    Coulson’s experience is fairly similar to my own at Berkeley. It would be nice if I could say there was a thunderclap from heaven and God spoke to me in audible terms and that is why I became a Christian. However, it did not happen that way, but I did have this same perception Coulson is talking about—this sense of purpose and more of a vividness to the colors of life.

    The successor to Coulson as theoretical chemistry professor at Oxford, was Norman March, a good friend of mine. He as well is a Methodist lay minister.

    Robert Griffiths, a member of our U.S. Academy of Sciences, Otto Stern professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon University received one of the most coveted awards of the American Physical Society in 1984 on his work in physical mechanics and thermodynamics. Physics Today said he is an evangelical Christian who is an amateur theologian and who helps teach a course on Christianity and science.

    He recently said:

    “If we need an atheist for a debate, I’d go to the philosophy department—the physics department isn’t much use.”

    At Berkeley University, among 55 chemistry professors, we only had one who was willing to openly identify himself as an atheist, my good friend Bob, with whom I still have many discussions about spiritual things.
    Richard Bube

    For many years, Bube was the chairman of the department of materials science at Stanford and carried out foundational work on solid state physics concerning semiconductors. He said:

    “There are proportionately as many atheistic truck drivers as there are atheistic scientists.”

    John Suppe

    Member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences and noted professor of geology at Princeton, expert in the are of tectonics, began a long search for God as a Christian faculty member. He began attending services in the Princeton Chapel, reading the Bible and other Christian books. He committed Himself to Christ and had his first real experience of Christian fellowship in Taiwan, where he is on a fellowship. He states:

    “Some non–scientist Christians, when they meet a Christian, will call on to debate evolution. That is definitely the wrong thing to do. If you know what problems scientists have in their lives—pride, selfish ambition, jealousy—that’s exactly the kind of thing Jesus Christ said that He came to resolve by His death on the cross. Science is full of people with very strong egos who get into conflict with each other. The gospel is the same for scientists as it is for anyone. Evolution is basically a red herring; if scientists are looking for meaning in their lives, it won’t be found in evolution. I have never met a non–Christian who brought up evolution with me.”

    Charles H. Townes

    My candidate for the scientist of the century is Charlie Townes. (Of course, he is a friend of mine and there could be some bias here.) He did something fairly significant when he discovered the laser. He almost got a second Nobel Prize for the first observation of an interstellar molecule. He has written his autobiography, entitled Making Waves (a pun referring to the wavelike phenomenon of lasers).

    An excerpt from his life’s story:

    “You may well ask, “Where does God come into this,” to me, that’s almost a pointless question. If you believe in God at all, there is no particular “where”—He is always there, everywhere….To me, God is personal yet omnipresent. A great source of strength, He has made an enormous difference to me.”

    At eighty [years old], Charlie Townes still has a very active research program at Berkeley.
    Arthur Schawlow

    Schawlow won a Nobel Prize in physics, 1981, serves as physics professor at Stanford and identifies himself as a Christian. He makes this unusual statement which I think could only be made by a scientist:

    “We are fortunate to have the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which tells so much about God in widely accessible, human terms.”

    Allan Sandage

    The world’s greatest observational cosmologist, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution, was called the Grand Old Man of cosmology by The New York Times when he won a $1 million prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He said:

    “The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science. For that, one must turn to the Scriptures.”

    In one book, Sandage was asked the classic question, “Can one be a scientist and a Christian?” and he replied, “Yes, I am.” Ethnically Jewish, Sandage became a Christian at the age of fifty—if that doesn’t prove that it’s never too late, I don’t know what does!

    This is the man who is responsible for our best values for the age of the universe: something like 14 billion years. Yet, when this brilliant cosmologist is asked to explain how one can be a scientist and a Christian, he doesn’t turn to astronomy, but rather to biology:

    “The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance…I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order and each of its organisms is simply too well put together.”

    William Phillips

    Now in physics, you can be a lot younger and get the [Nobel] Prize. Phillips is not even 50 years old and he’s got it already. His citation was for the development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light. At a press conference following the announcement of his winning the Nobel Prize, he said:

    “God has given us an incredibly fascinating world to live in and explore.”

    According to The New York Times, Phillips “formed and sings in the gospel choir at Fairhaven United Methodist Church, a multi–racial congregation of about 300 in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He also teaches Sunday School and leads Bible studies.” If you read further in that article, you find out that every Saturday afternoon, he drives with his wife into downtown Washington, D.C. to pick up a blind, 87–year–old African American lady to take her grocery shopping and then to dinner.
    David Cole & Francis Collins

    Since my area of expertise is right between chemistry and physics, I cannot speak as well for the field of biological sciences. However, my longtime colleague, Berkeley biochemist David Cole and cystic fibrosis pioneer, Francis Collins—director of the Human Genome Project, the largest scientific project ever undertaken—are both well–known as outspoken Christians.

  675. Tom Aquines Says:

    Science is Inherently a Tentative Activity

    In a famous cartoon of one scientist talking to another, the caption says “What is most depressing is the realization that everything we believe will be disproved in a few years.” I hope that is not true of my work in quantum chemistry. I don’t think it will be true, but there is some truth to this in that science is inherently a tentative activity. We come to understandings that are subjected to, at least, some further refinement.

    Somebody who obviously not an admirer of the Christian of Faraday and Maxwell said:

    “The religious decisions of Faraday and Maxwell were inelegant, but effective evasions of social problems that distracted and destroyed the qualities of the works of many of their ablest contemporaries.”

    What he is saying is that because they were Christians, Maxwell and Faraday did not become alcoholics nor womanizers nor social climbers as their able colleagues appeared to do.

    Organic Chemists

    William Henry Perkin

    I need to put a little organic chemistry in here so that my colleagues on the organic side will know that I paid a little attention to them also. William Henry Perkin represents perhaps the first great synthetic organic chemist. Discoverer of the first synthetic dye and the person for whom the Perkin transactions of the Royal Society of London is named, Perkin sold his highly profitable business and retired to private research and church missionary ventures at the age of 35 in the year 1873.

    George Stokes

    We can read about George Stokes in any issue of the Journal of Chemical Physics, which is the best journal in my field. In recent issues, Coherent Anti–Stokes Romin Spectroscopy (CARS) has been a subject of discussion. He is one of the great pioneers of spectroscopy, study of fluids and fluorescence. He held one of the most distinguished chairs in the academic world for more than fifty years, the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge—a position held by Sir Isaac Newton and currently by Stephen Hawking. He was also president of the Royal Society of London.

    Stokes wrote on other topics besides organic chemistry, including the topic of natural theology. Concerning the issue of miracles, Stokes said:

    Admit the existence of a personal God and the possibility of miracles follows at once. If the laws of nature are carried out in accordance with his will, he who willed them may will their suspension….

    William Thomson

    William Thomson was later known as Lord Kelvin. Thomson was a fantastic scientist. He is recognized as the leading physical scientist and the greatest science teacher of his time. His early papers on electromagnetism and heat provide enduring proof of his scientific genius. He was a Christian with a strong faith in God and the Bible. He said:

    Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.

    J. J. Thomson

    In 1897, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron. He was the Cavendish professor of physics at Cambridge University.

    The old Cavendish laboratory sits in the middle of Cambridge campus. So much was discovered there that it was turned into a museum. A total of fifteen Nobel Prizes resulted from work done there. Inscribed over its door is a Latin phrase “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” [A new] Cavendish laboratory was rebuilt out in the country. However, it also has this sentence from the book of Proverbs written over the door, but in English rather than Latin.

    J. J. Thomson made this statement in Nature,

    “In the distance tower still higher [scientific] peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

  676. Resolved Controversy Says:

    Brian,

    Thank you for treating me as a thinking person. Yes, I have access to a University Library and the Internet. When I return to my University Library and re-read about ‘gene doubling’ and ‘mutation’, what library section will I find hard data on specific creatures that have been shown by genetic sequencing to have evolved? Is this a fair question to ask a Scientist? Where is his laboratory data that shows proof of his or her theories? What data backs up his or her claims? Can we see it please?

    I have seen virus data. I am looking for living creatures, not viruses. I keep running into Biologists who claim that Evolution of this type happens all the time. But, I cannot find their data.

    There is a reason why Physicists do not say, “The Theory of Gravity is as true as the Theory of Evolution.” Can you guess why? Yes, DATA! Can you suggest a section of my university library I can turn to get this gene by gene change sequence from one named creature to the next?

    To Illustrate, Can I get evolving gene data from the volcanic sea colonies that shows who evolved from who… genetically… not just be hand waving shape arguments? Do they migrate from volcanic food source to another or are they independently generated by spontaneous chemical accident? If they migrate, who is the parent of whom? What evolved from whom? Genetic arguments only please. Where can I get this data? Especially if, Evolution thinks it is favorable to its Theories. That is just the sort of data a critic needs to see and even be allowed to retest. I can show you how to retest the Theory of Gravity if you need to. Or, perhaps there is data for a longer standing claim. Both the three toed facuna and the fused toe horse are living; Genetic data on them is obtainable. Can Biology show me the exact gene by gene evolution that changed the toe structure?
    Let me illustrate the detail by talking about the intensity of data the Theory of Gravity did and must continue to gather to survive as a Theory of Physics.

    Newton stopped with gravity measures of the moon. His critics demanded more. The moons of other planets where measured next, the orbits of the planets were worked on. Einstein even got a boost by solving the complexity of Mercury’s orbit. Alas for Star Trek fans, no perturbing planet “Vulcan” was needed after Einstein was finished. But, my point is that this advance took place because of the mountains of data on gravity that have been measured. Eignstien even provided an update on the Theory of Gravity itself. So, the collection of genetic change data actually helps science; it is not a demand of fools. But, what if the Theory of Gravity should fall under the weight of measurement? What them? We shall have a better theory due the data. Physics does not fear challenge to its theories. Why does Biology? The newer theories must fit the data collected. What is the final harm? None! Only better science. If Biology actually collected the data, what does it have to fear? Unless, it forgot to obey the scientific method… and collect data?

    So, where is the data? How has Biology been answering its critics with hard fought, directly measured gene data? What section of the University Library should I turn to get it? When can I see it?

    Biology has to stop propping up its credibility by appeals to other sciences. Can you show me exactly how much data Biology has and where to find it? I know that some astrophysical data from Super Nova 1987A will take 300 years to show up. I will never live long enough to see actual proof that the supernova will become a pulsar. Is Biology like this, will I have to wait 300 year for the off chance of measuring a Biological measurement? Can you just tell me where in the University Library, at what institute, where on line, I can find this data?

    Thank you for any time you spend helping me find such data. With help like this, Biology becomes a better science. If there is a gap in data, maybe the persistence of critics is the negative reinforcement Biology needs to return to the data collecting ways of good Science.

    In reponse to the request for genetic cascade data,
    Brian Said: August 25th, 2007 at 7:33 pm

    Look up ‘gene doubling’ and ‘mutation’. The synthesis of these two concepts should answer your question. Do you have access to a university library?

  677. Tom Aquines Says:

    Guillermo Gonzales is an accomplished scholar of the highest degree, contrary to what
    #661 ermine sez: “Gonzales? He wasn’t denied tenure because of his views on ID, he was denied because he hadn’t published but a handful of papers in 15 years.”

    TO which Tom Aquines sez: I wish these members of the church of Scientism would stop with their “citation bluffing” and claiming a corner on truth.

    From http://www.evolutionnews.org/news/, we read…

    A distinguished science professor at a major American university has weighed in on Iowa State University’s denial of tenure to pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, expressing astonishment at the result. According to Dr. Robert J. Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University:

    “I went to the Web of Science citation index which is the authority on citations. Only journal papers, not conference papers, are indexed. There are lots of Prof. Gonzalez’s papers listed. My jaw dropped when I saw one of his papers has 153 citations and 139 on another. I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen more tenure cases than the Pope has Cardinals. This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure. The number of citations varies with discipline and autocitations are included in the tally, but this is a LOT of citations for an Assistant Professor. A lot.”

  678. Rich Says:

    Merri Ellen:

    “Wow, how do seemingly intelligent men and women look at scientific data and insist on saying that they came from monkeys?”

    It doesn’t say that all. Thanks for showing your ignorance. It may say Man and monkeys share a common ancestor..

    http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/phillytree.gif

  679. javascript Says:

    Ermine… dear, over stressed, scared little Ermine. My but we have a hot head don’t we? Thank you… thank you for proving my point completely. My point was not to say that ID had all the correct scientific answers to life… and neither do the evolutionists by the way. My point was that ID is not simply a faith based view as you and so many others on this blog so ignorantly continue to proclaim. I don’t have to go toe to toe with you on scientific theories. I have only one point to make and you have more than helped to prove that point. You continue to demonstrate the mean spirited, hateful, bigotry that exists towards a legitimate scientific study. THAT my friend is criminal. Keep it up Ermine… The more people see and read the poison spewed from bigoted, chain-locked minds like yours, the more likely this film will be a block-buster success next year. ;-)

  680. subson Says:

    For the sake of argument, assume that Gonzalez has done good science and was denied tenure merely for his religious beliefs. I’m guessing that Stein is gonna dig up a few other cases, and infer a grand-scale conspiracy against creationists and IDers…shades of a right-wing Michael Moore wannabe.

  681. Brain Says:

    guitarzan Said:

    August 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
    I believe that a tornado, given enough time and materials, can swirl around in a junkyard and put together a Mercedes-Benz. (p.s. I am also an evolutionist).

    Is that a new shiny one or a little bit smashed up one ?

  682. subson Says:

    Here’s a simple experiment that might help to confirm ID: engineer a non-lethal mutation that interferes with some useful process. Then show that function-restoring back-mutations are more unlikely than would be expected via chance. This would tend to confirm ID’s notion that there’s some sort of entropic/kolmolgorov barrier to new information being created in a string of DNA.

    Will they do the experiments? No. Anyone capable of actually doing the engineering knows damn well the result would be uninteresting.

  683. Rich Says:

    Javascript: Whilst full of rhetoric, your posts seem scientifically vacuous. Are they a fair representation of ID?

    JAD: I love it so!

  684. Rheinhard Says:

    Once more for our supposedly “conservative” friends:

    IDists are free to perform ANY RESEARCH THEY WISH.

    Universities and Laboratories are free to decide WHETHER THEY WISH TO HIRE THEM OR NOT.

    Why are fundams arguing that we need “affirmative action” for Creationists?

  685. DAVESCOT Says:

    Javascript - Do you invent laws often?

    Tragic.

  686. Ermine Says:

    Javascript, you’re an idiot. You don’t have to go toe-to-toe with me on scientific theories because you haven’t GOT one. Calling you on that point isn’t bigotry, it’s common sense.

    Criminal? DO tell me what law I’m breaking by pointing you to the answers and stating my opinion on a public website?

    The pro-ID people on this thread have so often claimed a religious connection to the theory of ID that I don’t HAVE to. Tot up their responses and see what percentage are basing their responses on religion. Waddya know?

    As I said, you’ve refused to provide any science, the thing you keep insisting that ID is based on. By now it’s plenty clear to me, also that you’re not willing to actually discuss any of your disagreements. I’ve pointed you to a huge list of answers to your claims, and you’ve responded to not a single one. I have nothing more to say to someone with their fingers jammed in both ears.

    Let’s see, you’ve just called me mean-spirited, hateful, a bigot, over-stressed, scared, and a poison-spewing criminal. And *I’M* the one with a ‘chain-locked’ mind? And yet somehow MY message is wrong because I’m too angry with my delivery?

    Ah well. You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can’t MAKE him think.

  687. CRasch Says:

    Javascript,

    Do you even know what science is? Do you understand the process of the Scientific Method. Unlike ID evolution has enormous amount of evidence to support it. Why is it that the discovery institute who funds this movie, spend money on politics and propaganda instead of scientific research. If you want ID to be taken seriously, it has the follow the same methodical process as any other accepted scientific theory.
    ID is based on the ASSUMPTION of a designer exists.
    Javascript, what do you define as designed and not designed?

  688. subson Says:

    I love it…you’ve got Javascript, YECers, Dembski’s pitbull, Ermine, and various bible-thumpers all going at it on this thread. Still waiting for Muslims and Panspermists.

    Reminds me of Dover. While Behe was doing his damndest to keep a straight face and state that ID has nothing to do with religion, you had teary-eyed protesters outside the courtroom, wailing at the injustice of locking Jesus (who died for our sins) out of science textbooks.

  689. Steven Carr Says:

    What persecution of ID advocates

    Sternberg says ‘Although not himself an intelligent design (ID) theorist or an advocate of the same, Sternberg thought the subject worthy of discussion.

    According to his supporters, Sternberg isn’t even an advocate of ID….

  690. John A. Davison Says:

    Exactly at what point did the Creator or Creators transfer the power to create over to that which had been created? My answer is NEVER. The entire phylogenetic sequence was planned in advance, unfolded on schedule, and is now complete. There is no compelling reason to believe that any contemporary organism will ever become anything substantially different from what it is now. All that remains is extinction. Just as ontogeny ends irreversibly with the death of the individual, so does phylogeny terminate with the extinction of the species.

    “Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
    Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134

    “Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory.”
    Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organsims, page 245, the entire sentence in italics for emphasis.

    The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) satisfies those criteria.

    The tychogenetic Darwinian model is a total disaster. It fails expermental verifiction, it can never be reconciled with an ascending fossil record and it is nothing more than the necessary postulate of a “born that way,” “dyed-in-the-wool,” congenitally incurable malaise known as Darwnism, the most naive, infantile, intellectually irresponsible notion ever conjured up by a pathologically overactive human imagination.

    It is hard to believe isn’t it?

    I love it so!

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  691. bernarda Says:

    Ben, I can’t wait for your sequel, “The Flat Earth”.

  692. The Navel of the Internet » Blog Archive » Win Ben Stein’s Integrity Says:

    […] Stein is playing up the victimization angle on a blog post for the movie, and is soundly whacked by commentors for his […]

  693. Tom Aquines Says:

    Why Are There So Few Atheists Among Physicists?

    Many scientists are considering the facts before them. They say things like:

    The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions.
    —Paul Davies

    In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that produced life like ours are immense.
    —Stephen Hawking

    A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.
    —Fred Hoyle

    As the Apostle Paul said in his epistle to the Romans:

    Since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.

    Why the Perception of Ongoing Battle?

    The last question I want to ask, then, is this, Why do so many people still think that there is an ongoing battle between science and Christianity? I don’t deny that there is an ongoing discussion. But I think the facts are that, what you think about God doesn’t depend on whether you have a Ph.D. in the sciences.

    Why would some people like to think that this supposed battle rages on? At least in part, I honestly feel it is a misrepresentation. Let me give you just one example. Andrew Dickson White was the first president of Cornell University, the first university in the United States formed on strictly secular principles. (All others had been founded on a Christian basis.) He wrote a very famous book, The History of the Warfare of Science With Theology, in 1896. An excerpt:

    [John] Calvin took the lead in his commentary on Genesis, by condemning all who asserted that the earth is not the center of the universe. He clinched the matter by the usual reference to the first verse of the 93rd Psalm and asked, “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?”

    (This is not making John Calvin look very good!) What’s the real story behind this? Alistair McGrath, Brampton Lecturer at Oxford University and perhaps the greatest living scholar on Calvin, has recently written an authoritative biography of Calvin, in which he goes into question with great detail:

    This assertion of Calvin is slavishly repeated by virtually every science writer on the theme of religion and science, such as Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy. Yet it may be stated categorically that Calvin wrote no such words in his Genesis commentary and expressed no such sentiments in any of his known writings. The assertion that he did is to be found characteristically unsubstantiated in the writings of the nineteenth century….

    It would be fair to ask what Calvin really thought of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory of the solar system, and the answer is that we don’t know. He probably didn’t even know about him—Copernicus was not exactly a household name in France or Switzerland in 1520. But in his preface of his translation of the New Testament into French, Calvin wrote:

    The whole point of Scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and, having come to know Him with all that this implies, we should come to a halt and not expect to learn more.

    I hope that I have given you a flavor of the history of science. Those of you who have taken a freshman chemistry or physics course will surely find many of these people familiar. I also hope I have given you enough evidence that you will never again believe that it is impossible to be a scientist and a Christian.

  694. Brian Barkley Says:

    If evolution is true, and I.D. is untrue, then we are all cosmic accidents. Why would an accident care about anything? Why do pro-evolutionists care if I.D. is taught is schools, or why would they display anger about a movie they have not seen in an internet blog? Perhaps they are proving that I.D. is true, and that there is purpose and meaning in God created life afterall.

  695. Keith Says:

    Hey Ben,

    I’m looking forward to it. I’m sure this will not be a popular career move, so I appreciate that you’re willing to go out on a limb like this.

  696. DAC Says:

    “Get a girlfriend or a job or something!” from “Go Ben” (comment 667) is probably the best advice you can give a Darwinist.

  697. X-Evolutionist Says:

    A parable……

    The Red Team and the Blue Team:

    The red team was challenged by the blue team to play a game of football. Before the game started, the red team took a vote and concluded that the blue team was not a football team. Then the red team, having no other team to play, declared themselves victorious.

    And they never had to compete in the game.

    X

  698. Tom Aquines Says:

    #685 DAVESCOT Says: Do you invent laws often?

    Tom Aquines sez: Hi Dave. Is it appropriate to define boundaries where truth can be sought?

    Claims that ID must be excluded because it might imply a Creator are pretty lame. Trying to define science narrowly does not help this lameness.

    #685 Ermine Says: Javascript, you’re an idiot.

    Those with an incapacity to rationally engage in debate, informed or otherwise, often resort to name calling. They also do so behind the cowardly shield of anonymity.

    #687 CRasch Says: Javascript,
    Do you even know what science is? Do you understand the process of the Scientific Method.

    Tom Aquines sez: The Scientific method is due to Christianity. See. e.g. Rodney Stark’s cool book, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery:

    http://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Monotheism-Reformations-Witch-Hunts/dp/0691119503/

    It was founded by Christians as an addendum to belief in God, not as a substitution for God.

  699. G. Finch Says:

    “The Paley Watch Company” is evidence in support of #535. They use Darwinian evolution to assemble watches in a shaker.

    I do not know how any proponent of ID can look at this compelling evidence and not embrace Darwinism.

    Here’s the story:

    http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/PaleyWatch.html

  700. Rich Says:

    Phhh! You reality based community are so bigoted!

  701. SL Says:

    I read the first three posts on this site and I’m struck at how close-minded a self-proclaimed open-mind can be. Not only do the posts demonstrate a simple-minded, knee-jerk reaction to Ben Stein’s narrative, but they tend to support his hypothesis. In fact, the first post actually provides quotes from Einstein that support Ben Stein’s assertion that Einstein strove to discover the principles that God created (I didn’t see any mention of a “Personal God” in Ben Stein’s argument).

    I’m certain that the close-minded individuals that are the subject of this film have already judged it to be laughable and not worth their scrutiny. Once the film is released, I’m sure the vehement anti-science fascists will hit the streets/media again to shut down the thought rather than debate the evidence. Haven’t the “scientists” out there heard of the scientific method. It starts with a hypothesis, then an experiment is designed to test the hypothesis, followed by publishing the findings. Other scientists are free to debate the findings, but science demands that scientists are free to test hypothesis’, and not get shut down before they can think them up.

  702. Rich Says:

    Tom Aquines:

    Look, read, see all the things ID doesn’t have:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Hardly a Christian construct. This is:

    (2 Cor 10:5 KJV) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ

  703. TJ Says:

    SL says: “Haven’t the “scientists” out there heard of the scientific method. It starts with a hypothesis, then an experiment is designed to test the hypothesis, followed by publishing the findings.”

    Indeed it does, and if you check you will find that evolutionary biologists do this all the time in their subject.

    Now SL, could you please give me examples where ‘intelligent design’ has been similarly tested and published in the scientific literature? Hint: slick movies from comedy actors don’t count.

  704. Tom Jones Says:

    Spinoza figured this out long ago. Give it a rest.

  705. Joel Pelletier Says:

    Oh how the ignorance grates!

    The whole point is that by saying “people are getting shut down” because they are being discriminated on is the big strawman of this whole arguement. The truth is Science has standards, when these standards aren’t being met, you are no longer doing science. ID does not meet the standards of Science and therefore is no more than a humanity, such as philosophy. Get it straight, stop whining and do some actual work to get respect. Propoganda and mis-information campaigns do not equal science. Sorry guys but that’s the sad truth and by trying to spin this story into some little injustice is just compounding the intellectual embarrassement that these charlatans deserve.

  706. PanDeism Fish Says:

    “How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
    Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.”
    - Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

    Pandeism is that religion…. Pandeism is the faith that provides the spiritual explanation for all the magnificent science of the Universe….

  707. javascript Says:

    Ermine & CRasch:

    A. Thanks for calling me an “idiot”… more proof of the bigotry you and others spew towards those with a different perspective. You don’t believe in the freedom for others to think differently than you do… that my disturbed friend is the very definition of bigotry. (noun: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.)
    B. BIGOTRY is criminal Ermine… is that so hard for you to understand? It is against the law in this country to allow bigoted attitudes to suppress another individual from their own rights.
    C. The film is NOT about the people on this thread, although they have a right to their opinion and I don’t hear any of them offering that opinion with as much venom as you do on every post. The film is about legitimate scientists who study all the same things hard core Evolutionists study but come to different perspectives, view and theories based on the evidence and or lack there of. I don’t go toe to toe with you on scientific points because that’s not my point, nor is it necessary for me to do so. If you want to know what ID believing scientists are studying and what their findings are, I suggest you go to their web sites or read the articles linked to the Troublemakers or News pages of this site. Now I’ve said that how many times? I don’t ever plan on discussing science with you… You have your mind made up clearly. But you nor anyone has the right to suppress legitimate scientific studies and or findings and THAT I will argue with you until you evolve into something other than the bigoted, mean person that you are.
    D. I have no idea where CRasch gets the idea that the Discovery Institute funds this project. That’s not what I’ve read on any of the sites or blogs humming with details about this production. DI has nothing to do with the funding at all! That’s just hilarious how you guys make this stuff up out of nowhere!
    E. CRasch… ID is not “based” on the ASSUMPTION that a designer exists. That’s where you guys have it all wrong. True scientific ID studies are based on all the same information that any other scientists has… The differences are that ID scientists see EVIDENCE of a designer and want the freedom to pursue those studies further and to freely write or speak about those findings without being trashed by their colleagues and bigots in the media or the left wing liberal agenda of the ACLU.

  708. TimCol Says:

    SL wrote: “Haven’t the “scientists” out there heard of the scientific method. It starts with a hypothesis, then an experiment is designed to test the hypothesis, followed by publishing the findings. Other scientists are free to debate the findings, but science demands that scientists are free to test hypothesis’, and not get shut down before they can think them up.”

    I think this hits the nail on the head for many - has ID done a sufficiently good job on providing a testable hypothesis? Many scientists will argue that they have not and that if ID does have any merit, it is very much in early formation - and certainly not ready to teach in the classroom (which also goes for many other speculative scientific hypotheses too). Furthermore, many claim that the hypothesis of ID is not even testable, and that as such ID belongs better in the philosophy curriculum rather than in science.

    One more note: there is nothing to stop ID researchers performing their own work outside of the traditional academic arena. In fact some of this has already happened - for example there is an online journal devoted to ID-related topics (www.iscid.com) - but it’s interesting to note they haven’t published any new journal since November 2005!

    My feeling is that the ID community needs to stop endlessly focusing on Public Relations and needs to start doing some good science that scientists can actually poke and test.

  709. CRasch Says:

    “Tom Aquines

    #687 CRasch Says: Javascript,
    Do you even know what science is? Do you understand the process of the Scientific Method.

    Tom Aquines sez: The Scientific method is due to Christianity. See. e.g. Rodney Stark’s cool book, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery:

    http://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Monotheism-Reformations-Witch-Hunts/dp/0691119503/

    It was founded by Christians as an addendum to belief in God, not as a substitution for God.”
    Tom wrong.
    It was not founded by Christians, (even though many Christians help develop the modern version of it), it was founded by the Greeks: Plato, Aerostottle and Socrates. And they the first to be recorded bring up Intelligent Design also.

    Tom,
    do you even know what science is? Do you understand the process of the Scientific Method. I’m not talking where it came from but what is the process and method.

  710. TimCol Says:

    X-EVolutionist wrote: “A parable……

    The Red Team and the Blue Team:

    The red team was challenged by the blue team to play a game of football. Before the game started, the red team took a vote and concluded that the blue team was not a football team. Then the red team, having no other team to play, declared themselves victorious.

    And they never had to compete in the game.”

    Here’s a variation…

    The Red Team and the Blue Team play a game of soccer. The Blue Team fields 11 players, but the Red Team shows up only with 7. The referee calls the game off because the Red Team doesn’t have sufficient players. The Red Team immediately complains vociferously to the referee that this is not fair, starts canvassing the crowd for support, and pickets the Soccer Commission to allow the rules to be changed so they can participate…

  711. Checkmate Says:

    For those that don’t think Darwin doubters are persecuted and harassed just read this.

    Clearly, Stein has tapped into a big issue.

  712. Dimensio Says:

    “If evolution is true, and I.D. is untrue, then we are all cosmic accidents.”

    This is false, and you are a liar for saying this.

  713. Dimensio Says:

    “Once the film is released, I’m sure the vehement anti-science fascists will hit the streets/media again to shut down the thought rather than debate the evidence.”

    In what way do you believe an attempt will be made to “shut down the thought”. Also, why have you ignored the numerous detailed explanations as to why ID is not science, instead acting as though they do not exist. Were you simply too lazy to actually read the discussion, or are you dishonestly ignoring the fact that the ID position is intellectually without merit?

  714. Christi Says:

    WOW! I am intrigued. I will be watching for more about this movie, and will interpret everything I see and read through my filter of belief in the Bible and the God I find there, as I am certain each person who has so vehemently declared me foolish here will be doing, through their filters of whatever science they choose to believe as a religion.

  715. Dimensio Says:

    “The red team was challenged by the blue team to play a game of football. Before the game started, the red team took a vote and concluded that the blue team was not a football team. Then the red team, having no other team to play, declared themselves victorious.”

    Is dishonest, invalid analogy the only argument you have?

    ID claims to be science. Please demonstrate that ID is, in fact, science by stating the ID hypothesis. State the event(s) that ID purports to explain. Provide the observations that have led to the conclusion of ID. State the observed mechanisms that are considered a part of the ID process; that is, state the observed mechanisms used in the alleged process of “design” as it relates to “Intelligent Design”. State a hypothetical observation that would, if observed, show that ID is false.

    If you cannot do this, then you cannot honestly claim that ID is science, and it is fundamentally dishonest to suggest otherwise.

  716. Ted Sbardella Says:

    There is nothing in the idea of Evolution that contradicts Christian religious beliefs explicitly. We believe something really crazy to begin with that our creator became one of us was killed by us and brought himself to life to destroy the power of death. That is the root of what we know to be true. We are each created at the moment of our conception through some random collision of the very smallest parts of us individual cells. We our existence to our God from then on. Does it really matter how we came to be?

  717. Agiel Says:

    I still have not recieved any answers to my questions, which leaves me slightly concerned that either they were passed up, my name lead IDists to scoff, or they simply don’t want to answer.

    Soo… I have a question now for any EVOLUTIONIST takers…

    While we understand that viruses and bacteria seem to evolve and grow in their own ways, how are we, as larger organisms, meant to have evolved? Not so much ‘Did we?’ as ‘how did we get from a close-to-monkey-common-ancestor to a very human form, which seems to have stuck for so very long now?’

    Is there some way of chemically (or otherwise biologically) testing how we as organisms adapt and ‘evolve’, without resorting to bacteria that is apparently not an acceptable form of evolution proof?

    For IDists, did it occur to you that a number of the probable tests of evolution would require animal or human testing that isn’t neccesarily either legal or perhaps protested against by animal rights activists? This might be why bacteria is the resort. This could also work out against possible I-D experimentation in future as well, depending on the tests.

    I do hope answers can be found to my questions. I do still want to remain open-minded, and the more answers I have the better prepared I’ll be to make up my mind.

  718. Pete B. Says:

    Ben,

    I am an engineer in the field of telecommunications. Not quite a “scientist” but very interested in the way things work. Have been my whole life. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about Intelligent Design and the almost hysterical opposition that so called “scientists”, have to theories opposing mainstream Darwinism.

    As you know, at one point, it was called the “theory” of evolution. Now it seems to be the “fact” of evolution. Even though there are many gaps in it and IMO, much evidence has now come to light for the ID argument such as molecular machines and other phenomenon (Irreducible complexity, etc…). These GAPS in Darwin’s theory are the reasons why some scientists had to postulate an opposing theory.

    Even Darwin conceded these things with the following statement in “The Origins of the Species”:

    He wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

    Well… so far, his theory has at the least, cracks in it, because I have yet to see any complex organ (an eye for example) form itself out of a bunch of primordial goo…

    However, that does not mean I am not willing to hear about Darwin and his theories and hear the argument on the ID side as well. Then I can make up my mind for myself.

    What are they so afraid of?

    It’s like they are children with their hands over their ears yelling “la,la,la,la… I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”

    Anyway, good luck in voicing your argument as you will need all the luck (and blessings) you can get because from what I have read from some of the posts so far, there are a lot of people out there in a state of spiritual warfare with God.

    The mere mention of anything in opposition to naturalism or even if you just speak the word GOD and the battle is on!

    I leave you with one thought:

    1 Corinthians 2:14

    The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

  719. Tom Aquines Says:

    Victims of Big Science are Guillermo Gonzalez, Richard Sternberg, William Dembski, Carolyn Crocker, and the list goes on. If you haven’t, browse Ben’s web sight and view the trailer with the victims. This may may be a conspiracy, but it isn’t from the ID’ers.

    This is in response to:

    #680 subson Says: For the sake of argument, assume that Gonzalez has done good science and was denied tenure merely for his religious beliefs. I’m guessing that Stein is gonna dig up a few other cases, and infer a grand-scale conspiracy against creationists and IDers…shades of a right-wing Michael Moore wannabe.

  720. Tom Aquines Says:

    #662 Pondering God Says: I guess the world is still flat, the sun revolves around us and Constantine was right by forming his version of the Roman Catholic church to push only ideas that help his control.

    Tom Aquines sez: I guess the universe is still infinitely old, life springs from spontaneous generation, the way to help a fever is through bleeding, and matter is conserved and can’t be transformed into energy. Science does not have the best historical track record. Why do we think that “science” has the corner on truth today when it did not in the past?

  721. bob Says:

    As an active member of the scientific community, I know no one is shut out. The only thing you have to do is support your case with testable hypotheses and show positive support for you case. ID simply has failed to do so. ID is a god of the gaps argument. It is based solely on ignorance. To date, it has neither produced a testable hypothesis nor showed positive support from the data. It has only relied on the stance that some things are just too darned complicate to have evolved. That’s not science, and hopefully will never be mistaken for science. Dembski was asked to show in as much detail his ID theory as people have shown for evolution theory. He said that it wasn’t his job to provide the details. There is no more greater statement than that to describe how pathetic ID is.

    To the ID supporters:
    Describe a single case were tenure has been removed for pro I.D. behavior. You simply can not. There has never been a case were a person has been removed from a tenured position based on his I.D. stance. There hasn’t even been a case where a person has been denied a promotion solely because of it.

    Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure, for a multitude of reason. He failed to produce original research while at Iowa and failed to get a single grant. Either one of those situations alone is enough to kill any dreams of tenure.

    The other case is Richard Sternberg. He in particular displayed poor ethical judgment. The Meyer’s paper dealt with the Cambrian fauna. He was at the Smithsonian, and had access to the world’s experts in the field. He also had some of the brightest and biggest names in the fields of paleontology and systematics available to him. He used his position as editor to make sure that the paper was not reviewed but those most qualified to review it, but to get it review by people who would give it a favorable review. It’s called shepherding a paper. It doesn’t matter what the paper was about, if an editor shepherds a paper, he should instantly be removed.

    Furthermore, the Meyer’s paper was just plain bad. It failed to review a significant amount of literature available on the subject. It implied certain conclusions of other papers that were unfounded. It referenced papers that were not peer-reviewed, and it was plagiarized from previous Meyer’s papers. Any one of these reasons would be enough to reject the paper.

  722. wamba Says:

    In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.

    I, for one, am glad that my governmental research granting agencies are reluctant to give money to dead people.

  723. Jenny Says:

    The claim that there is” nothing in the idea of Evolution that contradicts Christian religious beliefs explicitly” .implies that the opposition to evolution is based on religious grounds and in some cases this is true, but much of the opposition is based on science. We first must prove evolution true before we even need to argue if and how it can be accommodated to theism. My concerns are not religious but scientific. The fact is the evidence is very clear: evolution, defined as “from the goo to you by way of the zoo” is not true, and it never could have happened and did not happen. This conclusion is based on science, not religion. The problem has always been, not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest. Of course, the more fit are more likely to survive, but where did the fit come from? Mutations (DNA copying errors) cannot explain the arrival of the fittest and every theory tried so far has failed, including syntropy, pangenesis (Darwin’s choice) orthogenesis, macromutations (Richard Goldsmith) and all others.

  724. Rich Says:

    The Red Team and the Blue Team Take 3.

    Blue team come, and say they’ve won 9-0, without even kicking a ball. When quizzed about how the game works, they have no idea.

  725. Jenny Says:

    The claim that Gonzales wasn’t denied tenure because of his views on ID is irresponsible. I have researched this case fairly extensively. Letters published by his peers who denied him tenure stated fairly openly that he was denied tenure because of ID. His peers have stated in print that no one who does not believe Darwinism is responsible for all life should be awarded tenure. The claim that he was denied tenure because he hadn’t published but a handful of papers in 15 years is flat out wrong. He was one of the most published members of his department and in his college. He had a remarkable publication record in many of the best journals in print today. This claim is one reason why I and many others believe that Darwin Fundamentalists are one of the most serious threats to academic freedom today. After this case, most all young ID supporters (and I know many, including 2 at Yale University in the life science department) went in the closet or concluded that they better stay there. To survive as an opposer of Darwin used to be difficult, now it is close to impossible. I know of numerous of cases like Gonzales. The Darwin Fundamentalists have adopted Nazi like tactics and, in the future, I believe that they will look as bad as the Klan looks today. This film will, I hope, expose this travesty.

  726. CRasch Says:

    Allot of theses Intelligent Designerist/Creationist think theory is just a guess.
    Theory in a scientific context is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.
    This is why in science theory and fact are almost synonymous. Theories explain a body of facts.
    Experiments sometimes produce results which cannot be explained with existing theories. In this case it is the job of scientists to produce new theories which replace the old ones. The new theories should explain all the observations and experiments the old theory did and, in addition, the new set of facts which lead to their development. One can say that new theories devour and assimilate old ones. Scientists continually test existing theories in order to probe how far can they be applied.
    Intelligent Design does no such thing. It bases it self on assumptions. Intelligent Design is a denigration of current theories. It puts a designer in the unexplained and unknown. Thats an assumption, not evidence.

  727. Mark Says:

    This is fantastic. Well done. As an applied systems analyst who programs models to emulate real world observed activity - this appears to be a breath of fresh air.

    Any dicerning reader will note that most of the comment made thus far is simple, and boil down to “don’t force religion on me”. The claim of the darwin dissidents is elementary. There is much complexity and darwinian explainations are limited - perhaps not good enough. Yet the furor that this creates is insane.

    Unfortunately I am a closet Darwin skeptic. I am petrified, that if I get out, though I have many publications to my name, I fear I can kiss tenure goodbye.

    It is pathetic that academic freedom is not accepted. To question the academic merrits of Darwin means an academic’s career’s death. Our current humanists are worse than organised religious oppressors of old.

    Thank you very much for making a stand.

  728. Fran Says:

    How can a God who is perfect create so many defective beings? That must mean that God makes errors or that he is not the creator. Which is it?

  729. Salvador T. Corodva Says:

    “One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed”

    –Charles Darwin, 1861
    Letter 3154 to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May [1861]

    In that letter, after declaring the apparent impression of design, Darwin gives an anemic excuse as to how he managed to self-blind himself to what was obvious. He argued that he didn’t understand the purpose of life, therefore it was not designed.

    He argued designs which break down imply something is not designed (a very bad argument). He presumes a Perfect Creator will make things as Perfect as Himself (a highly illogical presumption by Darwin).

    He mistakenly presumes one must have knowledge of the purpose of an artifact to conclude it was designed. Not true. We know many things are designed long before we every understand the purpose…

    Curiously, one has to wonder if Darwin would have been expelled from the Big Science Academy because he dared to doubt even his own theory as evidenced by that quote.

  730. Brian Barkley Says:

    If you want positive proof that I.D. exists and that evolution is false, then order a DVD of the Kansas Science Hearings that were held by the Kansas State Board of Education. 23 expert witnesses, including Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, and Warren Nord testified as to the validity of Intelligent Design.

    The pro-evolution scientists boycotted the hearings because they had no evidence whatsoever to backup their claims of the evolution theory.

    For DVD, send $20 to:

    New Liberty Videos
    P.O. Box 25662
    Shawnee Mission, KS 66225-5662

  731. subson Says:

    Agiel…now that we have both chimpanzee and human genomes sequences, we can do comparisons and see what the important differences are. It’s looking more and more like the issue is not so much about different genes, but differences in transcription factors. You can also discern which genes have been evolving particularly quickly (selective sweeps)…over the last 10,000 years or so…a couple of genes in the brain are interesting candidates. You can discern the date at which chimps and humans diverged…it’s all there for the reading in those 3 billion base pairs.

    There are scores of papers out there by real scientists doing real research. On the ID and creationist side…nothing, really. They just complain.

  732. subson Says:

    By the way, given the presence of introns in eukaryotic genes, identifying coding sequences can be a tricky business. One important method that works quite well is to compare human and mouse sequences. Exons are under pressure to conserve sequence, whereas introns don’t have that same constraint. So real scientists look for regions that have certain tell-tale marks of alternating slow and fast mutation rates. And it works (you know, because the end-product is a functional protein)!

    This is the sort of day to day reality that makes evolution fairly obvious to real biochemists. The objection from the creationists is simply, “That doesn’t disprove a miracle” (which is true, actually…but science doesn’t operate under the assumption that miracles are happening left and right).

  733. Dimensio Says:

    “While we understand that viruses and bacteria seem to evolve and grow in their own ways, how are we, as larger organisms, meant to have evolved? Not so much ‘Did we?’ as ‘how did we get from a close-to-monkey-common-ancestor to a very human form, which seems to have stuck for so very long now?’”

    Hereditable genetic variation in offspring conferring relative reproductive success improvements over successive generations within a given environmental niche.

  734. Dimensio Says:

    “Well… so far, his theory has at the least, cracks in it, because I have yet to see any complex organ (an eye for example) form itself out of a bunch of primordial goo…”

    Fortunately for the theory, whether or not a given feature could have evolved is not determined by your personal incredulity.

    Appeal to incredulity is a logical fallacy.

  735. jase Says:

    Ben fire your agent, then yourself.

  736. Sergey Romanov Says:

    Hey, Ben. What’s next? Will you shoot a movie about poor persecuted Holocaust “revisionists”?

    After all, Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zuendel are currently languishing in a German prison for what they have written on paper and online. Can any of your alleged examples come even close to these … um … “martyrs”? Didn’t think so.

    So, will you be travelling to France, to interview “poor” Professor Faurisson, who was actually beaten up for his views? Will you seek out Fred Leuchter, who lost his job and his wife? Or how about David Irving, fresh from Austrian jail?

    Or will you stop half-way, thus showing your blatant double standard?

    Ben, Ben, Ben… Just because someone is persecuted - or thinks he is persecuted (or lies that he is persecuted) - doesn’t mean that (s)he is right and his or hers views are worthy of being aired nationally, or defended. How come you can’t understand such a simple thing?

  737. Salvador T. Corodva Says:

    Here is a Nobel Laureate 1996 that would have been expelled from the Academy:

    “Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that [biological] evolution could not have occurred.”

    –Richard Smalley, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate-Chemistry, 1996

    See:
    http://tinyurl.com/yoayoq

  738. John From Berkeley » links for 2007-08-28 Says:

    […] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed » Blog Archive » Ben Stein’s Introductory Blog this is ben stein’s “michal moore”-like anti-evolution film. he gets shredded in the comments. (tags: film blog creationism science id) […]

  739. akg41470 Says:

    Ben, I’m very dissapointed in you. I thought you were a smart, intelligent man, but you seem to have slipped here somewhere:
    —-
    This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.
    —-
    NO IT HAS NOT. Science, by its very nature, cannot comment on the supernatural because it cannot be tested, which is a core element of science itself. The supernatural has NO place in science, ask any philosopher. NEVER HAS.

    One you’ve made that logical fallacy, you run with it and make this movie. Shame.

  740. Matteo Says:

    Fran and Dimensio have given us an elegant capsule summary for why to believe Darwinism. They’ve represented an awful lot of the overall meat of the Darwinist argument in a very short space. First Dimensio:

    “Hereditable genetic variation in offspring conferring relative reproductive success improvements over successive generations within a given environmental niche.”

    Well. That settles it then. Intricate biological designs are just simply guaranteed to pour out of this process. It’s as clear as the Pythagorean theorem. Only mental deficiency would nitpick such an elegant all-sufficient process. It just plain has to be true. Can’t you SEE?!?

    Fran:

    “How can a God who is perfect create so many defective beings? That must mean that God makes errors or that he is not the creator. Which is it?”

    If I’m not mistaken, this is a theological argument. No science needed! God’s a screw up, so Darwinism is true! Let’s all go out and cherry pick a minimum of corroborating scientific evidence and call it a day!

    So, the twin pillars of fiery eyed, nostril flaring Darwinist belief: the intellectual worship of a vaguely specified but undeniably elegant-sounding process, and simple theological incredulity.

    Shallow science. Shallow theology. I think I’ll search out “win/win scenarios” somewhere else.

  741. Jacob Evilsizor Says:

    Let me be the first one here to say (at least on the creationism side) that I do NOT think that ID is necessarily a scientific theory. By that I mean that although it is based on logical reasoning and common sense inferences derived from the observable evidence, it cannot be empirically tested or subjected to the Scientific Method. It would best be described as “origins science” and not applicable science which is used in a tangible way on a day to day basis. With that being said, the General Theory of Evolution (i.e. macroevolution) is also not a valid scientific theory, because it cannot be subjected to the Scientific Method either.

    Basically, what we have are two separate worldviews: one that requires a creator, and one that denies a creator. The camp that denies a creator is first denying logic, and there also the evidence that substantiates the logical conclusion. Logic is only useful when it is utilized to draw conclusions that fit a pattern of intelligent observation in light of the evidence provided. Logic dictates that if you have a structured universe that is bursting at the seams with intricate detail and necessary symbiotic relationships which exhibit a stable, immutable stasis of existence, as well as intangible laws that function on mathematical principles which sustain both its integrity and progression, it cannot be explained by random chance.

    The idea behind probability theory is that reasonably predictable outcomes can be calculated based on the quantity of variables available divided into the quantity of the KNOWN desired outcome(s). Evolutionists like to play the lottery card here, but they miss the point. Yes, winning the lottery may be a 1 in 50 million shot, but if 5 million people play, there is a 10% chance someone is going to win the jackpot. Even if only one person plays (which is not realistic), there is STILL a chance of them winning, because the desired outcome is both KNOWN and achievable. Trying to apply this logic to evolutionary theory is like rolling a pair of standard gaming dice and trying to get 13; it’s just not possible. To make this comparison to winning the lottery, you have to believe that evolution had a desired outcome in the first place, which implies intelligence. Obviously you cannot submit to the idea of intelligence; at least judging by the way you arrogantly attack with disdain those who adhere to the concept of its necessity. If you take probability and you apply it to a theory that predicts nothing (evolution) and has no goal in mind (no pun intended), the chances of anything useful being created out of nothing SHOULD be zero. Just like not rolling a pair of nonexistent dice with no numbers on them will probably never give you 10. Extrapolate this to a universe that has about 10^80 atoms (that’s 10 with 80 zeros after it), and denying a creator becomes even more illogical. This is actually being rather generous considering that the calculations by Sir Frederick Hoyle regarding the probability of spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoeba are estimated to be one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power. In fact, your chances of randomly drawing a particular atom out of the known universe if it were packed with atoms would only be about 1 in 10^112…much greater than the chances of JUST the proteins of that single amoeba forming by accident.

    Creationists and ID supporters alike have been trying to get this concept through to atheistic evolutionists for some time now, without much success. In fact, evolutionists avoid this question like the plague, because they have absolutely no answer for it; the universe requires a designer. If you cannot understand that, you have no business pontificating about evolution having “tons of evidence” and copying and pasting talkorigins rhetoric, because your argument has no foundation even to stand on. Like I said before, if you cannot explain life WITHOUT a creator, then you have no basis for a theory excluding one.

    So now what? You have nothing but recycled garbage from your anti-creationist webpages, which you pompously parade around like the holy-grail of evolution, and attack and berate people for not reading your doctrine, while simultaneously ignoring the counter web pages that have “already debunked” your silly evolutionist arguments over and over again such as these:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
    http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
    http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
    http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
    http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
    http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
    http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site
    http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims Refutes all the refutations refuting what we refute

    Evolutionists, please consider that you might in fact be wrong and actually consider the question of origins instead of simply assuming “evolution did it.” If nothing else, at least admit that this universe and everything in it requires a designer of some kind. If not, you really don’t have any place to talk down to the people here who actually have the intelligence and common sense to see as much. Thank you.

  742. ‘Creationism’ is a Christian Doctrine « DOXOBLOGY Says:

    […] being said, I am happy about Ben Stein’s newest project.  And I think that the response that he has received on his blog only serves to prove what his […]

  743. John A. Davison Says:

    Someone asked - Why are so few physicists atheists? The answer is very simple. Physicists have higher IQ’s than biologists. It is also expressed by the fact that physicists make their greatest contributions when very young. It is hard to imagine dumber scientists than Richard Dawkins, Wesley Elsberry and P.Z. Myers, atheists all. I’ll bet their combined IQ’s wouldn’t break 360 and I defy them to produce hard data to the contrary. I have challenged them repeatedly, only to be banned from their “groupthink” enclaves so I don’t expect a response this time either. We several critics of the Darwinian model, not a professed atheist in the lot, are not allowed to exist because, if that should happen, Darwinism would instantly join the other two demonstrated hoaxes, the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics, already mere footnotes in the history of science.

    There are sins of omission as well as of commision and the primary spokespersons for the Darwinian fairy tale are masters of both. When they did recognize this critic it was with such comments as “your stench has preceded you” (Myers) and “John Davison has been recognized as a ‘time waster’ and his email will automatically be deleted.”(Dawkins). Just the other day Myers described me as a “kook.” Elsberry freely promotes the use of foul language in dealing with his adversaries. His tolerance of the abuse heaped on of my ally Martin is an idictment of Elsberry’s character. These are all matters of record and I treasure them.

    Furthermore, I can say with complete candor that not one of these three blowhards has ever published a word of truth concerning the paradignm they so violently defend. RichardDawkins.net, Pharyngula and Panda’s Thumb are all nothing but fan clubs for their atheist sponsors. Not a single constructive comment has ever originated in any them and for a very good reason. EVERYTHING in the Darwinian scheme is wrong - dead wrong. Both natural selection and sexual (Mendelian) reproduction are anti-evolutionary which is why, with very few exceptions, all organisms reproducing strictly sexually have always been doomed to extinction. Now that creative evolution has terminated, extinction is all we see. It was the man who originated the term, “The Modern Syntheis,” Julian Huxley who agreed with the anti-Darwinian Robert Broom and concluded in no uncertain terms that “evolution is finished.” I have documented the whole sordid business in my unpublished “An Evolutionary Manifesto” and in my 2004 paper “Is evolution finished?” Rivista di Biologia 97, 111-116. The Darwinians are now so desperate they must ignore even the conclusions of two of their most prominent representatives, Julian Huxley and Theodosius Dobzhansky. How either of them managed to remain Darwinians is one of the greatest mysteries in all of the evolutionary literature.

    “If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
    Oscar Wilde

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  744. Alan Says:

    I’m sorry, Ben.
    I used to respect your thoughtful insight. Perhaps you sold your good name to crap or were carelessly mislead. Either way this was a major laps of good judgement. Too bad. I’ll probably never think of you as bright light of rationality again.

    -Alan

  745. Marilyn Oakley Says:

    Kudos to you Ben!

    I think it’s awesome you are involved in this project. I think what very few ppl know, is that Creation Science is science. They use the same operational science as particles-to-people evolutionists use. It’s a shame that Creation science is censored from the world. And particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

    In my research, many scientists have discarded Darwinism. There are the few who know it isn’t true, but they need a job.

    The site http://www.answersingenesis.org has a lot of info for those who want to explore outside of particles-to-people evolution. Even Darwin questioned his own theory.

    Many writings relating to Charles Darwin are now online. They are quite revealing. This is what the Captain of the Beagle had to say about what Mr. Darwin found in Patagonia.
    It is quite clear from this that Charles Darwin found evidence of fossils buried rapidly in marine sediment in layers subsequently found lying thousands of feet above sea level. According to FitzRoy this points to a global Flood, continental scale erosion and massive uplift. This evidence was partly responsible for forcing FitzRoy to accept the reality of the global Biblical Flood. But Darwin later closed his eyes to the evidence.

    It’s about time that people are free thinkers, have the freedom of choice and to be able to use their freedom of speech without the fear of diehard Darwinism believers criticizing them.

    A DVD I’d like to recommend is Universe-the Cosmology Quest at http://www.universe-film.com/index.php

    I just can’t believe the deceit that is still being taught. Like “Lucy”. Many believe her to be our ancestor. But she has been proved to be 100% ape. There are many mis-taught subjects in particles-to-people evolution.

    The only reason they went to the punctuated equilibrium is because the fossil record they used for transitionals/intermediates went down the drain. For about 110 yrs, they taught slow gradual evolution, and the gaps couldn’t be explained, so they had to come up with PE.

    Darwinism is religion, an atheist religion. People can choose not to believe in God or his creation, but particles-to-people evolution didn’t happen either.

    Everyone has the right to question everything around them. Even the right to learn what the public schools don’t allow to be taught.
    (I’ll whisper it … creation science) This word is taboo in most public schools.

    I’ll close in saying:
    If Darwinism evolution is all that and then some, why do they fear Creation science being taught? And don’t tell me because of religion. That’s a cop out. They certainly seem to freak out if it dares to make its way anywhere including the courts. If they have nothing to hide, then it shouldn’t be a problem what so ever. They ought to be confident enough to throw their arms up into the air and say, okay, go ahead, teach your science. It’s science, not the end of the world. Both sides use the same operational science. Creationists accept the science of genetics—and so do evolutionists. Creationists accept the science of natural selection—and so do evolutionists. Creationists accept the science of geology—they sort rocks into sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic, for instance. The operational science is not the issue—it’s the particular views of history that separate creationists and evolutionists. Both sides have different beliefs about the past that cause them to interpret the evidence in different ways. And I say, so? What’s wrong with people listening to both sides? Do they not have a choice in the matter? DO they have to hear evolution ONLY?????? If you think about it, there really shouldn’t be any debate at all. We do live in a democracy country, do we not? Shouldn’t ALL the taxpaying people have a say??? Where’s the right to vote on this???? Or, does that continue to be taken away as it has been?

    If anyone is a fanatic about anything, it’s the Darwinism evolutionists. They seem to almost go into convulsions if creation science dares make a small break for the world. Why the panic? You say you have facts. So, then present those facts and debate your facts against creation science in front of the world. Let the world hear these debates, and let the world decide for himself or herself, each as an individual.

    Scientific creation is not based on Genesis or any other religious teaching. Scientific creation and Biblical creation can, in fact, be taught quite independently of each other. Scientific creation is based solely on scientific evidence from such sciences as paleontology, geology, thermodynamics, genetics and other sciences. The scientific case for creation is based on knowledge of DNA, mutations, fossils and other scientific terms and concepts, which do not appear in the Bible. So, I say Darwinism evolutionists, get over it!!!! If your theory has so much backing, then what is your problem? Expose the world to all areas of science. Shouldn’t students have the opportunity to learn all there is to learn and not be subjected to only one idea? Especially when there are other ideas?

    ~M

  746. Dan Says:

    Ben,
    Ben,
    I am a devoted reader and fan of your column in the business section of the New York Times and have always found you to be an intelligent and reasonable analyst. Given this, I find it difficult to believe that you could be duped into becoming a puppet for the “ID” movement.
    I don’t want to repeat what has already been posted, so I’ll try & be brief. The issue is NOT the freedom to believe what you like. The issue is what constitutes a scientific inquiry. ID does not meet that definition. THAT’S ALL! Science is EVIDENCE based! ID is a philosophy/religion under the guise of a “science”. Why not teach alternate (and baseless) views of history? Why not respect holocaust deniers? Why not teach the alternate theory that storks bring babies? Why not teach homeopathic medicine in medical school? What about pyramid power?
    But I’m being flippant and cavalier. For a true understanding of the scientific issue, I BEG of you to read “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins. There was also an excellent article in “The New Republic” a couple years back. Or simply read the transcript of the famous Dover case!
    Please do whatever it takes to withdraw your name from this movie. You will forever damage your reputation and (I’m sorry to say) lose my respect.

    Sincerely,

    Dan

  747. Brian Macker Says:

    Michael Terry,

    “You’re right, ID isn’t science. It’s metaphysics.”

    Then teach it in the religion or philosophy classes, if at all. It might be good topic to mine for teaching fallacies in the philosophy classes, and to teach about the evolution of religious thinking in the religion class.

  748. Steve Foltz Says:

    Steve C. “Gravity is a theory..Electricity and magnetism is a theory”

    Theory is the word behind attempts to describe and explain these realities. But gravity is a reality, so is electricity and magnetism. We can SEE they are real by how they affect things in real time. It’s like saying that wind is a theory. You can’t see it, but you see what it does. Does that make wind a theory?

    Agiel Intelligence - “Mutts. Mix-breed animals.If you’re referring to making entirely new animals and entirely new species you’re getting the wrong end of evolution.”

    Mutts are dogs…from dogs. No new animal.
    Mixed breeds…ummm, same animal species.

    The wrong end is the only one they try to explain and it’s self-defining. Your example is typical.

  749. Taylor Flynn Says:

    For all of you ID supporters who are bashing advocates of Evolution. Remember this one simple thing, if you provide evidence of ID we will beleive you. Thats what scientists do, we follow the evidence. If what we know today changes tomorrow, then we would research it and based on the evidence collected (if following rigorous scientific standards of control etc…)we would modify our beleifs.

    For example, it was once believed that humans used only 10% of thier brains. Now, thanks to neuroscience, we know that the 10% theory is fallacious.

    Dearest Stein et al., once you give us something that is testable, you will continue to be scoffed and discounted.

    BOOSH.

    Talor Flynn, M.S.

  750. Taylor Flynn Says:

    Oh dear…typo.

    Dearest Stein et al., until you give us something that is testable, you will continue to be scoffed and discounted.

  751. Interested Observer Says:

    BTW, Ermine, I looked up the term “ad hominem” just to be on the safe side, since semantics seem pivotal in these blog debates.
    Guess what? Name-calling and questioning motives, character, etc. qualifies as such. Even if it wasn’t, it would certainly be in poor taste. Just because the forum is an Internet blog doesn’t justify it, either.
    Now, just because I’m feeling a bit contentious, let’s throw some fuel on the fire.
    Doesn’t the Kalam Cosmological Argument allow for the possibility of a design, a “Creator” (distancing quotes used only to briefly discourage rabid skeptics and critics), and/or at the very least, a cause?
    Let’s hear some discussion on this one, please!

  752. ngong Says:

    #741…Just for once, would you IDers and creationists provide citations for the purported scientists who claim that an amoeba self-assembled?

    You can’t…it’s just a straw man. Why don’t you educate yourself as to what biochemists are really saying before you type your fatuous screeds?

  753. Steven Carr Says:

    A German leader of the 20th century said the following ‘From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

    A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is now’

    Guess what? They guy was persecuted and reviled!

    What more proof is needed that people who doubt Darwinism will be persecuted?

    Just look what happened to Hitler!

  754. ngong Says:

    By the way, this idea that physicists are in the habit of being devout believers is really ludicrous: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html . As usual, the creationists blather away without evidence to back them up.

    In any case, if astronomers and physicists were so devout, Mr. Stein wouldn’t be offering up Mr. Gonzalez’s case as an example of rampant discrimination against believers.

  755. javascript Says:

    Awesome post Marilyn Oakley… If any of you missed it go back and look for:

    Marilyn Oakley Says:
    August 27th, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Marilyn details the issue quite well.

  756. El Proximo Says:

    I LOVE IT!
    750 responses so far and almost all of them ‘protest too much’ as the DISMISS VERY VERY HARD.. DISMISSING DAMMMMMIT!

    Stein is right on the money and this is going to blow apart the clamp ‘naturalists’ have been gripping with their dying hands.
    Expelled is overdue and any SINCERE thinker (atheist to theist to inbetween) will WELCOME freedom of inquiry and a return to truly unbiased inquiry.
    Enter the Stein!

  757. Tom Says:

    Brian Barkley:

    “If you want positive proof that I.D. exists and that evolution is false, then order a DVD of the Kansas Science Hearings that were held by the Kansas State Board of Education. 23 expert witnesses, including Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, and Warren Nord testified as to the validity of Intelligent Design.

    The pro-evolution scientists boycotted the hearings because they had no evidence whatsoever to backup their claims of the evolution theory.”

    The reason that scientists did not attend the meeting is the same reason that they refuse to debate IDers on cable TV, because it would give a legitimacy to a blantant pseudo science

    IDers, with all that wealth of evidence and research planned, get some funding and do the research. Publish your findings. Prove “big science” wrong.

    But hey, you’re a bunch of idiots who are about as scientific as my dog, so I doubt you’ll listen to reason. Science is not a democracy: it’s not abortion, it’s not the Ten Commandants and Prayer in Schools. You can’t force science to listen to like you can force everyone else.

    Science is discriminatory: evidence is your ticket to ride. Bring evidence and let’s improve Science. But the idiocy of ID is not Science.

    Stay in your chruches and let us have our science.

  758. subson Says:

    I just wandered over to the Discovery Institute’s website. They’ve got a guy arguing that evolution is not falsifiable, while ID is.

    Why is ID falsifiable? According to the speaker, if we ever find a planet with non-carbon based life forms, ID will be refuted. I’m not sure why…it’s easy to posit a designer seeding the universe in all sorts of creative ways.

    In any case, look at the difficulty involved in making the leap to falsifiability…you’ve got to hop around the universe looking for non-carbon life. Never mind that few “orthodox” scientists find non-carbon life to be likely. As usual with these guys, the argument is purely abstract.

    On the other hand, if you want to falsify evolution, all you gotta do is find a rabbit in the Cambrian, or a mammoth in Australia, or an austrolopithecus in North America.

    I think many earnest scientists wish the DI could come up with something really challenging. But it never happens…you just get a load of PR and abstract philosophy and math (mostly irrelevant probability calculations).

  759. John A. Davison Says:

    While I am not a part of the “ID movement,” or any other “movement” for that matter, Intelligent Design is manifest in everything in both the animate and inanimate worlds. It should never have been presented for debate. Debate is for debatimg teams and God knows they have never decided anything. The internet is crawling with them, populated mostly by unfulfilled sociopaths of one ilk or another. I would like to know of a single scientific progression that was ever advanced by either debate or concensus. I am all ears.

    William Paley put his finger on the solution with his aphorism - “Where there is design there is a desiger.” The error is in the present tense. All that can be verified is that a design required a prior designer. That is also all that is required. Is Frank Lloyd Wright alive? Incidentally, as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin I met him. I also heard Robert Broom lecture, an unforgettable experience.

    One of the most profound words ever penned were “God is dead” by Frederich Nietzche. Only having lived can one die. That is why it is an error to dismiss Nietzche as an atheist. Homozygous, “prescribed,” “dyed-in-the-wool,” “born that way” atheists like Hitchens, Myers and Dawkins will not permit us to postulate even dead Gods! I tried at RichardDawkins.net forum and was banned for my efforts!

    To blindly assume that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self-assemble itself into a self-perpepuating, evolving entity even once is patently absurd.

    “To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded assumptiom which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.”
    Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.

    “Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
    Albert Einstein

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  760. subson Says:

    Hey…all you ignorant evilutionists. Here’s another falsifiable prediction of ID: since there’s no such thing as junk DNA, it’s impossible for retroviruses to actually integrate into a host’s DNA.

    Another challenge met! It’s easy to slap these stupid biochemists around!

  761. Foxfier Says:

    Heh, lovely….

    “It has to be testable! I don’t accept that a creator is possible, there for it is not testable!”

    The word you’re looking for is “falsifiable,” Mr. Flynn. BTW, Darwinian evolution is non-falsifiable by any measure that rejects the falsifiability of intelligent design.

    If you actually were here to “follow the evidence” you wouldn’t mind that folks ask questions, any questions. Asking questions you don’t like is responded to with attacks and wails. Thus, logically, you are not willing to follow the evidence.

  762. G.D. Griggs Says:

    Is string theory and multiverse theory testable? If not, then they should also be “discounted and scoffed” at by academia.

  763. X-Evolutionist Says:

    How Did Life Begin?

    Some think that God is an imaginary being that people believe on faith to make them feel good. However, it also takes faith to be an atheist. An atheist must believe that DNA is the result of time and chance. The DNA molecule holds as much data as a very complicated computer program.

    Nobody would believe that Windows XP, for instance, is the result of time and chance, but many believe that the human brain that created Windows XP is the result of time and chance.

    X

  764. Jbagail Says:

    I did some research on the Gonzalez case and the claim that he was not let go due to his ID beliefs and came up with some interesting admissions. Iowa state University Professor John Patterson boldly states that Darwin Skeptics

    “often complain that their theories and their colleagues are discriminated against by scientists and educators …as a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against…no advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed”.

    Patterson took great pains to explain that his reasoning was not based on religious discrimination, but on scientific integrity because ID is not religion but science. His view is that denying Darwinism explains all life is simply wrong, and that, on that basis, deserves to be discriminated against. Patterson concludes that no one that he judges to fit this label (including theistic evolutionists such as ID advocates) is qualified to be a scientist or an educator. He openly concludes that those who advocate (or personally accept) such a perspective should be denied the right to make a living in any science, or even in education or a related field—the exact state in which Jews found themselves at the beginning of World War II. At the very least, he stresses, Darwin skeptics’ transcripts should be “marked” so that schools and employers easily can discriminate. Civil Rights legislation clearly specifies that employees in protected classes (such as minorities and religion) must be evaluated only on the basis of job criteria that are specifically relevant. Patterson, commenting on the suitability of Darwin skeptics for any scientific or academic profession, advocates employment evaluation be openly based on one’s beliefs, concluding that ID is discriminated against

    “as it should be. It is the responsibility of teachers and school officials to discriminate against…anyone who advocates…[all forms of ID]. I am glad this kind of discrimination is finally catching on, and I hope the practice becomes much more vigorous and widespread in the future”.

    Patterson, notes he even argues that scientists who argue for theism from design were “incompetent” and societies that accept the credentials of such persons are “irresponsible.” Patterson’s attack on his list of engineers, some of them quite well known, and all with a record of outstanding professional accomplishments, who he felt were incompetent because of their support for creation. Among those on the list was D.R. Boylan, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Dean of Engineering at Iowa State University (Patterson’s own department head!)….a number of other professors at state universities were also named in Patterson’s list of “incompetents.” Patterson added that public schools which allow the use of materials “produced by incompetents deserve to be discredited, as do their responsible officials and staff”.

  765. Jbagail Says:

    Corrections on my last paragraph:

    Patterson even argues that scientists who argue for theism from design are “incompetent” and organizations that accept the credentials of such persons are “irresponsible.” Patterson then attacked a group of “incompetents”, some of them quite well known, and all had a record of outstanding professional accomplishments, who he felt were incompetent because of their support for some form of creation. Among those on the list was D.R. Boylan, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Dean of Engineering at Iowa State University (Patterson’s own Dean!) and a number of other professors at other state universities were also named in Patterson’s list of “incompetents.” Patterson added that public schools which allow the use of materials “produced by incompetents deserve to be discredited, as do their responsible officials and staff”.

  766. Leonard Black Says:

    Dear Ben.

    In order for a scientific theory to be considered legitimate, it has to meet numerous criteria. Some of these include:

    -parsimony (see Occam’s razor)
    -falsifiability (there must be some hypothetical way in which it could be proven to be WRONG)
    -it must be BETTER and have greater EXPLANATORY AND PREDICTIVE POWER than previous theories

    These are just a few of many, but I’m sure if you try to slide ID into any of those boxes you will quickly ascertain that it miserably fails each test of scientific “theoriness”.

    Reality check: ID isn’t discriminated against because of some BIG SCIENCE conspiracy (hilarious term though, by the way). It is discriminated against, rightly so, because it is not scientific.

    I never thought you were a stupid guy. I thought maybe you would have read at least a basic work on scientific philosophy, or would have at least reviewed the evidence in the creation/evolution “debate”. You obviously did neither, and I’m sure your film will be the more hilarious for it.

  767. Berthajane Vandegrift Says:

    It is not evolution that is being debated, it is evolution as driven by “natural selection” organizing a series of genetic accidents into rationally interacting biological systems. The Darwinists would like to make this a debate over religion. One doesn’t have to believe in a personal god to accept intelligence as a force of nature. One does have to be a devoted materialist to believe such nonsense. Read my entertaining story with questions about materialism at

    http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

  768. Pete B. Says:

    Dimensio Says:

    Fortunately for the theory, whether or not a given feature could have evolved is not determined by your personal incredulity.

    Appeal to incredulity is a logical fallacy.

    You prove my point Dimensio….

    I read some of your other posts including the reply you gave to my post above. You use some very strong words to describe people who just want to hear both sides of an argument.

    You call people who don’t subscribe to your point of view “vehement anti-science fascists, lazy, dishonest, liars who are fundamentally dishonest, and intellectually without merit”…

    Then you inferred that because I personally don’t believe that we are all just, in your words, “all cosmic accidents”, then I must be in a state of denial.

    I wrote in my post that I wanted to hear both sides of the story because I try to stay open minded about this issue as well as others.

    Does this make me a fool?

    I enjoy reading about human history (including what is written in the Bible) as much as I enjoy watching the Discovery Channel show how some shark species have not changed much at all for millions of years.

    I admit that I don’t know how it all came together.

    The problem is, neither were you, yet you deny that it could have ever happen except through evolution and random chance.

    I don’t think so.

    Maybe the “feature” that needs to evolve in this discussion is your tolerance of other people’s beliefs.

    You are so sure that you are right. Everyone else must be some sort of right-wing Nazi Torquemadas to question the status quo of Darwinism.

    Let me guess… you are a liberal secularist or possibly even a devoted atheist and your hero’s are Al Franken and Al Gore.

    Here is some wisdom for you if you decide to hear:

    Proverbs 8

    Wisdom Calls for a Hearing

    1 Listen as Wisdom calls out!
    Hear as understanding raises her voice!
    2 On the hilltop along the road,
    she takes her stand at the crossroads.
    3 By the gates at the entrance to the town,
    on the road leading in, she cries aloud,
    4 “I call to you, to all of you!
    I raise my voice to all people.
    5 You simple people, use good judgment.
    You foolish people, show some understanding.
    6 Listen to me! For I have important things to tell you.
    Everything I say is right,
    7 for I speak the truth
    and detest every kind of deception.
    8 My advice is wholesome.
    There is nothing devious or crooked in it.
    9 My words are plain to anyone with understanding,
    clear to those with knowledge.
    10 Choose my instruction rather than silver,
    and knowledge rather than pure gold.
    11 For wisdom is far more valuable than rubies.
    Nothing you desire can compare with it.
    12 “I, Wisdom, live together with good judgment.
    I know where to discover knowledge and discernment.
    13 All who fear the LORD will hate evil.
    Therefore, I hate pride and arrogance,
    corruption and perverse speech.
    14 Common sense and success belong to me.
    Insight and strength are mine.
    15 Because of me, kings reign,
    and rulers make just decrees.
    16 Rulers lead with my help,
    and nobles make righteous judgments.
    17 “I love all who love me.
    Those who search will surely find me.
    18 I have riches and honor,
    as well as enduring wealth and justice.
    19 My gifts are better than gold, even the purest gold,
    my wages better than sterling silver!
    20 I walk in righteousness,
    in paths of justice.
    21 Those who love me inherit wealth.
    I will fill their treasuries.
    22 “The LORD formed me from the beginning,
    before he created anything else.
    23 I was appointed in ages past,
    at the very first, before the earth began.
    24 I was born before the oceans were created,
    before the springs bubbled forth their waters.
    25 Before the mountains were formed,
    before the hills, I was born—
    26 before he had made the earth and fields
    and the first handfuls of soil.
    27 I was there when he established the heavens,
    when he drew the horizon on the oceans.
    28 I was there when he set the clouds above,
    when he established springs deep in the earth.
    29 I was there when he set the limits of the seas,
    so they would not spread beyond their boundaries.
    And when he marked off the earth’s foundations,
    30 I was the architect at his side.
    I was his constant delight,
    rejoicing always in his presence.
    31 And how happy I was with the world he created;
    how I rejoiced with the human family!
    32 “And so, my children,[a] listen to me,
    for all who follow my ways are joyful.
    33 Listen to my instruction and be wise.
    Don’t ignore it.
    34 Joyful are those who listen to me,
    watching for me daily at my gates,
    waiting for me outside my home!
    35 For whoever finds me finds life
    and receives favor from the LORD.
    36 But those who miss me injure themselves.
    All who hate me love death.”

  769. CRasch Says:

    Science, religion, truth, and lies: a comparison of standards.

    Faith and Truth, by Louann Miller

    As we know, a lot of the heat in the evolution v. creationism debate comes from the fact that the two sides often talk past each other from radically different frames of reference. There are real differences in the moral weight that the cultures of science and religion attach to certain ideas. I think “truth” is one of those ideas. I also think — and I think I can support this — that science has far, far stricter moral standards in the ‘truth’ department than religion does.

    To start with, creationist groups like AiG and ICR use a definition of “true” which I wouldn’t call either scientific or religious, but political. (If you think that I’m implying a lower moral standard with that word, well spotted.)

    By that standard, reality is what you can get away with. That’s why you see things like quotes taken out of context http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html repeated again and again as if they weren’t total misrepresentations of what the original speaker actually said. That’s why AiG’s list of arguments creationists shouldn’t use http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp speaks in terms of “you could be caught out, and lose the argument, if you use these” rather than “it is morally wrong to use arguments that we know to be inaccurate.” Read it for yourself, on their own site.

    But deliberate dishonesty aside, there’s still a difference in mindset between science and more genuine kinds of religion. Differing definitions of ‘faith’ and ‘truth’ are big parts of it.

    In a religious context, ‘faith’ and ‘truth’ are almost synonyms. And faith is automatically good. If an idea is considered truth in your religion, and you don’t have faith in it, that’s a reflection on your failure as a faith-holder rather than the idea’s failure to be true. If you don’t have enough faith on a given subject, you should work harder at it.

    In the sciences, that kind of faith is not a virtue; it’s a personal failing. Imagine a bridge engineer being invited to “have more faith” that a design has enough steel in it to keep his bridge from collapsing. His faith has nothing to do with it; either the bridge stays up, or it falls down. Faith in the sense of ‘letting yourself be persuaded without adequate evidence’ is morally wrong in that context. If the bridge engineer does so, and people die in the collapse, he’s murdered them.

    Scientists, or the good ones, feel the same way about their theories that good engineers feel about their bridges. It’s their job to make them right, not to convince themselves for their own emotional comfort that they’re already right, pretty much, close enough.

    If a scientist says “I have faith this theory is true,” he doesn’t or shouldn’t mean it in the religious sense of “I commit myself to this no matter what the evidence may say, forever. Don’t try to change my mind, here I stand.”

    Instead, he means or ought to mean “I’ve tested this theory, and I’ve seen the results of other people’s tests, and I’m as sure as I can possibly get on the available evidence that this theory is as close to right as we can get. Unless something else really radical turns up. Keep me posted.”

    Which, incidentally, is one reason why scientists in their professional personas are very sparing with words like ‘faith’ and ‘truth’. Just as the bridge engineer is supposed to know exact breaking strains rather than “probably close enough,” scientists are expected to be able to state exactly how confident they are in a given proposition and why they feel that confidence. Faith and truth imply absolutes, which in a scientific context implies glossing over small details that might contradict those absolutes.

  770. BobRyan Says:

    A few centuries ago alchemists were shocked to learn that given a sterile environment - you can not simply toss in a lot of inorganic material and expect to get mice, or grass or trees.

    Given enough rocks and mud in a sterile environment you can get “a mountain” but you never get grass and trees as long as it remains in that sterile state.

    Atheist Darwinists are STILL trying to “rediscover that” basic fact of science and entropy.

    Sir Isaac Asimov admitted that the story-telling “process” required to get from molecule to human brain “requires a massive decrease in entropy” regardless of the fact that emperical data shows us that such a system does not exist!

    Given enough metal, wiring, rubber and oil you will never get “a car” you just get a huge oxidizing pile of mtal, wiring, rubber and oil!

    Atheist darwinism has stooped to being so tied to myths and story telling that it has to pretend to be “surprised” each time these basic science facts come up.

    BobRyan

  771. BobRyan Says:

    From a previous post on this blog –

    For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant):
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
    http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
    http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
    http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
    http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
    http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
    http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site

    Also the open-minded objective unbiased reader might want to see www.godandscience.org

  772. secondclass Says:

    To those of you claiming that anti-ID statements on this blog are further evidence of Stein’s point, I say “Huh?”

    Stein is talking about religious discrimination, and nobody has offered a single example of such. Gonzalez and Sternberg certainly weren’t victims of religious discrimination, and nobody on this blog has suffered any kind of discrimination. (Disagreeing with someone or even making fun of their beliefs is not discrimination.)

  773. CRasch Says:

    Javascript
    “CRasch… ID is not “based” on the ASSUMPTION that a designer exists. That’s where you guys have it all wrong. True scientific ID studies are based on all the same information that any other scientists has… The differences are that ID scientists see EVIDENCE of a designer and want the freedom to pursue those studies further and to freely write or speak about those findings without being trashed by their colleagues and bigots in the media or the left wing liberal agenda of the ACLU.’
    What EVIDENCE, there is none, period. All they have is assumption. That is not scientific knowledge, thats faith. That is what you don’t get. There are standards in science based on empirical evidence. EMPIRICAL! not assumptions.
    I have no problems with you expressing your opinion, but don’t expect me to point out your logical and factual fallacies.
    And why hasn’t all these Creationist / Intelligent Designist do any real science instead of propaganda? Because they know that what they propose is not science but religion. There has been only one published peer reviewed article on Intelligent Design. And it was debated and criticize.
    This is part of science.
    If you want Intelligent Design to be taken as science, then you have to go though the same methodical process as any other theory in science. You think evolution was accepted right away once Darwin published his book?

  774. Joel Pelletier Says:

    ID = Arguement from ignorance, god of the gaps, loads of strawmen, false dichotomy, arguement from authority, confussing association with causation, Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable, Inconsistency, Moving the Goalpost, Special pleading & ad-hoc reasoning = an arguement based on fallacies. Try something new guys it’s getting old correcting your bad arguements over and over.

  775. Louis Says:

    As I read the comments above I am struck that the majority of posts have two things in common: (i) ad hominem attacks against Mr. Stein; and
    (ii) attacks against belief in God or comments of support for Mr. Stein and God, but primarily the former.

    This is not a science v. religion debate or a debate about Mr. Stein. The issue is: does Darwin’s theory of evolution make since in light of newer scientific discoveries made since Darwin published his theory. Looking at the issue dispassiontately, the new scientific factual evidence says it does not. I do not have a God-shaped axe to grind on this issue. However, there is significant evidence to suggest that mainstream academia has affirmatively taken the position to back Darwin’s theory at all costs. I encourage the bloggers on this site to look at other blog sites supporting Darwin’s theory such as Professor Dawkins site. The articles, treatises and monographs contained or cited on these sites contain the same smug personal attacks and snide remarks with virtually no answers to the gapping holes in Darwin’s theory. Ironically the “Church” used to be thought of as the gatekeepers keeping new knowledge from the people if such knowledge challenged their worldview. Now it is academics who are fearful of seeing their self-constructed paradigm fall like the tower of Babel. I tried to discuss this subject over coffee with a biology professor at Emory University about 10 years ago and he all but told me to shut up. He was literally concerned even to be seen discussing the subject in public outside of his classroom.

  776. A. Campbell Says:

    It appears, based on the promotional materials and the language used, that this film will cater primarily to the political right. I find that unfortunate, as I think it sets up a false dichotomy that’s all too easily dismissed (as apparent from many of the knee-jerk comments here).

    The issue really isn’t whether Intelligent Design is a viable scientific theory, it’s whether science will bear dissent. It’s not just the existence of God that is becoming untenable- it’s also questioning the veracity and nature of climate change, for one. Or some of the public health issues surrounding sexuality. Let it be known that you’re not of the same, assumed opinion of the correct-thinking, and your career is likely to be ended, then your livelihood removed, then your character defamed.

    Science and faith have limited claims on each other, but throughout history they have interrelated- sometimes well, sometimes not so well. Certainly there have always been scientists who maintained a belief in a higher power. Can we really be happy to have arrived at a point at which a person must be fearful not about their method or conduct, not even of the results of their research, but of the beliefs that underpin their commitment to their vocation? It doesn’t take being a proponent of ID to be vilified and shunned; given the proper environment, and enough at stake, and a simple mention of your belief in God is enough to get you dismissed.

    Is this scientifically rigorous? Are there questions and issues so threatening to science that they must be suppressed? I certainly don’t see science as so feeble, and I’m no scientist. But if it categorically rejects the inquiries of legitimate practicers and thinkers who depart from the accepted norms, such as positing the existence of God, it can’t be science any longer. Then it will become, ironically, something more akin to magic- a set of special knowledge practiced by charlatans.

    Over the past 30 years, religion has become increasingly identified, in public at least, with the political right. Now science is undergoing an equal and opposite reaction, aligning itself with the political left. But it seems to me that neither science or faith are best served by getting into bed with politics.

  777. onein6billion Says:

    Ben Stein,

    You’ve been taken in by confidence men.

    But that’s ok.

    “For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant)”

    A whole lot of stupid people have also been conned.

    Fortunately, it’s all completely irrelevant on a timescale of a million years.

  778. Craig Says:

    BobRyan said: “http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy”

    The problem with Answers In Genesis and the ICR is that they both start out with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. What usually ends up happening is, since in their views their premise is incontrovertible, they look for evidence that supports their point and discard all that which doesn’t fit.

    In other words, they start with the answer they want and then try to support it. This is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing in science, where you gather evidence and base your answer on what you find.

    I haven’t looked at any of the other creationist sites in your list, so I can’t speak for them.

  779. Jenny Says:

    “Gonzalez and Sternberg certainly weren’t victims of religious discrimination” Really? Have you read the report on Sternberg by the US government? It contains pages of E-mails that prove clear evidence of discrimination. Click here to download the full report: http://www.souder.house.gov/sitedirector/~files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf

    The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY follows:

    In January 2005, an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal first raised public awareness about disturbing allegations that officials at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) had retaliated against museum Research Associate (RA) Richard Sternberg because he allowed publication of an article favoring the theory of intelligent design in a biology journal.1 A well-published evolutionary biologist with two doctorates in biology, Dr. Sternberg claimed that after publication of the article, his colleagues and supervisors at the NMNH subjected him to harassment and discrimination in an effort to force him out as a Research Associate.

    In November of 2004, Dr. Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency charged with “protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing.” The OSC eventually found evidence to corroborate Dr. Sternberg’s complaint, concluding that “[i]t is… clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing” Dr. Sternberg out of the Smithsonian. Despite this finding, the OSC was unable to pursue its investigation due to a question of jurisdiction. In August of 2005, subcommittee staff initiated their own investigation into the possible mistreatment of Dr. Sternberg by the Smithsonian. During their investigation, staff met with Dr. Sternberg and senior Smithsonian officials, and reviewed internal emails provided by the Smithsonian in response to requests from the subcommittee.

    The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship. 2 The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.

    Major findings of this staff investigation include:
    Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights. There is substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers. Given the factual record, the Smithsonian’s pro-forma denials of discrimination are unbelievable. Indeed, NMNH officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution. On September 13, 2004, Dr. Jonathan Coddington, chair of the zoology department, wrote to crustacean curator Dr. Rafael Lemaitre that he could not find a legal basis for terminating Sternberg, but added: “I suppose we could call him on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?” 3 A few hours later, Dr. Lemaitre responded that “a face to face meeting or at least a ‘you are welcome to leave or resign’ call with this individual, is in order.” 4 Finally, in an email on October 6, 2004, Dr. Coddington (in his capacity as Dr. Sternberg’s “supervisor”) stated that he was planning to meet with Dr. Sternberg to convey the message “that if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.” 5 Clearly, the NMNH management was trying to make Dr. Sternberg’s life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave, since they knew they had no legal grounds to dismiss him.

    In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution. For example, Dr. Hans Sues, Associate Director for Research and Collections, suggested in emails on August 30, 2004, and again on September 9, 2004, that Dr. Sternberg would never have been appointed as an RA if Smithsonian officials had known about his non-governmental activities regarding evolution. Sues even blamed the scientist who nominated Sternberg as a Research Associate for not adequately investigating his background: “Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and a simple Google search would have exposed these connections.” 6 The clear implication was that had a background check been conducted on Sternberg’s non-governmental activities, he would have been barred from being a Research Associate. Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials. As a taxpayer-funded institution, such blatant discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals based on their outside views and activities raises serious free speech and civil rights concerns. With regard to Dr. Sternberg, this discriminatory attitude makes it all-but-impossible for him to be fairly considered for reappointment when his current term as Research Associate ends in 2007. Indeed, NMNH officials expressed in their emails a clear expectation that Dr. Sternberg would not be reappointed as a Research Associate after expiration of his current appointment. True to their statements at the time, NMNH officials have recently notified Dr. Sternberg that they will not renew his position as a Research Associate. Rather, they will only permit him to continue his research at the Smithsonian as a Research Collaborator—a demotion from his previous position. 7

    The hostility toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH was reinforced by anti-religious and political motivations. Dr. Sternberg’s OSC complaint describes efforts to discover or disparage his supposed religious and political beliefs, and the OSC investigation concluded that there was “a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article.” The emails reviewed by subcommittee staff corroborate this finding. In a memo prepared on February 8, 2005, NMNH scientist Marilyn Schotte admitted that after publication of the Meyer paper, Dr. Coddington wanted to know “if Dr. Sternberg was religious.” Dr. Schotte further admitted telling Coddington that Sternberg “was a Republican.” Schotte even conceded that Coddington may have asked her whether Sternberg “was a fundamentalist” and whether “he was a conservative.” Dr. Schotte insisted that by asking such questions “Dr. C. was not being judgmental, only curious.” 8 But given the demonstrably hostile atmosphere toward Sternberg at the NMNH during the period in question, there is nothing innocuous about an official with supervisory authority inquiring into Sternberg’s religious and political beliefs. The email traffic also substantiates Sternberg’s concern about a viscerally anti-religious culture existing at the Museum. For example, on February 22, 2005, NMNH Research Associate Sue Richardson sent an email of solidarity to Dr. Coddington regarding the Sternberg situation. She complained about the time she spent living in the “Bible Belt,” mockingly reporting that “the most fun we had by far was when my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the ‘under dog’ part…” 9 Would similar expressions of disparagement have been tolerated by Smithsonian officials if directed at a racial minority?

    NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him. In cooperation with the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Museum officials attempted to publicly smear and discredit Dr. Sternberg with false and defamatory information. While NMNH officials have the right to criticize scientific views with which they disagree, using government time and resources to publicly smear with false information someone whom they supervise is an abuse of their authority as government employees. In addition, Dr. Sues promised the director of the NCSE on August 26, 2004, that “[f]rom now on, I will keep an eye on Dr. (von) Sternberg, and I’d greatly appreciate it if you or other NCSE specialists could let me [know] about further activities by this gentleman in areas poutside [sic] crustacean systematics.” 10 The clear purpose of having the NCSE monitor Sternberg’s outside activities was to find a way to dismiss Sternberg. Dr. Sues hoped that the NCSE could unearth evidence that Sternberg had misrepresented himself as a Smithsonian employee, which would have been grounds for dismissal as a Research Associate.

    Secretary Small and Deputy Secretary Burke have exhibited a head-in-the-sand attitude toward wrongdoing at their agency; they have engaged in stonewalling and spin rather than dealing forthrightly with the discrimination that has occurred. In Deputy Secretary Burke’s most recent response dated May 3, 2006, she acknowledged that Dr. Sternberg’s viewpoint on evolution sparked “strong disagreement” among other scientists at the NMNH, but insisted that “[w]hile the tone of the disagreement between scholars may seem harsh, disagreement does not equal discrimination.” 11 However, the issue is not the disagreement of Smithsonian scientists with Dr. Sternberg’s views on evolution, but rather their effort to use their official powers to punish Dr. Sternberg by seeking to remove him as a Research Associate, and their effort to publicly smear him with false information on government time using government emails. More broadly, NMNH officials have made clear their intent to prevent any scientist publicly skeptical of Darwinian theory from ever being appointed as a Research Associate, no matter how sterling his or her professional credentials or research. This is discrimination, plain and simple. The abject failure of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to protect the basic rights of Dr. Sternberg to a civil work environment is indefensible.

    Because of the Smithsonian’s continued inaction in the Sternberg case, Congress should consider statutory language that would protect the free speech rights regarding evolution of scientists in the Smithsonian and other federally-funded institutions. Since the treatment of Dr. Sternberg came to light in early 2005, evidence has accumulated of widespread discrimination against other qualified scientists who dissent from Darwinian theory, making further violations by federal agencies likely. While the majority of scientists embrace Darwinian theory, it is important that neither federal funds nor federal power be used to punish or retaliate against otherwise qualified scientists merely because they dissent from the majority view.

    1 David Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic,” The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2005.
    2 Letter from Sheila Burke to Rep. Mark Souder, May 3, 2006.
    3 Jonathan Coddington, “Re: Upcoming in Helsinki,” September 13, 2004, 10:51 AM, email to Rafael Lemaitre and Hans Sues.
    4 Rafael Lemaitre, “Re: Upcoming in Helsinki,” September 13, 2004, 1:46 PM, email to Jonathan Coddington and Hans Sues.
    5 Jonathan Coddington, “Re: Research Associate sponsor,” October 6, 2004, 1:29 PM, email to Hans Sues.
    6 Hans Sues, “Re: Reply [3],” September 9, 2004, 10:57 AM, email to Frank Ferrari.
    7 Richard Vari, “RE: NMNH Research Associateship: CV and Research,” October 5, 2006, 12:42 AM, email to Richard Sternberg; Letter from Cristian Samper K. to Richard Sternberg, November 2006.
    8 Marilyn Schotte, “statements,” March 22, 2005, 9:53 AM, email to Jonathan Coddington with attached memo dated February 8, 2005.
    9 Sue Richardson, “Re: misc,” February 22, 2005, 9:38 AM, email to Jonathan Coddington.
    10 Hans Sues, “Re: Meyer article,” August 26, 2004, 1:41 PM, email to Eugenie Scott.
    11 See note 2.

  780. Jenny Says:

    The report URL was truncated. Try a search for:
    UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
    DECEMBER 2006
    ________________________________________________
    INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN
    SMITHSONIAN’S TOP OFFICIALS PERMIT THE DEMOTION AND HARASSMENT OF SCIENTIST SKEPTICAL OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
    ________________________________________________
    STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HON. MARK SOUDER
    CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
    DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

  781. BobRyan Says:

    SecondClass said:
    “Gonzalez and Sternberg certainly weren’t victims of religious discrimination, and nobody on this blog has suffered any kind of discrimination. (Disagreeing with someone or even making fun of their beliefs is not discrimination.)”

    You are missing the salient point of the discussion.

    #1. Atheist Darinism is religion based on junk-science. The high-priests of ateist darwinism show almost as much religious fervor in attacking better-science when it debunks atheist-darwinist story-teling as do their devotees.

    As Colin Patters (atheist, Darwinist, and senior paleontologist British Museum of Natural History) well noted — all this “storytelling” in atheist darwinism is certainly “Stories easy enought to TELL but they are NOT science”!

    There is a case of a true believer in atheist darwinism - admitting to the plain facts that most devotees would shudder to admit.

    #2. The complaint here is not “atheist darwinist believers do not agree with ID so that is bad”. The issue is the censorship and underhanded tactic of hamstrining science itself so that competing views are not “allowed”. As was pointed out blatantly in the Dover case EVEN to mention “the Existence of a book in the Library” that was not pro-atheist-darwinism was so threatening to atheist-darwinist devotees that it was decided that they were owed 2MILLION in damages for a schoolbard board having committed the crime of TELLING students that “A BOOK exists in the LIBRARY” that discusses alternate solutions!!

    How sad that atheist darwinist believers should be sooo married to censorhsip!

    BobRyan

  782. Craig Says:

    Marilyn Oakley said: “According to FitzRoy this points to a global Flood, continental scale erosion and massive uplift. This evidence was partly responsible for forcing FitzRoy to accept the reality of the global Biblical Flood. But Darwin later closed his eyes to the evidence.”

    How did the Flood manage to sort the bones so neatly so that, for instance, we never find horse fossils mixed with T. rex fossils?

    “It’s about time that people are free thinkers, have the freedom of choice and to be able to use their freedom of speech without the fear of diehard Darwinism believers criticizing them.”

    Science needs criticism.

    “Many believe her to be our ancestor. But she has been proved to be 100% ape.”

    Can you provide a citation?

    “The only reason they went to the punctuated equilibrium is because the fossil record they used for transitionals/intermediates went down the drain. For about 110 yrs, they taught slow gradual evolution, and the gaps couldn’t be explained, so they had to come up with PE.”

    Yes, that’s how science works. When new evidence appears, theories are modified to explain them. When cracks started appearing in Newton’s laws, Einstein filled them in with relativity. That theories change is not a weakness in science, it’s a strength. Any scientist would LOVE to overturn an established theory. We give Nobel Prizes to people who can do things like that.

    “Darwinism is religion, an atheist religion. People can choose not to believe in God or his creation, but particles-to-people evolution didn’t happen either.”

    For the nth time: plenty of people believe in God AND accept the evidence for evolution. They are not mutually exclusive.

    “Everyone has the right to question everything around them.”

    This is true.

    “If Darwinism evolution is all that and then some, why do they fear Creation science being taught? And don’t tell me because of religion. That’s a cop out.”

    It’s not a cop out at all; it’s the central point. Creation science always falls back on a religious basis. It’s not science at all, so it shouldn’t be taught in a science classroom. It would be perfectly acceptable to teach it in a comparative religion class.

    “What’s wrong with people listening to both sides? Do they not have a choice in the matter? DO they have to hear evolution ONLY??????”

    Do they have to hear round-earth theory only? Or heliocentric theory only? Or germ theory of disease only? Or should we also give equal time to flat earth, geocentrism, and the idea that diseases are caused by demons?

    “Where’s the right to vote on this???? Or, does that continue to be taken away as it has been?”

    Science is not based on popular vote.

    “Scientific creation is not based on Genesis or any other religious teaching.”

    What is it based on? If there must be a creator, that who or what is it?

  783. Brian Barkley Says:

    INCREDIBLE:

    Almost 800 posts so far, and everyone on both sides have missed the real question.

    The real question to pro-evolution Darwinists is this . . Are you lashing out against Intelligent Design because you are open to truth, and searching for truth, and have made an indepth study of that truth? Or, are you lashing out because you have taken a position and are holding to that position come hell or high water?

    It is totally obvious by now that DNA means nothing to you, that the compexity of the human cell means nothing, and all of the other scientific discoveries of the past 50 years alone mean nothing.

    As the Bible says, “in his heart the fool says there is no God.”

    You are indeed a fool.

  784. Craig Says:

    javascript said: “The differences are that ID scientists see EVIDENCE of a designer and want the freedom to pursue those studies further”

    This might sound antagonistic, but I don’t intend it that way. What studies could they possibly perform? What possible experiments or research could they do to look for a designer? How do you tell something that was designed from something that wasn’t? Was *everything* designed? How would they know if it was if they don’t have something that wasn’t designed to compare it against?

  785. javascript Says:

    onein6billion:

    Ah yes, and once again the “ignorant & stupid” cards are played by our bigoted friends to the left. I get just a little bit tired of that pathetic, response… Do any of you?

    CRasch:

    You continue to re-post the same arguments over and over and over again, regardless of how many people respond to the false acusations you make concerning ID and Evolution. You keep saying ID has no evidence, only faith, implying that evolution has hard core facts, which we all know it does not. Both I.D. and Evolutionary studies derive their THEORIES from the same scientific evidence. Did you hear me say that again? I and other can keep saying that a few more thousand times if you like. Are you listening? You say all ID has is assumptions??? What facts do you have of what you believe? Can you prove random mutation creates new species? Can you give me an example on one time that has happened. What two species were involved? You’re realy only defending a faith, theory and religion, whether you want to admit it or not. And why would you fight so hard to destroy any form of science that is only attempting to dig further to learn more. Are you afraid of what might be found? What makes you think your views and those of the hard core evolutionary science world have the right to keep a stranglehold on what is or is not going to be studied in science. You are the one who is terribly ill-informed over what studies are being done by scientists who doubt darwinian evolution. You are the one who is sounding foolish because it’s very clear that you are unaware of what they really do and you’re fighting with all your strength like you know it all.

  786. Keith Says:

    …Is it just me, or do you only have to read a handful of these comments to see just how badly this movie is needed?

  787. ross Says:

    Ben, Ben, Ben, BEN !!!???
    It’s all been said repeatedly in the comments above, so I’ll spare you by refraining from the obvious.
    Please tell me that this is a publicity stunt and that at the end of the day you’ll be pulling a rabbit out of the hat! We were convinced you were a bright man…, this cannot be!? I’m awaiting the brilliant unveiling of some kind of oxymoron of sorts. Please don’t disappoint us, or many will feel like they’ve never really had any sense of judgment at all. Can you really be this cloistered in your thinking??? Oi!
    Simply aghast!
    Ross

  788. John A. Davison Says:

    I am with Ben Stein on this matter and I am no “confidence man.” This blog is contaminated with congenital atheist mystics who keep coughing up the same old Darwinian pablum with gay abandon. It is beautiful!

    I am obviously wasting my time here, but I enjoy the rare opportunity to hold forth on a blog whose sponsor is not likely to ban me. Any port in a storm I always say. I will continue to embarrass the Darwinian illiterates as long as I can, wherever I can. At my age exposing ideologues of all persuasions has become my favorite pastime, whether they be Bible-thumping “Fundies” or chance-worshipping, mutation intoxicated “Darwimps.” They are all the same to this old physiologist. Physiology is the study of how living processes work and neither of these two factions has a clue!

    “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source… They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
    Albert Einstein

    Long before Einstein, Thomas Henry Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog,” offered a similar appraisal.

    “Of all the senseless babble I have ever had the occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosphers who try to prove that there is no God.”
    Henrietta A Huxley, Aphorisms and Reflections from the Works of T.H. Huxley, page 3.

    It is hard to believe isn’t it?

    I love it so!

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  789. CRasch Says:

    To all ID’ist.

    If you believe in a designer? What empirical evidence do you have of a designer.

    What is classified as designed and not designed? Why?

    We have frames of reference for what is created by man.

    What frames of reference for what is created this so called designer.

    Who or What is this designer?

    What empirical observations using laws and theories in Astrobiology, Astrochemistry, Astrodynamics, Astrometry, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmochemistry, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Scientific Cosmology, Planetary geology, Planetary science, Solar astronomy, Stellar astronomy, Biogeography, Climatology, Coastal geography, Geodesy, Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, Geostatistics, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Petrology, Limnology, Seismology, Soil science, Topography, Volcanology, Environmental science, Environmental chemistry, Environmental geology, Environmental soil science, Anatomy, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Biophysics, Biotechnology, Botany, Cell biology, Cladistics, Cytology, Developmental biology, Ecology, Embryology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Evolution (Evolutionary biology), Evolutionary developmental biology, Freshwater Biology, Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics), Histology, Immunology, Marine biology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Morphology, Neuroscience, Ontogeny, Phycology (Algology), Phylogeny, Physical anthropology, Physical therapy, Physiology, Population dynamics, Structural biology, Taxonomy, Toxicology, Virology, Zoology, Analytical chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational chemistry, Electrochemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Materials science, Organic chemistry, Polymer chemistry, Physical chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Thermochemistry, Acoustics, Agrophysics, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics, Biophysics, Computational physics, Condensed matter physics, Cryogenics, Dynamics, Fluid dynamics, Geophysics, Materials physics, Mathematical physics, Mechanics, Nuclear physics, Optics, Particle physics, Plasma physics, Polymer physics, or Thermodynamics that so called designer specifically uses? Please provide specific examples or scientific studies that have been peered reviewed.

  790. Sarah M. Bahlman Says:

    Wow, it is about time!!!!!! I do not understand why so many people believe in evolution? I am so excited for this film, hopefully it will make millions question their beliefs, and yes Evolution is in itself a religion - a Godless one.

    For more info please check out BLOG #285

    God Bless America!

  791. Leonard Black Says:

    Louis:

    I don’t see much ad hominem against Mr. Stein here at all. Most of what I see is of the “I respected Ben Stein but now he has made a fool of himself” type.

    An ad hominem would be “this film will be stupid, because Ben Stein is an arsehole”. In contrast, I think that this film will in fact be stupid, but because it is about ID, or “Creation Science”. False Premise? I think not. ID as a scientific theory is demonstrably stupid. I can prove it on scratch paper with a pen.

  792. CRasch Says:

    “Sarah M. Bahlman
    Wow, it is about time!!!!!! I do not understand why so many people believe in evolution? I am so excited for this film, hopefully it will make millions question their beliefs, and yes Evolution is in itself a religion - a Godless one.”
    Ah no, evolution is not a religion.

    Evolution & Religion:

    It has become common for critics of evolution to claim that it is a religion which is being improperly supported by the government when it is taught in schools. No other facet of science is singled out for this treatment, at least not yet, but it is part of a wider effort to undermine naturalistic science. An examination of the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, reveals just how wrong such claims are: evolution is not a religion or a religious belief system because it does not possess the characteristics of religions.

    Belief in Supernatural Beings:

    Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religions is the belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods. Very few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Does evolution involve belief in supernatural beings like god? No. Evolutionary theory neither encourages nor discourages it. Evolution is accepted by theists and atheists, regardless of their position on the existence of the supernatural. The mere existence or nonexistence of supernatural beings is ultimately irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

    Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

    Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of the supernatural. Some atheists may have things, places, or times which they treat as “sacred” in that they venerate them in some way. Does evolution involve such a distinction? No — even a casual reading of explanations of evolutionary theory reveals that it involves no sacred places, times, or objects. Distinctions between the sacred and the profane play no role in and are as irrelevant to evolutionary theory as they are to every other aspect of science.

    Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:

    If people believe in something sacred, they probably have rituals which are associated with that which is considered sacred. As with the very existence of a category of “sacred” things, however, there is nothing about evolution which either mandates such a belief or prohibits it. Most important is the fact that there are no rituals which are part of evolutionary theory itself. Biologists involved with the study of evolution engage in no incantations or ritual acts of any sort in their research.

    Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

    Most religions preach some sort of moral code and, typically, this code is based upon whatever transcendental and supernatural beliefs are fundamental to that religion. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Evolutionary theory does have something to say about the origins of morality, but only as a natural development. Evolution does not promote any particular moral code. Morality isn’t irrelevant to evolution, but it plays no fundamental or necessary role.
    Characteristically Religious Feelings:
    The vaguest characteristic of religion is the experience of “religious feelings” like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt. Religions encourage such feelings, especially in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are connected to the presence of the supernatural. The study of the natural world can promote feelings of awe in scientists, including evolutionary biologists, and some are led to their research by feelings of awe about nature. Evolutionary theory itself, however, does not explicitly endorse any sort of “religious” feelings or religious experiences.

    Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:

    Belief in supernatural beings like gods doesn’t get you very far if you can’t communicate with them, so religions which include such beliefs also teach how to talk to them — usually with some form of prayer or other ritual. Some who accept evolution believe in a god and therefore probably pray; others don’t. Because there is nothing about evolutionary theory which encourages or discourages belief in the supernatural, there is also nothing about it which deals with prayer. Whether a person prays or not is as irrelevant in evolution as it is in other fields of the natural sciences.

    A World View & Organization of One’s Life Based on the World View:

    Religions constitute entire worldviews and teach people how to structure their lives: how to relate to others, what to expect from social relationships, how to behave, etc. Evolution provides data people may use in a worldview, but it is not a worldview itself and doesn’t say anything about how to organize your life or incorporate knowledge of evolution into your life. It can be part of theistic or atheistic, conservative or liberal worldviews. The worldview a person has is ultimately irrelevant in the study of evolution, though one’s study won’t go far unless one uses a scientific and naturalistic methodology.

    A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:

    Few religious people follow their religion in isolated ways; most religions involve complex social organizations of believers who join each other for worship, rituals, prayer, etc. People who study evolution also belong to groups which are bound together by science generally or evolutionary biology in particular, but those groups are not bound together by all the above because none of the above is inherent in evolution or science. Scientists are bound together by their scientific and naturalistic methodology as well as their study of the natural world, but that alone cannot constitute a religion.

    Who Cares? Comparing and Contrasting Evolution & Religion:

    Does it matter whether evolutionary theory is a religion or not? It appears to matter a great deal to those who make the claim despite the fact that doing so misrepresents religion, evolution, and science generally. Are they simply unaware of the differences between religion and science? Perhaps some are, especially given how many people tend to use very simplistic definitions of both religion and science, but I suspect that many leaders of the Christian Right are not so ignorant. Instead, I think they are arguing in a deliberately disingenuous manner in order to blur the distinctions between religion and science.

    Godless, atheistic science is no respecter of tradition. Over the years, science has forced the revision or abandonment of many traditional religious beliefs. People think that there need be no conflict between religion and science, but so long as religion make empirical claims about the world we live in, conflict will be inevitable because that’s precisely what science does — and most of the time, science’s answers or explanations contradict those offered by supernatural religions. In a fair comparison, religion always loses because its claims are consistently wrong while science consistently expands our knowledge and our ability to live well.

    Religious believers who are unwilling to abandon making empirical claims and are unhappy with their ability to challenge science directly have sometimes opted for undermining people’s willingness to rely on science. If people believe that science generally or at least one part of science, like evolutionary biology, is just another religious faith, then perhaps Christians will be as unwilling to accept this as they are unwilling to adopt Islam or Hinduism. If science and evolution are just another religion, it may be easier to dismiss them.

    A more honest approach would be to acknowledge that while non-religious themselves, science generally and evolutionary biology in particular do make challenges on many religious beliefs. This forces people to confront those beliefs more directly and critically than they might otherwise have done. If those beliefs are sound, then believers shouldn’t be concerned about such challenges. Avoiding these difficult issues by pretending that science is religious does no one any good.

  793. javascript Says:

    Leonard Black:

    Stop the presses! Hold your horses! Leonard Black is about to prove on “scratch paper with a pen” that ID as a scientific theory is demonstrably stupid!

    You have our attention now Mr. Black… We are all breathless with anticipation for the very next syllable that might protrude from that self proclaimed enlightened mind of yours.

    Excuse my sarcasm this time but really… “demonstrably stupid?” Could you be any more arrogant? Welcome to the “Bigots” club Leonard.

  794. CRasch Says:

    The great Ben Stine says this is about freedom of inquiry. Well Ben I agree with freedom of inquiry. I don’t believe in teaching religion or pseudo-science in a science classroom. To expect the scientific community to take Intelligent Design as science because of propaganda or religious beliefs is detrimental to the pursuit of science.
    Have the ID’ist pursue Intelligent Design as science using the scientific method? NO!
    Have the ID’ist pursue Intelligent Design as science though the methodical process of scientific discovery? NO!
    Have more than one peer review paper pass for an actual scientific discovery? NO! (So far they have only one peer review paper and all of it has been shown to be evolution not ID to be the mechanisms change.)
    So far the ID’ist are whining and crying about their Intelligent Design. No real scientific inquiry. Just political mambo jumbo with religious dogmatic propaganda.
    If you really want Intelligent Design in science you have to go though the same methodical process as Big Band theory did. Big Bang Theory was considered religious when it was first proposed.
    We do not want to stop your scientific inquery, we want you to stop your propaganda and political (as the Libertarians Penn and Teller would say) bullshit!
    We need to teach our children to understand why this bullshit is not science. To inquire what is science, inquire what is the scientific method, and to inquire why ID is not science.

    I inquire all ID’ist, do you know what is science, it’s criteria, and the method it uses?

  795. Daniel Says:

    Leonard,

    There is much in the way of “poisoning the well” that is taking place before anyone has even seen the film. Yet the film and its content have nothing to do with Stein. The substance of most attacks to this block are indeed forms of ad hominem.

  796. Dave in Brookfield Says:

    Evolution theory requires just as much of a leap of faith as does ID. In fact maybe even more if you understand the statistical probability of DNA mutating to where it is today. All the evolutionists ask for evidence of ID but where is the evolutionist’s evidence. Darwin’s evidence has all been discredited. Show us one example of a simple organism becoming a complex organism. There is no evidence at all. Of course animals adapt over years to their enviroment but these are small adaptations within the same animal. For man to have evolved from the primordial ooze there would have to be billions of “missing links” to get to where we are today. Show us evidence of just one please! The religion of evolution is to just have faith that they did occur even without proof. The belief in evolution also allows you to avoid any of that pesky morality stuff to make you uncomfortable with you current lifestyle.

  797. Rheinhard Says:

    Well this is telling: PZ Myers has received a reply from the fraudulent EXPELLED movie producer (reference my name link above, or if it doesn’t work here’s the full URL: scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/expelled_producer_seems_to_be.php )

    For such an upstanding human being Mr. Mathis seems awfully DEFENSIVE, don’t you think, ID apologists? By the “logic” you seem to use (Darwinists are complaining about this movie so it must be true!”), it seems Mr. Mathis must agree that he is a dishonest quote-mining scam artist!
    ———————————————————-
    PZ: wrote to Mark Mathis about his movie, Expelled, which I was told was going to be called Crossroads. Here is the entirety of my message:

    Hey, I just learned today that the actual film is now called “Expelled”, that it features Ben Stein, and that it’s really a gung- ho pro-creationism/anti-science film. I would have agreed to be interviewed even if you’d been honest with me about the subject — I’m not reticent about my opinions — so I don’t understand why you felt you had to conceal your intent. Care to explain yourself? Was this the movie you planned from the beginning?

    Now I’ve gotten his reply!

    Mr. Myers,

    Thank you for your recent communication. Please know that I strongly disagree with the insinuations and characterizations made in your e-mail to me. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for sharing your viewpoints, and I wish you the best in all your endeavors.

    What a curiously defensive response. There was no insinuation at all in my email: he wasn’t honest with me, and he did conceal his intent. I gave him an opportunity to respond, and all he can say is that he disagrees with me on something in that email? What was it?

    I think the underhanded way he obtained interviews with some of his subjects is a sore point that he’d rather not discuss. I guess I can’t blame him — if I’d had to misrepresent myself to get an interview I’d probably be a bit shamefaced, too.

  798. Ken Silber Says:

    Ben, something can’t be suppressed if it doesn’t exist. IDers have had years to demonstrate their science in laboratory or field work, as opposed to political propaganda, and they have nothing to show for it.

    Unless this film offers a detailed and empirical presentation on such matters as how/when/why the design occurred, it’s not science but just more blather.

    As for Newton et al, what did their science have to do with their religious beliefs? The laws of motion work the same whether you believe in God or not.

  799. DaveW Says:

    Can any of the “empirical scientists” on this blog show me a neutron or a proton? I haven’t seen one so I don’t believe they exist!
    How about oxygen?

  800. Kelly Says:

    I’m impressed. Something like this takes courage that most don’t have. Science is the last concept that should ban specific ideas.

  801. ck1 Says:

    Do you anti-evolutionists get flu shots? If you do can you explain why as their development is based on the principles of evolution.

  802. Abhilash Says:

    Ben I wanted to attack your argument but too many people have already done such a nice job of it, already. There are not too many ways to defend ‘GOD’, so I will expect to see some of the same old arguments - false dichotomies, straw-man arguments and mis-information, in this propaganda piece as well.

    I hope you have the decency to NOT delete any of the comments or criticisms posted here. Between me to you, “You actually did this for the money right?”

  803. Marilyn Oakley Says:

    Thanks javascript.

    It’s a shame that the world has come to a point where freedom of speech is so censored. I just think everything on both sides should be laid out on the table in public view and let the individuals who occupy this earth make their own decisions.

    I was also read here about a rabbit fossil, so I found this:
    http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/133

    I have to wonder how many of our youths are reading this, and they actually may have that open mind to look at both sides, and are able to come to their own conclusions. With all this fuss the adults here are making, I bet their curiosity is getting the best of them.

    ~M

  804. Marilyn Oakley Says:

    oh, and as for the rabbit fossil, I’m not trying to say anything with it, I just happened upon it doing a search. I was merely just curious if one had been found.
    ~M :)

  805. CRasch Says:

    javascrip,

    Ignorant to the end arn’t ya.
    You think just one mutation creates a species? You are ignorant
    DNA.
    Even then, do you even know what constitutes a new species. Do you know every animal dead or alive is a transitional form?
    You can say all you want javascript, but your ignorance of scientific theories and facts makes you look as dumb as the guys at AiG trying to redefine science. You do not have the authority nor the knoledge to dea
    Another thing Javascript, I worked in the field of medical field collecting data for researchers on genetic diseases.
    Again Javascript,
    DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS SCIENCE?
    DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR SOMETHING TO BE SCIENTIFIC?

    “You continue to re-post the same arguments over and over and over again,
    regardless of how many people respond to the false acusations you make concerning ID and Evolution.

    Really, so its the scientist who is pushing false information not the creationist. BULLSHIT. So when we post the fallacies of their logic and debunk their claims with empirical evidence, they continue to use it as evidence, doesn’t that sound to be disingenuous and out right lieing when using data that they know to be false.
    I find if funny that you are indicating that most scientist lie and pass out false information when all their data cross-correlate
    You sound like afdave form many forum post.
    http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=210241
    http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10675

    I bet you even believe Genesis and Exodus is history accurate.

    “You keep saying ID has no evidence, only faith, implying that evolution has hard core facts, which we all know it does not. Both I.D. and Evolutionary studies derive their THEORIES from the same scientific evidence. Did you hear me say that again? I and other can keep saying that a few more thousand times if you like. Are you listening? You say all ID has is assumptions???”

    Really? funny even most of the prominent ID’ist even agree that its more likely evolution that constitutes change. Behe himself has since confessed to “sloppy prose”, and that his “argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof.

    “What facts do you have of what you believe? Can you prove random mutation creates new species? Can you give me an example on one time that has happened. What two species were involved?”

    Your ignorance in evolutionary theory is even so present when you claim one mutation creates a new species?

    “You’re realy only defending a faith, theory and religion, whether you want to admit it or not. And why would you fight so hard to destroy any form of science that is only attempting to dig further to learn more. Are you afraid of what might be found?”

    Your ignorance on what is science is even more present here.

    “What makes you think your views and those of the hard core evolutionary science world have the right to keep a stranglehold on what is or is not going to be studied in science. You are the one who is terribly ill-informed over what studies are being done by scientists who doubt darwinian evolution.”

    Funny I said that if Intelligent Design want to be considered it has to go though the same methodical process as with any scientific theory. Please post some real research going on on Intelligent Design. I mean real research. Not propaganda.

    “You are the one who is sounding foolish because it’s very clear that you are unaware of what they really do and you’re fighting with all your strength like you know it all.”

    Please, quit with the bliss. Your ad homen attacks just make you even look more ignorant.
    If you cant provide any real evidence, you’re not worth even inquiring about. I have higher standard for truth than assumptions.

  806. Dimensio Says:

    “Well. That settles it then. Intricate biological designs are just simply guaranteed to pour out of this process. It’s as clear as the Pythagorean theorem. Only mental deficiency would nitpick such an elegant all-sufficient process. It just plain has to be true. Can’t you SEE?!?”

    You asked a question. I gave an answer. Your snide response suggests that you cannot actually rebut my explanation, but you feel the need for an immature ranting nonetheless.

  807. Dimensio Says:

    “Can any of the “empirical scientists” on this blog show me a neutron or a proton? I haven’t seen one so I don’t believe they exist!”

    Do you have an argument that is not rooted in a dishonest strawman?

  808. Dimensio Says:

    “Evolution theory requires just as much of a leap of faith as does ID.”

    I know that this is a common claim of ID pushers and creationists, but please understand that your claim is a lie no matter how popular you may think that it is.

    “In fact maybe even more if you understand the statistical probability of DNA mutating to where it is today.”

    I note that you offered no statistics to back up your assertion.

    “All the evolutionists ask for evidence of ID but where is the evolutionist’s evidence.”

    Evidence exists in the fossil record and in the DNA patterns across extant species. Your ignorance of the evidence does not negate the existence of the evidence.

    “Darwin’s evidence has all been discredited.”

    To what discredited evidence do you refer? Please be specific, state both the alleged evidence and show that it has been discredited.

    “Show us one example of a simple organism becoming a complex organism.”

    Please clarify your request, and explain how it relates to the discussion.

    “There is no evidence at all.”

    This statement is false. You are lying.

    “Of course animals adapt over years to their enviroment but these are small adaptations within the same animal.”

    Please justify your claim with evidence.

    “For man to have evolved from the primordial ooze there would have to be billions of “missing links” to get to where we are today.”

    Please support your assertion regarding this numerical analysis. Show all mathematics involved.

    “Show us evidence of just one please!”

    Australopithecus afarensis

    “The religion of evolution is to just have faith that they did occur even without proof.”

    Calling evolution a “religion” does not demonstrate that evolution is, in fact, a religion. It does, however, suggest that you hold religion in disdain.

    “The belief in evolution also allows you to avoid any of that pesky morality stuff to make you uncomfortable with you current lifestyle.”

    This statement is false, and you are a liar for making it.

  809. Brian Barkley Says:

    During the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, the A.C.L.U. said that we should not be so bigoted and narrow-minded as to teach only one theory of Origins in science classrooms . . . that BOTH creation and evolution should be taught.

    Sounds like good advice to me . .

    What say you?

  810. Dimensio Says:

    “You prove my point Dimensio….”

    In what way did I “prove your point”? Please be specific.

    “I read some of your other posts including the reply you gave to my post above. You use some very strong words to describe people who just want to hear both sides of an argument.”

    You are establishing a false dichotomy in suggesting that there are two sides to an argument.

    “You call people who don’t subscribe to your point of view “vehement anti-science fascists, lazy, dishonest, liars who are fundamentally dishonest, and intellectually without merit”…”

    You are a liar. I have never referred to anyone as an “anti-science fascist”. I have never referred to anyone here as “lazy”. When I