Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ratings: 6.74/10 from 198 users.

Expelled: No Intelligence AllowedBen Stein shows us a world where Academia's freedom of inquiry might not be so free. This should be a concern for anyone and everyone. This undermines the concept that we will be teaching facts and truth in our universities. However, if you watch how this documentary is formatted you will find that this documentary is overly biased, delving into spectrums of propaganda! Let me explain. Stein sets about proving his premise by interviewing scientists that have been rejected by the establishment. Scientists who have allegedly had their lives ruined because of their belief in something called "Intelligent Design." Science isn't here to persecute people's beliefs and this concept would probably outrage anyone... that is until you realize the lengths he goes to paint science as the root of this evil.

So, we have Stein interviewing scientists that have had their qualifications ruined by the establishment, wouldn't you think Stein should interview people working in the scientific community at the time about this issue? If this persecution of dissidents was happening I would think he'd go and talk to people still working in the field and cite his examples for scrutiny. This never happens. Either Stein is a just a terrible host for a documentary and should stick to the game shows, or he has an agenda. Stein does interview PZ Myers, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, and the mighty Richard Dawkins for his grand finale, but he never once asks them about the people that were fired or denied tenure. He only sticks to questions concerning how life began.

He doesn't even really talk to them about why Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community versus why evolution is taught. He never asks these questions. Michael Ruse, who isn't even credited during his interview (more sloppy documentary work), proposes a possible life beginning scenario involving crystals. This results in Stein asking him again how it's possible... after Ruse just told him and results in what can be interpreted as a rude response from Ruse. This style of filming to show scientists as unwilling to entertain the idea of Intelligent Design pushes the viewer to see science as intolerable.

More great documentaries

1,430 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Seems as though no one on this forum knows how life began. Fine. OK, then how did we get here via the process of evolving? Sorry if that question is too threatening or challenging, just wondering since there seem to be some mighty smart people on this forum.

    1. For you to receive an intelligent answer, you must ask an intelligent question. First of all, who is "we?"

    2. Sorry, sir, it was not my intent to ask an unintelligent question. Perhaps this information I found online will help you understand what I meant by "we": "Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time."

    3. Does not answer the question which was " . . . then how did we get here via the process of evolving?" Who do you mean by we? On the other hand, you've answered your own question. So why did you ask it in the first place? You might want to try again to phrase it intelligently.

    4. Let me be more specific. How did the life form we represent survive billions of years of inclement weather without the things that evolution needed to provide us to survive, such as senses, skin, hair and the ability to fashion shelter and clothing? If this is too difficult, feel free to move on, Mr. robertallen.

    5. And just which life form do "we represent" and what do you mean by "inclement weather?" It's obvious that you still have difficulty couching an intelligent question.

  2. I reviewed a lot of the comments about this film and it seems as if many say we "got here" by "evolution". This seems to me to be an incomplete or misleading answer since the commenters (at least those defending evolution) don't seem to really know how we "got here". Not to mention the shrillness of the evolution defenders makes me question their confidence. Maybe it's partly a job security thing or a passion for the theory or a hatred of Christian people or all the above.

    1. I suppose you have a better SCIENTIFIC answer backed by heaps of evidence. If so, let's hear it.

    2. I am not on here pretending to be a scientist or a science teacher or even a science aficionado. I was merely presenting the question that I posed. Apparently, science has no answer for how we "got here" and it seems to me the science community should not pretend that they do.

    3. First of all, you must define what you mean by "how we got here," especially the pronoun "we."

    4. I'm no scientist, however I can tell you that for you to be here your mother and father had intercourse unless you where an IVF baby

  3. Wow, that's a load of info to digest. Seems like there is no agreement on the question so I see why you "do not know". Some say extraterrestial. As for Miller/Urey, I found the following on the Duke University site: "There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's
    experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere
    did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is
    that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it
    is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive
    Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed."

    1. Where on the Duke University Site?

  4. Came upon this site and read some of the comments about this film, have not seen it. Wondering...how did a living being come from a non living substance? Just asking, so spare me the intolerance, personal attacks and ridicule that robertallen and the mod dude seem to be fond of.

    1. look up "abiogenesis" for a scientific explanation of the processes that could have led to the first living organism. for myself personally i state "i do not know" as the evidence is not sufficient (or i haven't personally seen it) to lead me to state a position with confidence. but "i/we do not know" in no way opens the door for "god did it"

    2. I received your response to Milton, but did not receive Milton's original post. This has been happening quite frequently. Do you have any idea why?

    3. not sure. the only post on record from this poster is the one above. disqus has in the past made mistakes out of our control. and as Achems stated yesterday we are deleting anything that is an attack on a poster

    4. It seems to be happening just about every time there is a new poster.

    5. i have not experienced that personally but maybe one of the other mods have an idea as to why. i will look into it as best as i can.

    6. Thank you.

    7. In addition, to over the edge's recommendations, you might want to read about the Miller-Urey experiment.

  5. Intelligent design does not mean that the study of observable reality is rejected. Take for example The Stretch Factor by Dr. Gerald Schroeder which harmonizes billions of years for the age of the universe with 6 days of creation. The key in this is hermeneutics, i.e. day in Hebrew is yom. Yom can be a literal day or an age (some length of time). Therefore, 6 ages of billions of years. Religion has a history of suppressing science in the west but that does not mean the scientists themselves saw the laws of the natural world as a rejection of God. Now there are religious people and organizations who are trying to right the historical wrong of suppression by becoming more open to what science has to offer. The irony is that now they are the ones who are being suppressed and rejected because of their belief in a designer. A little one sided it seems.

    1. And your point is?

    2. You tell me. It's in there.

    3. Obviously, you don't have a point.

    4. If you cannot see it, then why worry about me telling you? Of course, what is obvious is that it is your job to repel everything that anyone says on this feed that is antithetical to your belief.

    5. If you cannot couch your point in clear terms, you have no point at all.

    6. Wisdom is only possessed by the learner.

    7. Your problem is that you have nothing to teach--or at least nothing intelligible.

    8. But do you know that? You base that conclusion off of something that you do not understand. Deductive reasoning will lead to the point but because you cannot see it plainly, you refuse to search.

    9. I don't have to. It's up to you to write clearly. If you can't, you shouldn't be writing at all which brings me back to the original point: you have nothing to teach--or at least nothing intelligible.

    10. Is it unintelligible? You seemed to see the words but not the point and somehow this is my problem? That just says that you cannot see the forest for the trees. Which is what has presumably led you to spend at least the past 2 years of your life commenting on this particular feed. You are without a doubt an intelligent individual. You are well read and have an innate ability for debate. However, you cannot understand what faith in God is. You understand what it means but not what it is. You spend your time arguing with individuals who have both a passion for their God and for science because you see this combination as somehow threatening.

    11. Belief in (passion for) some entity which you can't prove exists is pathetic and stupid.

    12. Why does it threaten you then? Where does the passion to so vehemently argue with and berate those that possess said belief come from?

    13. A hatred for idiocy and ignorance trying to pass for a virtue.

    14. That is quite a powerful statement. So is it that you see the unwillingness to be open to the prospect that there is no God as ignorance? Not only ignorance but a threat as well?

    15. When you provide the hard evidence of a god (that is your god), I will consider, but until you do, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    16. I'm afraid the type of evidence you are looking for will not be found. It is evidence of the soul first, with the mind following. One cannot reach God intellectually but through the soul leads someone to him. Can you really blame someone who has a faith that is very
      real to them? Such a hatred must be based on personal experience rather than a
      mere disagreement in worldview. What has your experience been with individual’s
      who hold a belief in a deity and hold a passion for science?

    17. So you're saying, don't think, just accept, not only the existence of a deity (ostensibly yours) but of a soul as well. That makes faith fraudulent and its promoters such as you despicable.

    18. You can arrive at the probability of a God through intellect and reasoning. However, the belief in God only comes through faith. Are we really trying to deceive? There is no hidden agenda here. The intentions of intelligent design are clearly laid out. What do you believe the intentions are?

    19. "You can arrive at the probability of a God through intellect and reasoning." Why bring in reasoning when "One cannot reach God intellectually [through reason] but through the soul leads someone to him" and " . . . the belief in God only comes through faith?" If that's the case, your god is not worth believing in, for faith is no more than ignorance, gullibility and stupidity amalgamating into a false virtue. Being the very anthesis of reason, faith is contemptible, pinchbeck and fraudulent.

      Furthermore, probability is a mathematical concept based on hard data and attempting to employ it to prove the existence of a supreme being (ostensibly yours) is dishonest and meretricious.

      You're right. The intentions of intelligent design are clearly laid out: to pass off repackaged creationism (religion) as science. As such it is as despicable as those who promote it.

    20. You can reason the prospect of a God (obstensibly mine or otherwise). I suggest listening to Ravi Zacharias for this concept. When I say intellectually I mean through scientific process. You cannot believe in God through the implementation of scientific process because scientific process will not prove God's existence.

      Faith is the only way to believe in the existence of a god. Before faith is established it is only conjecture. True faith proves to be self-evident for the existence of a god. This is impossible for you to understand and I do not blame you for that. I do not expect that to make sense.

      Intelligent design is science with a presupposition that a god/gods exist and created all things. All scientists come to the table with a presupposed worldview. One can and does look at scientific evidence when studying the universe with said deified presuppositions just as with atheistic ones. Furthermore, they can and do arrive at very concrete (non-fraudulent) scientific facts. Simply because a scientist discovers something about the universe does not mean that they are going to push religion. That's speculative. Many great scientists in the past and present believed in a god of some kind but did not push their presupposed belief on anyone when they made a scientific discovery. Of course some do but a lot have not and do not.

      I'm curious though, what do you get out of vehemently debating those who do not hold the same views as you?

    21. First you claim that the existence of a supreme being cannot be established through the scientific process and then have the temerity to call intelligent design science, adding insult by describing it is as "science with a presupposition that a god/gods exist and created all things," Such a presupposition takes it out of the naturalistic ambit of science. Intelligent design is not science and claiming that it is is deceitful and contemptible. I suggest you read Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.

      "All scientists come to the table with a presupposed world view. One can and does look at scientific evidence when studying the universe with said deified presuppositions just as with atheistic ones." Anyone who does is not a scientist, for religion or lack thereof has no place in science.

      "Furthermore, they [ostensibly intelligent design proponents] can and do arrive at very concrete (non-fraudulent) scientific facts." Name me a few scientific accomplishments emanating from intelligent design.

      "I'm curious though, what do you get out of vehemently debating those who do not hold the same views as you." Exposing charlatans like you and Ravi Zacharias, another phony evangelical Christian apologist huckster, who preach the doctrine of blind belief (faith) as a virtue, extol intelligent design to the level of science and cover their inability to prove the existence of a supreme being scientifically by special pleading, i.e., claiming that this entity exists outside the scientific process. You and your faith are no more than exhortations to ignorance, stupidity and superstition.

    22. The fact of the matter is that everyone has a presupposed worldview. You say that nobody should come to the table with presupposition. That's a great desire but it is not reality. You would approach the scientific process with a presupposition that a god does not exist. You would tell yourself that your mind is open but at least subconsciously you would hope that your results not only support your hypothesis but not challenge said worldview as well.

      I am not saying that intelligent design has accomplished anything. What I said was that there have been and are today scientists who hold a faith in a god, and have accomplished great things in science. Just as there have been atheists who have done the same thing.

      You spend your time vigilantly watching this feed as if you speak for the entire scientific community. The truth is that you do not represent the whole but only a part. Quite frankly the part that espouses just as much hate, bigotry and ignorance as those that believe in a god have.

      You cannot understand the thought of believing in something that is greater than yourself because it has not been scientifically proven. I recognize that it is not scientifically proven therefore I must have faith that a god exists. You have faith that a god does not exist. You may argue this but deep down you know it to be true.

      I feel that this hatred for religion, faith, God creating the universe, etc. comes from somewhere. I do not know your life nor your past experiences. Perhaps you were from a fundamental Christian family. Maybe you have a deep wound from the church that you cannot let go of.

      This hatred will never be quenched and you will never be satisfied with your objective of "exposing charlatans." How do I know this? I know this because you cannot stop doing it. Perhaps you should write a book as it would at least be a much more fulfilling accomplishment.

      In the end sir I want you to know that you will not convince me of my presupposition as I will not convince you to relinquish yours. I am okay with this and I hope that you will become okay with this in turn.

      I have no contempt for you, I forgive you for belittling me and wish no ill befall you. Furthermore, as a Christian I love you as a fellow human being should love another. I want you to know that God loves you as He loves all of us, regardless if we believe in Him. His love is the Greek, agape. Only love an forgiveness of your fellow man brings satisfaction and peace. Never has hatred brought these things.

    23. Eminent scientists have been both atheists and theists which is why religion (intelligent design) has no place in science and which is why I would approach the scientific process with no religious considerations (presuppositions) at all. Furthermore I represent myself and no one else.

      "I recognize that it is not scientifically proven therefore I must have faith that a god [ostensibly the Christian god] exists." In other words, your only evidence is your blind, uncritical belief in this being which you profess to know so much about, but can’t prove exists. Well, don’t try to bring my refusal to accept the existence of this god of yours based on absence of convincing evidence, not faith, down to your intellectual level-–and spare me the Christian crap and your cheap psychoanalysis. .

    24. Do not fool yourself, no person is 100% unbiased.

      Creationism is religiously backed. Intelligent design should not aspire to a particular religion. Religion and science are indeed two separate things. The scientific process can commence without muddling it with religion; no matter the worldview of the practitioner. A theist and an atheist can do the same experiment and arrive at the same conclusion based on the evidence. The difference is that the theist will say, "Isn't God, Allah, (whomever) great?" Whereas the atheist will say, "Isn't the natural world great?" The theist is not ignoring what the natural world is doing but they are saying that a designer caused it to work this way. The religion of the scientist is irrelevant.

      "In other words, your only evidence is your blind, uncritical belief in this being which you profess to know so much about, but can’t prove exists." - Yes you are exactly right. I recognize that this infuriates you but I do not apologize for it. Again, I likewise do not blame you for not being able to understand it.

      Also, how do you know that I have an uncritical belief regarding my religious views? Once one establishes that they believe in a deity then they can begin the process of theology. Theology cannot come before the belief in a god.

      "and spare me the Christian crap and your cheap psychoanalysis." - I am simply being transparent, authentic, and observational. Not to mention kind towards you. Your hatred for myself and others who hold the same views as I do is palpable. Is this really a way to live among your fellow man? To each his own I understand but still, to be so angry is concerning. Is this how your treat everyone that you disagree with?

    25. So what? As long as that bias (ostensibly a religious one) does not enter into science. When Kenneth L. Miller, a Roman Catholic, lectures on the fusion of chromosome two, he does not step back and say, "God is great." When Francisco Ayala, another Roman Catholic discovered the reproductive processes of trypanosomor cruzi, he merely wrote a paper--and a fine paper it was. He did not step back and say, "God is great" or some other such nonsense. Thus true to form, you've confounded your conjecture with fact, apparently the product of your faith to which you try to bring everything into conformity with.

      "'In other words, your only evidence is your blind, uncritical belief in this being which you profess to know so much about, but can’t prove exists.' - Yes you are exactly right. I recognize that this infuriates you but I do not apologize for it." Quick frankly, you should, as it is no more than abrogation of the intelligence in favor of a puerile belief tantamount to believing in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, which, as it is based on nothing, does not merit anything approaching respect. Again, spare me the crap about living with my fellow man, etc. You're pathetic. .

    26. Yes I am pathetic. I am pathetic because by faith I believe in something that is bigger than myself. I am pathetic because I give respect to those of whom I disagree with. I am pathetic because I am unapologetic in my worldview. I am pathetic because I have not dedicated my life to pouncing on internet passerbys to make myself feel as though I am achieving something.

      Alas we are at an impasse.

      Science and theism can and does co-exist to create as well as learn great things. They do not have to impact each other. They simply can co-exist. Religion is only inferred. This is the bottom line.

      You have knowledge but your hatred clouds your understanding. We tend to fear things that we do not understand. Which in your case is clearly made evident. You fear religion for the damage that it can do or the closed-mindedness that can often create. However, you cannot recognize when this is not the case or when a movement is being built to abolish these faults. For all of your intellect you have not wisdom, only a fools wisdom. For this I pity you.

      Mr. robertallen1 I have truly enjoyed our conversation. You have my respect and I hope that you find happiness and fulfillment in your life.

      You may now have the last word.

    27. To sum up, you are pathetic because you claim to know all about an entity the existence of which you admit you cannot prove and then attempt to rationalize this idiocy by contending that this entity is beyond proof, i.e., special pleading. This makes you a mental troglodyte and the faith of which you're so proud merely the cave in which you dwell.

      And get this straight, I don't fear religion, I despise it and everything it stands for. Your inability to come up with one benefit which only religion can accomplish says everything about you and it.


    28. Was it "the stretch factor" and was it related to stretching the truth as to what is known and what is not? I think that was the point. Billions of years equals 6 days. Sweet! That makes me pretty old, however...or is it pretty young?

      I like the idea of a stretch factor - pretty much anything goes - a day is an age is a "length of time." That's precision!

      I read all the way to the bottom of this thread and saw nothing else, so I'm going with this theory.

  6. Yes, even very prominent scientists have been fired for believing in the Creator's (intelligent) design. I know personally of just one in particular who in fact for all his life taught evolution in universities etc, but who began to open his mind because of the impossibilities he had turned a blind eye to until he could do this no more! He also opened his mind to the possibility of the existence of God and began searching for Him. He became a Protestant Christian and now preaches and teaches Truth (and there is only ONE Truth and security regarding where we come from, who we are and where we are headed). That meant a great deal of humbling of pride, stripping of all he had been wrongly taught and believed, and now he is a very happy man indeed. God has restored all he lost in this process, to boot. Praise the Lord.

    1. " . . . there is only ONE Truth and security regarding where we come from, who we are and where we are headed." And just what is this truth and just how do you know it's the truth?

    2. Just who are these "very prominent scientists?" And why should we believe your anecdote when you haven't even named this person or the educational institute?

  7. A few thoughts regarding this documentary.
    Is it biased? yes, as are all documentaries, on some level. The real question is did the point get through? After reading some of the blogs, the answer is obviously no.
    Did people get fired for believing in intelligent design? I have no doubt that the answer is likely yes, (only those involved really know the truth) but the only ones that would be deserving of it, are those who are trying to bring faith into a classroom of science. (they were not all teachers)
    One thing this documentary does very well is to remind people that nothing, not even science can give an explanation to the origin of life itself. This doesn't mean by default the answer is god, but serves to bring those who live by absolute proof back to reality, (if they are paying attention) reminding them that science will never be able to answer everything. With that said, any man who can get Richard Dawkins to admit that he isn't 100% athiest, should not be dismissed so easily.
    Personally, I found the documentary entertaining, and not so outlandish as the explanation that accompanied it would have us believe. Since this subject matter is so devisive to begin with, hard liners from either side of the equation will not be swayed from their own entrenched beliefs.(when in doubt, run home to momma!) The most important thing that Ben Stein did not address, (it doesn't serve his point) can be found in a documentary called 'intelligent design on trial'. (regarding genetics) It is an excellent documentary; look it up, and check it out. It is well worth the watch!

    1. So what if science cannot explain everything. It's better than religion which can explain nothing.

      For the real reason why these teachers were fired watch, "Ben Stein's Flunked: No Intelligence Allowed."

      You're right "Intelligent Design on Trial" is an excellent documentary and puts intelligent design in its place as a religion and its defendants as moronic religees. .

      Now, where did Stein get Dr. Dawkins to admit that he (Dawkins) is not 100% atheist?

    2. I personally know a very prominent evolutionist scientist who was fired from his entire career at universities because he was brave enough and intelligent enough to actually search deeply into what he had always taken for granted was "fact" on evolution. He astounded himself to discover that t in fact takes more faith to believe in evolution than the Bible! ALL the answers are provided in God's Word, and in fact, true (and honest) science supports the Biblical Creation events, and vice versa. It's just that there are many today who have MUCH to lose if this truth was known.

  8. 15:21 - This is the very first large mistake that Mr. Stein makes, among others. Michael Shermer wasn't factually "wrong", as he puts it. Ben Stein heard one side of the three or four stories, proving that he went into this with an already incredibly biased opinion. When Shermer said "there had to have been something else going on", he meant exactly that. In other words, "Mr. Stein, you've clearly only heard, and have been willing to hear, one side of every story, and it's the proponents of intelligent design's story that you're hearing, so of course due to hurt feelings, anger, and contempt over losing their jobs, they're only going to tell you enough to make it out that they did absolutely nothing but mention the two words. They clearly did more than that, or else they wouldn't have lost their jobs." Excellent editing job, but again, Stein just went at this with an already biased opinion on the side of "intelligent design", so he edited it like a Michael Moore film to paint the exact picture that he wanted to paint.

  9. i forced myself to watch the whole thing -- it's the kind of production one might expect in an elementary school setting. no actual science, only opinions. no proof of controversy, just belief. why do people laugh at creationists? to get to the other side.

  10. I am a high school teacher and have found many times that some of my most academically gifted students lack in the area of common sense. Without commons sense, many times it's difficult to see the obvious.
    1. Common sense tells me that no human being was available at the beginning to observe how the universe and all its components came into being. Therefore, there is no man nor textbook that can dogmatically verify how it all came into being.
    2. Common sense tells me that order cannot come from disorder.
    3. Common sense tells me that if it all began with a piece of matter, that piece of matter didn't place itself in the abyss and then decide what its purpose was.
    4. Common sense tells me that if it happened billions of years ago, why does it not continually happen again and again?
    5. Common sense tells me that I have a mind that I can think with. Neither a piece of matter nor an explosion could have given me that ability.
    6. Common sense tells me that if we did evolve, when and why did we stop? Why are humans digressing in their actions and in their emotions rather than progressing?
    7. Common sense tells me that I have 2 choices: either to believe that an Intelligent Being (God), someone much smarter than I, created all there is or believe that it all happened by accident.
    Since no one was there to observe the beginning, I choose to believe the one that actually makes more sense. I choose to believe God created all. To believe otherwise is to believe all there is is one big accident; therefore, so am I. What a depressing way to live: having no purpose.

    1. 1. Creation and evolution are occurring all the time. Ask any physicist, biologist or astronomer. And by the way, evolution has nothing to do with humans "digressing in their actions and emotions," whatever that's supposed to mean.

      2. The Big Bang (if that's what you're referring to) was not an explosion, but an expansion and it has nothing to do with the mind with which you are supposed to be able to think. Also, the Big Bang is accepted by the preponderance of the mainstream scientific community and for good reason, there is solid evidence behind it.

      3. What are your criteria for distinguishing order from disorder?

      4. And no, there's another choice: that things occur as a result of natural laws, the only choice that makes sense.

      5. If you obtain your sense purpose from belief in a supernatural being whose existence you cannot prove, whom you know nothing about and whom by nature you can know nothing about, you are a mental defective who has no business teaching in a high school or for that matter, anywhere.

      I'll tell you why your common sense fails you--because you don't have the knowledge to go with it. Your post reflects an appalling ignorance of biology, physics, cosmology and as a matter of fact, science in general. In short, your post is one of the more ignorant ones on this thread and if indeed you are a high school teacher, you're a disgrace to your profession. I have no idea where you teach or what you teach, but if I did and I found out that you were attempting to bring your theology into the classroom, I would not rest until you were booted out of the profession and your teaching credential, if you have one, revoked.

    2. Evening Choosy, why does being here by accident strike you as a depressing way to live, what purpose do you think there is to life? Do your beliefs season your lessons? Perhaps the children you say have no common sense might actually have plenty, it just doesn't splice with yours :)

    3. IChooseGod
      as another poster addressed your points i will just ask a couple of my own questions.
      1. what subject(s) do you teach?
      2. do you want ID taught in science class? if so please point me to the scientific validity of ID.
      3. do you support all religious creation myths being taught to students?
      as you have pointed out that "common sense" invalidates multiple areas of science (biology,chemistry,physics,cosmology. mathematics.....) how do you explain how we use these areas of study to create the technology today? the computer used to display your "common sense" relies on the exact same methods that ALL science does

  11. Great, what I thought was an open-minded and free community of people, is just as shallow and closed-minded as the rest of the world. Truth hurts, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

    1. And just what are you talking about?

    2. Quadren4
      care to expand on that comment?

  12. It's funny, if you question accepted scientific theories, like evolution, it really is kind of like going before a firing squad. I've never seen anything quite like the rage of some of these evolutionists ...oh, wait, yes, I have... in the Pakistan and Israel conflict. Hmmm. Is evolution the new religion?

    By the way, on a side note, I too accept the evolution theory as one possibility for how we came to exist. I think there are a few other viable ones too...like (please don't hurt me) intelligent design and (yes, I'm gonna go there) creatures from the sky messing with our DNA.

    All of these theories have issues, I'll grant you, but what else have we got?

    1. And just what are the issues with evolution?

    2. Scientific evidence for evolution...check.

      Scientific evidence for ID...no.
      (But who cares about facts? lets teach it as science anyway!)

      Scientific evidence for aliens...no.

      Somehow, I think the tested, proven, falsified and confirmed theory of evolution (using the term "theory" in its scientific definition, not the loose laypersons' term) wins hands down.

      Sure, the details of evolutionary events are being researched and new knowledge added all the time. But get a grip! There is a very wide gap between speculation and hard work.

      Edit: If by "firing squad" you mean the bright light of inquiry, I guess you're right.

    3. Nancy Madore
      "It's funny, if you question accepted scientific theories, like evolution, it really is kind of like going before a firing squad." i am sorry you feel that way. i can only speak for myself but i tend to attack the claims/arguments of others not the person themselves. i may question their motives,education or honesty and so on when i feel the situation warrants it. that being said you or others are free to believe what you wish and please question science. but ID is not science and is definitely not a theory in the scientific sense. therefore they cannot be presented in a science class. please ask any questions you wish about evolution and i promise to answer (if i have an answer) honestly and politely. if i or others make you feel like you are before a firing squad feel free to ignore the offending posts.

    4. @Nancy Madore,

      If you are seriously looking at intelligent design as a 'possibility for how we came to exist,' you should be aware that for all their talk and their "Wedge Document," the people at the Design Institute (or whatever they may have renamed it to by now), have not actually produced ANY science to support their hypothesis.

      I and many of the posters, on this site at least, have gone to the trouble of acquainting ourselves with not just the trial information for the various school district lawsuits, but other DI material as well.

      So far, no science. A nicely-produced video and book designed to be slipped into classrooms under the guise of 'inquiry' but all it really does is make some speculations with the pious hope that someone else will do the work. I don't think there are any takers, yet.

      The theory of evolution has more than 150 years of hard science behind it, with massive amounts of new data being collected daily.

      If there's a 'firing squad' mentality among people who understand the theory of evolution, it's because there is an organized and well-funded effort to promote the views of one sect of one religion as science, and to have a religious viewpoint taught AS SCIENCE to children who have no way of discerning the difference.

      To be crystal clear, theology =/= science. They are two different realms altogether.

      Someone's got to fight back, or whole generations of American children are going to grow up handicapped in the world economy.

      /steps off soapbox

    5. What else have we got?? Try common sense!

  13. In light of the brutal history of persecution perpetrated against scholars and scientists by the religious establishment going back thousands of years, I honestly have no sympathy for bible thumpers getting drummed out of the scientific community. I see it as understandable at worst, and a step in the right direction at best.

  14. Thank you Robertallen1, I do have to admit that this change has been a long time coming. This documentary was just the final nail in the coffin.

    1. You might want to check out "Ben Stein's Flunked: No Intelligence Allowed" which is also on TDF.

      One way or the other, welcome aboard and keep posing. I'm sure there are a lot of others who would be interested in your thoughts and impressions.

    2. Thanks again, I have since seen "Ben Stein's Flunked" I came across it when I was thinking of doing a YouTube video about my impression of This Doc. I decide to not do my own because he did a much better and thorough job than I would have ever been able to.

    3. Good. Have you seen "What the Bible Got Wrong," "What Genesis Got Wrong," Why Do People Laugh at Creationists" or any of the other documentaries on evolution on TDF?

    4. yes I have watch most of those. I am planning on writing a review of the ones I have watched. So keep an eye out.

    5. You're doing well. I await your reviewed with bated breath.

      Have you seen Chuck Missler's peanut butter lecture on YouTube? If not, why don't you watch it and give me (and everyone else) your opinion? It's only a few minutes long.

    6. Robert, shoot me an email if you will. I would like to keep in contact without taking up ever one's time here.

    7. Austin Wilson
      sorry no personal e-mails allowed

    8. I appreciate the compliment, but this is a public site; that is, the purpose of the comment section is to take up everyone's time here which makes it one of the best ways for the dissemination and exchange of information.

      Now, have you seen Chuck Missler's peanut butter lecture?

    9. Sorry about that.

      Yes I did just watch the Chuck Missler clip. This is exactly what I am talking about. These guys seem to not be interested in keeping any honest thinking people in the faith. Any reasonable person, with a maximum of an 8th grade biology class, knows that this experiment is bogus. It is the same idea that the creationist use all the time. they think that if I prove that evolution doesn't work (in experiments that everyone knows isn't going to work in the first place) then I have by default proven that God must of made everything.

      I would love to see him prove his point in the following manner:

      Ok, so I have opened this jar of peanut butter and found no new life forms. Thus, I have proven evolution is wrong.

      So now in order to prove my view of Christianity I will now demonstrate, based on biblical principles, that God made all things.

      Using the principle of scripture:
      John 14:11-14
      King James Version (KJV)
      11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the VERY WORKS' SAKE.
      12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
      13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
      14 If ye shall ask ANY THING in my name, I will do it.

      Ask God to turn the peanut butter into Jelly.

      If they really want to prove their point, Prove it. They say they have and believe in biblical principles and science.

      Science is based on testable proven results. I would think that if is position is true and through the use of the above experiment he would be able to prove is position.

    10. Achem is right. We are all interested in your remarks, especially this one. Notice, the peanut butter was vacuum-packed. So how could there be any new life forms in it, much less any life forms at all, except perhaps for some microscopic ones?

      Just a few random questions. Have you watched any of the William Lane Craig debates, especially the one with Bart Ehrman? As a matter of fact have you read anything of Ehrman and if so, what is your view of him?

      Are you familiar with Kenneth L. Miller, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists and a practicing Catholic. As he is one of all too few who leave their religion on the doorstep of their lab, he is probably as close as anyone of note to the paradigm enunciated in your first post.

    11. There are so many holes in his "experiment" it's truly not funny. Not only is the example ridiculous, it wasn't a honest scientific experiment. Even if we were hoping to find new life forms from a jar of peanut butter it would be on a microscopic scale. After the discovery of this mythical life form it would have to be turned over for verification to a team of micro biologist to determine if it was new or do to some pre-existing contaminants. also to make this a truly scientific experiment we would have to see the actual research from those billions of jars.

      I haven't watch any of the Craig Debates, however, I have read and explored Ehrman's books. It is actually because of him that I started on this journey a few years ago. along with him I am currently reading "A History Of God" by Karen Armstrong. Going back to what I posted earlier. I believe that it is information like this that most Christians are afraid of looking at, and do their best to discredit this kind of evidence. Understand, Christians aren't afraid of truth, what actually scares them is the implications. If we accept the physical evidence and realize that the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God we lose a very deep seated hope and security. The same goes for the acceptance of evolution. If Evolution is correct then how does Adam and Eve fit into the picture? If there was not a Original God created couple who fell to original sin then there is not original sin. If there is no original sin then no need to have a redemptive savior. As a result, and this was true of my on personal faith in the beginning, the reluctance to accept the truth is based on the realization of what we are going to lose.

      I will look into the other suggestions you mentioned.

      As to the ability to leave your faith at the door to the lab I have a problem with that. That is for anyone who's faith is real and truly a directive aspect of their life. I don't believe we can have it both ways. I don't see how we and be good Christians on Sunday and in a work environment try and accept the reality of a non-created world the rest of the time.

    12. You certainly demolished Mr. Missler--the problem is that there are all too many who believe him and those of his peer group such as Ken Hovind.

      Which of Dr. Ehrman's books have you read? Is "The New Testament" one of them and if so, what is your opinion of the volume.

      Perhaps Dr. Miller likes the Bingo games, but one way or the other, with him the science comes first. You Tube has a number of videos featuring him which you might find interesting to watch.

      Am I correct in assuming that you have a background in both science and religion?

    13. Not sure about demolishing is the correct response, but thank you. You are correct that we aren't going to get everyone to let go of their faith. Speaking from a personal view, I don't feel it's my place to deconvert those people. I do however, feel I should start putting in my two cents worth for those, like me, who find themselves starting to question.

      As far as Dr. Ehrman's work, I've read Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battle over Authentication. I found his work very interesting and he makes a compelling argument. It truly is astounding as to how much Christians don't even know about their own scriptures. Those who are not willing to accept the truth will never know.

      As far as my background that is a long story. Yes I was a minister for 10 years until my wife left me and I was ask to step down from my position. I am a Neuromuscular Sports Massage Therapist by trade now.

    14. Those who promote Missler-like nonsense and disinformation (such as Kent Hovind who is presently cooling his heels c/o of the government) should be incessantly exposed for what the frauds they are and for the wilful ignorance they are disbursing.

      I've read, "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew." Could that be the work you're referring to?

      As for Christians not knowing much about their own scriptures (some don't even realize that they are eponymous and that many such as 2 Thessalonians and 1 and 2 Timothy are pseudonymous , Americans don't know very much about their history (Sarah Palin for one), much less about their Constitution. Also find me an American who's read "Tom Sawyer"--there are plenty of Europeans, just about every educated one I run into.

      I'm curious. When you were a minister, what type of sermons did you preach? Hellfire and brimstone a la Jonathan Edwards (the best entertainment value so far--have you read the "Day of Doom" by Michael Wigglesworth who upon his first nocturnal emission became convinced that he was eternally damned and spent the next 60 years or so telling everyone about it), hortatory (probably) or scholarly (probably not)? Were your homiletics confined to pleasing your congregation or did you try to strike out in new directions?

    15. Both books are the same just different editions.

      to paraphrase Mark Twain, "a classic is something nobody want to read, but wants to be known for reading."

      To be honest about my ministry days, I was much as many of the Christians on here. I used many of the same arguments that we all see here everyday. It wasn't until I took a step back away from the faith and started getting my information from more than just the bubble of regurgitated propaganda mills that I started to see how flawed my arguments were. Most of the time, as I am sure is true of many here, I walked away not realizing that I had been the one to lose the debate. To many Christians do not understand that it is not just enough to spout off clever quotes if they truly want to make a difference. They need to start putting forward a legitimate rational case if they are wanting anyone other than the like minded to listen to them.

    16. America has produced a number of fine writers such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry James, Edith Wharton and, of course, good old Sam, who, if they are read at all, are read only as classroom projects.

      Were you a seminary-trained minister or one of those street jobs?

    17. I did not go to seminary but I did attend bible collage. The street screamers have always gotten on my nerves. I use to challenge them even as a minister, because much of their doctrine was so flawed even from a Christian perspective.

    18. As there are many and varied "Christian" perspectives, one doctrine is as good as another and thus none is flawed or rather all are flawed.

      In bible college, did they teach you anything about biblical scholarship including history or was it pretty much doctrinal?

    19. They taught both actually, however, scholarship classes taught more in a circle, using the Bible itself as the source for which to study it's history. Also most of the text books used were based on bad or self supporting suppositions. So no a true understanding of actual biblical history was not focused on.

    20. Without an understanding of the cultures and history surrounding the periods in which both testaments were written and compiled as well as the antecedent eras, it is impossible to understand any aspect of Christianity or any of the forms it took--and ignorance of same makes apologists a joke.

      One way or the other, this explains why the research which you mentioned in your first post came as such a revelation. I strongly suggest that you pick up a copy of Dr. Ehrman's "The New Testament" (3rd edition and later, the ones with the textboxes) and compare it to what you were taught (or indoctrinated with) at bible school. You might be in for a few more big surprises. Reasonably-priced copies are available on the internet

    21. Honestly Robert this documentary didn't really tell me anything I had not already come across before. As I mentioned in my original post I watched this in hopes of something more balanced. It was the lack of evidence and down right lies that just bothered the hell out of me.

      As far as the Bible goes I think we need to come to some basic understandings. Either, it is completely true and therefor must be interpreted literally (in which case it proves itself to be unreliable and therefor can not be believed) or, it is a complete work of fiction and therefor should not be used as the basis to build philosophical or scientific knowledge upon.

    22. Oh, robert, I can't pass this one up: "the peanut butter was vacuum-packed. So how could there be any new life forms in it, much less any life forms at all"

      Just leave it open in my kitchen for a day or two....approach quietly, late at night in the dark, then turn the kitchen light on...

      I *guarantee* life forms will be very visibly abundant on it (or at least evidence of their presence)!

    23. But before it is opened?

    24. "Ok, so I have opened this jar of peanut butter and found no new life forms. Thus, I have proven evolution is wrong." @Austin Williams' post.

      I'm just saying, a little patience is required when one is looking to have one's prayers answered. An open jar of peanut butter would be just that to the mice that winter over in my house.

    25. We are all interested in your remarks to the pro and con of religions in general, but! and I say this without prejudice, most of us have heard it before, so am very leery of someone stating, am doing an 360 degree about face.

    26. I completely get where you are coming from. I would assume you meant a 180 degree about face. Whereas I am not sure, as of yet, that I have made a 180, I do feel like there are things that need to be explored and investigated in a truthful and honest manner. I also believe that most Creationist are more afraid of looking at the facts because of where that road leads.

    27. I can understand your skepticism, however, I would appreciate your thoughts on Mr. Wilson's last post anent Chuck Missler.

    28. My thoughts are, either still sitting on the fence, or trying to trick us. I would not even start with any bible scriptures, to evoke any gods to turn peanut butter into jelly, to me that is kids stuff plain and simple. Sorry but still say as some creationists do, trying to get in the back door, to trick. Happened many times on TDF.

    29. Within the last year, I don't recall any creationists trying to get in through the back door. Can you recall any examples?

    30. One was called "Starman" a few years back, there have been others, can't remember all the names.

    31. my point of using scripture is to make the point about the problem of the peanut butter experiment. If they truly feel they have the answers then they need to producing that proof.

      As far as trying to trick you, what motivation do I have to do that? I don't have any vested interest in your faith or even if you agree or disagree with me.

    32. Come on Achems, the guy posted his facebook account, his photograph, his home city, the name of the company he works at, the name of his girlfriend...what else do you want? Look at his photographs, there's even cute girls with nice cleavage. I think the guy is genuine.
      Are you losing trust in people reading TDf's comments?

    33. ummm thanks I guess LOL

    34. Yes.

    35. Look, Achems I understand your reluctance I really do. I sincerely have no ulterior motives here. besides I wouldn't wish anyone back in to the hell of organized religion. I'm simply here to voice my opinion just like everyone else. If you don't want to trust me that's fine. If you have a problem with something I say, please, by all means say something. I would welcome your critiques.

  15. I was very excited when I came across this Documentary. I thought, awesome, finally mainstream media is going to give us an honest exploration of truth and wisdom. What I discovered though shook me to my core and down to the very foundations of my faith.
    After watching, I could not shake the feeling that something didn't seem right. Seeing the contradictions and down right lies propagated by Ben Steins I had to do some research on his supposed facts. My discoveries not only lead me to the fact that this WHOLE documentary is complete propaganda but that even my own faith and belief in a Christian world view is wrong. Christians, PLEASE, for the love of God, if we want to make a case for truth we need to use truth to make that case.

    1. Although I despise theism and everything that goes with it, I must commend you for your last two sentences, especially the final one.

  16. You can't disprove evolution by disproving Darwinism. There were obviously problems with Darwinism because of how outdated it was, scientists now have better ideas of how evolution works, some supporting Darwinism, some not so much. Nobody in this film directly stated that they were fired/expelled for the reason of their beliefs, and like the skeptic had said, there was probably more going on. What's going on with these individual cases could be nothing more but the known fallacy of causal inference. But to be honest if someone came to work at an auto-body center claiming that a horse and buggy is faster than a car, I don't know how long they would be able to keep their job.

  17. this review is bull*hit. the reviewers are atheists and evolutionists reviewing a creationist film, so get a life and get some creationist reviewers, so this isn't so biased

    1. You must use the term "film" lightly IRL.

    2. So in other words, only those pre-disposed to creationism should review a piece of garbage such as this documentary.

  18. This is, hands down, the worst 'documentary' I've ever seen.

  19. This documentary is well done. It is thorough, and as a person who dared question the physics of auto-generation of life, I can attest that narrow minded evolutionary bigots do not tolerate even intelligent counterpoints.

    1. Just what is the auto-generation of life? Just what is an intelligent counterpart to evolution? If you think you can disprove evolution, let's see you do it.

  20. Not science. Creationism repackaged. Part of the real push against freedom by wanting religion in schools. Same people wouldn't agree to Hindu or Muslim teachings.

  21. Give me the empirical proof that a painting had a painter. Something beyond the obviousness of its self evident proof. Something happened to create this universe. I like to back my religion up with science, otherwise it's merely superstition.

  22. It is meaningless we can only see so far into the universe and every time were able to see further we see more the odds and possibilities are infinite for life to happen we have way more stars and solar systems then we do casinos and games so why is this so hard to understand. Because we live on a finite world but seriously we should change the word scientific theory to scientific fact so this who only know simple English can understand what we're talking about. It's appalling to me that real scientists who understand this principle could ever say intelligent design is even a possibility anymore or for that matter even call themselves scientists. Shame on you shame on you

  23. Intelligent design is just repackaged creationism but if something "had to create us" what created it and what created that creator and so on and so forth. The only way to explain how it happened is through evolution through time. We already see it has happened with the wolf being domesticated into various dog breeds large and small they have the same DNA. Another thing is everything alive today share a lot of the same genes. There's a nova special on where did we come from we're science has created 2 of the building blocks of RNA just by precipitation and light and although they havnt figured out How the other to molecules came to be its only a matter of time now till they get the rest of the recipe. Chemistry did create all life on earth and we've been evolving since then. Lets say that a slot machine has a one in a million chance for a jackpot it's perfectly possible to hit the jackpot on the millionth try but people also can hit it on the first try. This is the principle of evolution while certainly it could have taken all the try's necessary to "hit the jackpot" the chance of chance happens to be much different with it landing many time before the required try's and once it happens once then life does what it does it reproduces and mutates. Intelligent design is rubbish and anyone who would try to undermine scientific progress by pursuing this is rubbish and should have been fired. Science must come to a conclusion and uh I don't know it must be intelligent design is not acceptable. In science a hypothesis is formed and tested until it teaches the status of scientific "theory". I use quotation marks because people who don't follow science thier whole life's or don't understand it or don't care or even worse have followed religion thier whole life think that theory means a guess. And that is not what scientific theory is. In science theory means fact so we need to change the word I think to simply scientific fact so even idiots can understand that it's the real truth. Germ theory isn't just a guess " uh well I think there's small thing inside my body that are killing me" no germ theory is germ fact there really are small microbes viruses and bacteria everywhere. And we don't say of that's just a theory now do we. Come on people I know it's great to believe that this life is not the only life ill live but the fact is it is my only life and I don't feel like wasting it away for hope that I'll "transcend" my human for that's just plain old stupidity and wanton hope.

    1. Absolutely correct, but just two things: (1) there can be more than one winning combination; (2) odds apply to closed sets only, e.g., in Las Vegas there are roughly 2,000 blackjack games going at once; look at all the incredible odds being beaten every second, all meaningless.

  24. This movie is total CRAP!!! Ben Stein claims intelligent design is motivated by science, rather than religion, but it's the same kind of science as "I don't understand how cars work! God must have made them." In other words, ID has nothing to do with science. And for Stein to say that Darwinism contributed to the holocaust is a blatant lie! I've read a lot of the history of world war 2, and there are many references from the Nazis to "providence," and to Hitler and God. The standard issue German army belt buckle said "Gott Mitt Uns," (God is with us). Every German courtroom, throughout WW2 had a crucifix on the wall. I read one biography of Hitler which said that Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, if he had lived in the time of Hitler, would have hailed Hitler as the second coming. Of course, this is nothing new. From the political right we constantly see lies and ignorance.

    1. Indeed it is. I'm sure it was accidental, but you forgot to mention Stein's "interview" with Richard Dawkins complete with idiotic and misleading pop-ups.

      You are absolutely correct about the German army belt buckle (there are tons of them still left), the references by the Nazis to providence, etc. (Aryan style) and the crucifixes on the walls of every German courtroom (one has only to look at portraits of Roland Freisler). However, speaking of Martin Luther, did you know there was another Martin Luther who, among other things, was one of the chief planners at the Wannsee Conference? Oddly enough, he ended up in a concentration camp.

      I'm curious. How many biographies of Hitler have you read and could you list them. I just want to compare it with what I've read.

  25. There isnt a single theory about the creation of the universe that holds up without inventing systems such as "Dark Matter" et. al. Why cant people just believe that we dont possess the so called intelligence to work out the theories of the universe from mathmatical modals.. We cant predict the weather for tomorrow, thats just atmospherics in our own area, never mind trying to predict what collided with what billions of years ago..

    Its a moot point.

    Is Darwinism right I have no idea, Is ID right, I have no idea, but for ID to be right then those intelligent beings must have come from somewhere. Or were they designed, if so by who.

    Which came first, the chicken or the egg..


  26. Wow! The giant, pulsating egos on the web are impressive, I gotta tell ya! As for me, I’m nowhere near smart enough to work out the maths that the heavens and the earth came about by random chance. Epicurus says even money? Hmmm I’m glad he’s not my bookie ;) But Roger Penrose, an Oxford physicist, (that’s pretty smart) said that even a single parameter, the original "phase-space volume," required such precise fine-tuning that it can only be expressed by the mathematical demand of an accuracy of one part in 10 to the power of 123. And just to write this number down in full would take more zeros than the number of elementary particles in the entire universe. Also, Scientific American published an article saying that "merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force" (The title of the article was "Life: Origin and Evolution," in Scientific American Special Publication, 1979). It seems like at least some smart people doubt the random chance theory. And in my simple mind if it’s not random chance then it must be design and that’s where I stand ?
    What I can’t quite figure out is why people as intelligent and superior to “dumb and dishonest” religees ( ha ha) like me, seem so angry. This really intrigues me. I mean, they’ve got it all figured out. They’re obviously genii, why waste time getting all fired up and trying to impress simpletons like me with their brilliance? I’m already impressed beyond belief. I wish they would just leave me to use what my humble life has taught me to believe are my own God given senses and instincts to try and figure out what path is best for me to follow in life. I wonder why they don’t go and play golf or have fun or something. It’s almost like they’re obsessed with their message like……like…….extremist fundies (?)

    1. Like so many of your ilk, you've never cracked open a book on basic physics, biology or, perish the thought, math and yet on you go creating strawmen (there is no such thing as a random chance theory, except perhaps on one of your ignorant creationist web sites) and rambling on about things of which you haven't the faintest idea.

      You are just as you describe yourself, a simpleton, and what's worse, not only do you want to remain one, but you try to put down your intellectual betters and bring the rest of the world down to your level. Why you even bothered to post this twaddle is beyond me for all that you have revealed is your own backwardness.

    2. No offence intended but I think anyone who goes on the attack like you do could be mentally unbalanced which tends to make me think your position may be as much of an emotional one as anything else. Go play golf, take a walk in the sunshine, breathe deeply, tell someone you love them.

    3. Oh, so now you're a psychiatrist along with everything else. Spare me your pinchbeck advice and start reading about physics, biology and mathematics--and I don't mean from some ignorant creationist website. Offense intended.

    4. Pardon me, but you are quite crazy yourself,

    5. I'm certainly impressed that you even knew that Scientific American article from 1979 even existed! Or could quote it so exactly!

      As for me, I’m nowhere near smart enough to work out the maths, either, but I did notice the qualifiers in that sentence you quoted. "... IF chance combinations of its molecules were the ONLY driving force.."

      And your logical fallacy:
      "... IF it’s not random chance then it MUST be design..."

      But you forgot to mention all the other forces besides design that it COULD be.
      "IF it's not A it MIGHT be B or C or D or E..."

      Gosh, I'm no simpleton, but even I saw that one.

    6. dont worry, the only way these people know about these articles is from creationist websites the quote mine them for ammo. however since these tactics are used over and over they are easy to respond to.

    7. What are the "other forces" besides design?

    8. Not my field of study.

      I was pointing out the logical fallacy in your statement. ("If not A then must be B" does not account for C, D etc.)

      I'm sure if your research skills are good enough to locate a 33-year-old article in Scientific American, you could easily follow up on scientific thought in this matter. Surely some progress has been made in three decades.

      But if you don't care about scientific thought or evidence, and wish to draw a conclusion based on faith, that's your personal decision.

      But do follow Achems' and Epicurus' links--they are always interesting!


    9. Why even think of random chance, another universe of the identical volume of space could be as close as a double exponential function of -10^10^115 meters away from us. And there is many more 10^500 universes.

      Check also "anthropic principle"...multiverse


    10. How did this other universe begin?

    11. Just out of curiosity, because you actually quoted a Scientific American article, did you read the article yourself, or was that a quote you pulled off a creationist website, as Epicurus suggested?

      On a serious note, do you really think that undermining science education by inserting a religious belief into the science curriculum is beneficial to future generations?

      Do you think that removing critical thinking skills from the classroom is the best way to train young minds to pursue science?

      My understanding of the aims of the ID movement is that they are concerned about morality, which is a good thing. But I question their approach, and their deeper motives, and wonder why they have chosen this battleground.

      What are *your* motives?

      What do *you* think about future generations and their education?

      What do you think teaching ID, a faith-based concept, as if it were fact-based will teach kids about how to solve fact-based problems?

      Will it help them or cripple their efforts?

      Do you even think about the long-term effect that this effort will have on our society? I have, and I am very concerned, indeed.

  27. @dtlumley The scientific community does not like any thing that challenges their beliefs. They are to invested in them and don't want to submit to a God that challenges their moral beliefs.

    1. First, prove that there is a god. Second, prove that he has anything to do with moral beliefs. Third, prove that you know what you're talking about.

    2. Dale Lumley
      you started your post with "@dtlumley" with the similarity to your screen name i have to ask . are you talking to yourself? moving on you state "The scientific community does not like any thing that challenges their beliefs." what? almost every move forward required scientists to challenge and ultimately alter what they held as true. Darwin,Einstein,Galileo,Hawking, and so on all presented idea that challenged the status quo but the sheer weight of evidence forced any objective scientist to go where the evidence leads them instead of the tactics of the ID community that either lie,misrepresent or ignore evidence that does not go where they want it to .

    3. is this a joke? are you joking?

      i cant tell if religious beliefs are serious or just sarcasm most of the time...

  28. 1h 30m 40s mark:-

    "....It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation evolved, by probably some kind of Darwinian means, to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet...." - The mighty Richard Dawkins.

    That settles it then.

    1. Completely out of context. You are a cheat.

    2. that was after ben stein said IF intelligent design could happen, what would be one way you could see it happening.

      and upon being forced to come up with a scenario he came up with a great one....a civilisation EVOLVED...and he said perhaps they seeded a life form.

      you are grasping for straws.

    3. No, he's not. He's lying and cheating.

    4. Clutching at straws...you think?

      Do you really think it's a "GREAT" scenario?

      Because no matter what context I put that scenario of the mighty Richard Dawkins in, it still sounded idiotic to me.

      Sorry, guess I'm just one of those dumb individuals who looks at the odds of the heavens and the earth just happening like this by random fluke chance and doesn't think it's a rational scenario.

    5. No, you're one of those dumb and dishonest individuals who knows absolutely nothing about physics, biology and mathematics.

    6. you look at the odds do you? okay can you explain to me the variables and the math you used to calculate those odds.

      the odds are actually 1/1 it MUST have happened. given the physics of the universe it couldnt have happened any other way. yay determinism.

      do you really think you are prepared to argue against science?

    7. Like most religees, he seems to think so.

  29. A very fine documentary. Some very important and relevant questions were brought out that we would benefit from considering.

    1. Pamela McCarty
      and what questions would that be?

    2. How did the heavens and earth get started that's a pretty good place to start. The mighty Richard Dawkins says "Very Slowly." I found that quite scientific and helpful.

    3. You said "I found that quite scientific and helpful." That proves how much you admire Richard Dawkins and agree with him.

    4. Does it? Oh OK thanks for that.

    5. if you have just one of those questions i would be more than happy to answer it.

  30. "wouldn’t you think Stein should interview people working in the scientific community at the time about this issue? If this persecution of dissidents was happening I would think he’d go and talk to people still working in the field and cite his examples for scrutiny. This never happens."

    Somewhere between 14:45 to 15:30 mins in the documentary Stein DID interview scientists with dissenting views who were currently working- all were disguised for fear of losing their jobs...

  31. Good documentary, didn't push the Gospel of Christ and have and extremely anti-theist view. I would say this greatly devalued Dawkins credit and esteem for me, as he quoted in the movie, he [Dawkins] REFUSES to acknowledge any Being or Deity responsible for the universe and Humanity yet is a proponent of the possibility of an advanced race of being who created man and we might be able to find tracks from their work in DNA, yet they were bound by darwinianism laws and naturally even the creators of man ultimately followed the same darwinian evolutionary laws and principles as the rest of the universe...Do you see Dawkins dilemma here? He claims we cannot refute darwinian evolution so to do and accept a designer would mean a highly advanced civilization must have done so ultimately never answering the question of where did Life and all existence come from...a question that takes the one thing Dawkins and the like lack, Faith. Faith is the only explanation that before everything, the amino acids, the inorganic material, the galaxies and stars, it was a Being that brought everything about. Dawkins doesnt give the possibility of such a means of existence an iota of credibility instead proposes an even more far-fetched idea of other races of beings creating man, or as his fellow scientists, crystals were the cause, thus instead of choosing the most simple answer, he chooses to construct even more elaborate and preposterous ideas that require more faith than accepting the principles of Intelligent Design. As one of mankind's greatest scientist of all time, adamant believer in God and Intelligent Design, Christian, Scientists, Mathematician quotes: Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion

    "The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God."
    -Isaac Newton

    1. Ben Stein in all his idiocy asked Dr. Dawkins for what he would consider an interesting scenario which he gave. He did not state that he believed it. So like a typical creationist, you distort as much as the documentary.

      Like so many of your ilk, you confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Because at this moment science cannot answer this question does not imply by default that a "being that brought everything about" and it's a sign of wilful ignorance to posit this.

      And no, faith is not the only explanation. It's simply a stop gap and a poor one at that. Dr. Dawkins doesn't give faith or intelligent design any credibility because they are not science and they deserve none.

      P.S. Quote mining proves nothing.

  32. great documentary!

  33. "If this persecution of dissidents was happening I would think he would go and talk to people still working in the field and cite his examples for scrutiny? This never happens."
    Really? Because you expect what... an objective, unbiased answer from people who want to lose their jobs, tenure and grants as well????

  34. This takes me back to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics

  35. I would like to approach this discussion from a different angle to hopefully keep from going round and round...

    It has been established that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an IDer, therefore, an atheist scientist and a religious scientist can come to the table of science with their opposing metaphysics and do credible and good science.

    The differences between the two scientists is their interpretation of the "big picture." The atheist scientist will say, "Isn't the universe amazing and complex?" On the other hand, the religious scientist will say, "Isn't God/Allah/etc. amazing and complex?" when looking at the same result. The difference isn't in the result of the scientific research itself but in the origination/originator of the result's mode of operation.

    The argument then lies in the fact that the atheist is allowed and encouraged to say "above statement" but the religious scientist is not allowed to say "above statement"

    The question then is why is it acceptable to come to the table of science with the assumption that an IDer does not exist but unacceptable to do so under the assumption that one does exist, even though neither is proven?

    Would it be acceptable if the religious scientist states in his work, "I believe that (insert diety) has designed X to behave Y. This does not take away from the fact that X's behavioral process is Y correct? The researcher just comes the same scientific conclusion with a personal metaphysical presupposition. An atheist can approach the same finding that X's behavioral process is Y by stating "I believe that (insert origin theory) has caused X to behave Y"

    Why is one presupposition allowed, while the other is not?

    1. There is no such thing as a religious scientist just as there is no such thing as an atheistic one. Science exists independent of religion, independent of atheism or whatever ideology, and anyone who crosses the line is a traitor.

    2. @WesB
      you asked "Why is one presupposition allowed, while the other is not?" because while they both agree on the complexity of the universe the ID supporter is adding an unproven claim to the results (god). the atheist would be just as wrong to claim that this complexity was definitely not caused by a god. when you add an unproven claim to a result you are being dishonest. please answer me this why is it so important to you to include a non scientific (supernatural)creator within science?

    3. You know, Dr. Dawkins has asked precisely the same thing. So you're in good company.

    4. @robertallen1
      my response to the company of whom i share my ideas is only this.

      "we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size."
      Bernard of Chartres

      for me Dawkins is one of those giants

    5. Don't you wish that the rest of the world thought so as well?

      Also, don't you find Dr. Dawkins to be a better speaker than a writer? Were you able to get through "The Selfish Gene?"

    6. @robertallen1
      to be blunt yes yes and yes(long time ago).

    7. I think the problem with Dr. Dawkins scientific writings is that he doesn't seem to have it firmly in his mind what type of a readership he is writing for. "The Ancestor's Tale" is an example of this. Your thoughts?

    8. @robertallen1
      i have not read "The Ancestor's Tale" and even tho i do respect Dawkins very much his exposure in debates,documentaries and interviews allows me to keep up with his views more quickly. even tho books tend to go into more detail i use my reading time for authors that are not as available in other forms. is my use of tho correct or am i being lazy?

      p.s the creationists is next on my list (next couple of weeks( and will let you know my thoughts

    9. You are being lazy--even though or although or if you want to be bookish, albeit.

      I've been giving your linguistic analogy some thought. (Without meaning to sound too self-aggrandizing, I pondered the same thing several years ago and gave up as I didn't like my results.) Perhaps if the analogyt were approached from the standpoint of a single word or series of etymologically related words, it might work. Your thoughts?

      P.S. Please make sure you have the 2005 edition of "The Creationists" and not the earlier which was published before Kitzmiller.

    10. @robertallen1
      the analogy wasn't an original idea. the way i poorly expressed it was. i usually reread-my posts before and after posting and i almost deleted it prior to your reply. my knowledge of this analogy comes from letters between Darwin and Asa Gray discussing a book recently published (at the time) by Max Muller titled " Lectures on the Science of Language, " while they appeared to like the idea they differed on the books value. Darwin apparently didn't like Muller's bowing to the churches 6000 yo timeline and the towers of babel references. but Darwin's brother in law (Hensleigh Wedgewood) did write a book as a result of these discussions titled "on the origins of language" and if you ignore the apparent cashing in of fame title Darwin apparently liked it. i have not read it but i found a link to a free online copy if interested

    11. Thanks. I'll check it out.

      Let me revise my initial idea a bit. Suppose we started out with a common morpheme, "gens," meaning people, a stem which appears in myriad words, and tried to use that stem as a model analogous to a phylogenetic stem.

      Another idea, instead of dealing with one language, how about whole families (or trees) of languages, dead and living. Maybe that's an even better analogue of the phylogenetic tree. Your thoughts?

    12. P.S. Now that I think of it, there seem to be similarities between biologic reproduction and linguistic reproduction. The problem is redefine the concept of survival of the fit to fit linguistics.

    13. @over the edge

      That is an excellent question and the answer for myself is that it really isn't important when it comes to presenting results. It is desired for one to hold onto their own presuppositions of origination while leaving them out of the findings. I think that where the Creationists get upset is that scientists who adhere to an atheistic mode of reality can typically say whatever they want to a scientist who has an ID view. Whereas the former will most likely be ridiculed and ostracized by the later for speaking about their view. Thus the premise of Expelled. Furthermore, for this reason Creationists feel threatened because in today's scientific community it is more acceptable to hold to the view that a creator does not exist than does. So, in a perfect world, neither side should bring their presuppositions to their research but that is not the reality.

      So then how should the scientific community proceed? Should they alter the reality and say, "No more talking about the existence or non-existence of a god," or should they deem it permissible to do so equally for both sides?

    14. You're right. Presuppositions must be left out of science.

      Creationists should feel threatened for trying to pass the non-scientific off as scientific and in the process distort, misrepresent and out-and-out lie.

      As there is no way to discuss the existence or non-existence of a god scientifically, your last question answers itself.

    15. @WesB
      the personal views of scientists is no more controllable than the personal views of anybody else. there are many scientists that are religious Ken miller is a great example among many that i highly respect. but his religion does not enter the classroom or his research. his results do not mention god one way or the other. take someone from the other side. Dawkins has strong opinions concerning religon and has said so in debates,books,documentaries and elsewhere. but read his scientific papers or his contributions to textbooks. nowhere in these areas does his personal view of religion enter the text. god does not have a place in science period. it is not science by definition and even if it was the classroom is not the starting point for an unproven hypothesis.

  36. Over The Edge...it's a bit unfair to expect me to know how Scientists should go about testing the possibility of an original creator because I'm not a scientist. It's as unfair as expecting me to be able to advise Scientists on how to find the cause for Action-At-A-Distance. Such "spooky" behavior of sub atomic particles is beyond the comprehension of scientists let alone me to advise them on it. But I do have confidence that scientists will figure out this spooky phenomenon we call Action-At-A-Distance. And I am confident that scientists will figure out this idea of an original creator as well...if they honestly try.

    That said, I find it reasonable to use the concept of intelligent designer "fingerprints" as one possible method for examining the idea of an original creator (hear me out on this). I'm NOT talking about this six day creation stuff though. Just honest scientists using the hypothesis that if there is an original creator then it's fair to reason that the original creator was intelligent (testing an hypothesis that "a creator is intelligent" is possible) and that the intelligence of the creator could be manifested in the artistry of our universe (testing an hypothesis that "a creator leaves evidence of their intelligence in what they create" is possible) and that finding this intelligence manifested in the artistry of our universe is possible evidence of a creator of our universe (because applying the methods for "how to find evidence of a creators intelligence manifested in the artistry of a test subject creators creation" to our universe is possible).

    I suspect that with the context of an original creator our universe will show the observer what the observer sets out to find. Scientific research using Methodological Naturalism has set out to find that there are natural causes for nature and that is what it has found out (there are natural causes for nature). It hasn't really looked for an original creator to rightfully claim that there is none. But now that we have established that there are natural causes for nature we can safely look for evidence of an original creator and not worry that nature doesn't have natural causes. And I suspect we will find that there IS evidence of an original creator and that there IS still natural causes for nature. We could even end up seeing Science proving that the legendary "god" being of religious history does not exist and yet at the same time proving that an original creator "god" being does exist...leaving us feeling the similar sensation one gets after examining Action-At-A-Distance with our limited under-standing it.

    Currently we've barely scratched the surface on the topic that there isn't an original creator (we're just claiming since we found what we were looking for...natural causes for nature...there can't be ANY other causes...and that is not good science and borderlines arrogance). But who knows, perhaps by honestly looking for evidence of an original creator, using agreed upon scientific methods, science might find that there really just is no original creator AND can without controversy claim "And our research into the possibility of an original creator proves it." This would seal the deal for all Deism/Theism claims that go against the Atheist claims of Methodological Naturalism.

    And if it goes the other way and Science finds methods that prove that there is an original creator "god" being then it wouldn't be hard to sort out the details of creation stories and "spooky" medicine. Because we could simply adapt and adjust the scientific methods we used to prove there is an original creator to creation stories and "spooky" medicine (if we have figured out how to observe and test that which was traditionally called the "Divine" then I'm sure we can observe and test less challenging phenomena).

    The one thing that would probably need to be open to challenge with pursuing scientific research into the possibility of an original creator is Atheism ideology. If ones Atheism is currently embraced due to their interpretation that Atheism is science, and if science shows Atheism to be a non-scientific choice then letting go of one's Atheism...because Atheism is not longer "scientific"...should not be an issue (the person was going with science over atheism anyways). But if ones Atheism is a personal choice and that person has been using science to support that choice, and then science shows that an original creator exists, this could be quite troubling for a person who doesn't want to let go of their Atheism and yet remain scientific (forcing one to choose either science or atheism). And this is a real possibility if we go about using science to research the possibility of an original creator (and actually find that there is/was one). The current Scientific community is predominately Atheist. And a good number of Scientists (and their fans) are Anti-Theist. Anti-Theism is not Atheism and neither is it a scientific position. So if science proves there is an original creator one can still maintain their Anti-Theism (although not because it's "dumb to believe in a creator"). But the vast amount of scientists would have to let go of their Atheism or no longer be considered scientists. If the vast of majority of today's scientists are not willing to let go of their Atheism if science research finds there is an original creator then I don't blame them in the least for not wanting to go researching if there is an original creator (as unscientific as that attitude is scientists are people and people are not 100% rational). But I would hope that when it comes down to researching the possibility of an original creator Science is not being held back by Atheism. And I sincerely hope that the majority of "Atheists" in the Scientific community are not refusing to scientifically examine the possibility of an original creator because they don't want to deviate from Methodological Naturalisms atheism for personal reasons (like say Anti-Theism). Methodological Naturalism is not Anti-Theism. And the "Atheism" inherent in Methodological Naturalism is not Anti-Theism. The Atheism in Methodological Naturalism is just a necessary assumption to better enable a more focused look at finding natural causes for nature....which we have found. Now that we know so much about our natural world let's try a different assumption...that there IS a creator...and see what we can find. Let's be scientific about it. We're going to have to create a different philosophical approaches than strict Methodological Naturalism. But let's include Methodological Naturalism (except for it's Atheism assumption of course) so we don't go off the deep end and miss finding those natural causes. Sure a lot of this will probably just be philosophy at the start. But let's do it! All we have to lose is...well just Atheism actually. Is that so bad?

    1. " . . . let's try a different assumption. . . that there IS a creator..." Science does not work from assumptions just as it does not work from the supernatural and its standards are not going to be bent to suit you and others like you.

      Your sense of the "artistry of the universe" has as much validity as the concepts of intelligent design and a well-ordered universe and like them is so vague and subjective as to fly in the face of scientific inquiry.

      Theism and conversely atheism have no place in science and as your project involves the assumption of a creator (a theistic device), there is no way to conduct a scientific investigation unless the standards are lowered--and as previously indicated, they won't be.

      All who have tried to look into the existence of an original supernatural creator "scientifically" (I suggest you read "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers") have failed for the simple reason that given the standards of mainstream science (which is the only science that counts) such an endeavor is doomed to futility and failure.

      In short, your idea is impossible to pursue and is not worth writing walls of text around.

    2. @TopDocRocks
      you treat this idea as expanding science when it is actually going against EVERYTHING science stands for. i am going to be blunt please don't mistake it as a personal attack. one of the most important tenants in science is it's ability to prove itself wrong. it is completely impossible to prove that a creator doesn't exist so therefore the idea cannot be tested scientifically. please stop tying atheism to science and misrepresenting what it means to be an atheist. many great scientists are and were religious and many atheists don't know the first thing about science.atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. nowhere in that definition does atheism claim a god doesn't exist. science on the other hand doesn't concern itself with god as it is outside of the parameters of science. without falsifiability your proposal can only have two outcomes either a creator exists or that the evidence hasn't been found. there is no option to prove that one doesn't exist and without this critical third option cannot be tested. well your post was well written and on the surface sounds fair when you look deeper what you propose is destroying the one organization that while not disproving god does show that a god is not needed to explain the world around us.and again there is a large percentage of the population that supports a creator,many organizations that have huge amounts of power and money that support creation. science doesn't support it. why is it up to science to prove something outside of its concern and not up to those who's concern it is? they have the money and ability to do these tests. they can use any methodology they wish and they have tried for thousands of years without bringing anything to science that can be tested that hasn't been dismissed because more evidence points to another cause. science is the only discipline that religion(yes id is religious) hasn't been able to influence and the religious are angry that there is something they cannot control. these ID organizations (maybe not you personally) aren't interested in expanding knowledge they wish to stifle it. they lie (see earlier post on the supposed expelled) you will never see an id protest against gravity,or the theory of relativity or nuclear theory because these don't challenge their personal beliefs. they will attack evolution, big bang and abiogenesis not because they are false but because it goes against what they already believe (or they assume it does). they don't want education they want indoctrination. they don't want to play fair they want to win. ID is creationism and creationism is religion. they use the same books and are supported by the same organizations. now they claim to be discriminated against. no. they aren't qualified and refuse to follow the rules. science works perfectly well and became really effective when religious bias was removed. when science was dominated by religion the results were great for religion and bad for science (and scientists) why should we return to those times?

    3. Once again, well done. However, you don't owe anyone an apology nor should you feel that you have to mince words or pull punches nor should you worry about giving offense. If some take umbrage at the way you express yourself or treat the matter at hand, that's their problem and the worst thing you can do is make it yours, especially in light of your knowledge and enthusiam towards your subject.

    4. @robertallen1
      while i agree i am finding that the focus is becoming more about how i post than what i post. so i have tried to remove this option as it sometimes hijacks the discussion. i applaud the fact that you pull no punches and your linguistic abilities far exceed mine. as i have stated before i don't care how i am spoken (or posted) to as long as the person speaking can back up assertions. why do people acknowledge the anger/assessment without acknowledging the possible justification/correctness for the anger/assessment?

    5. And your scientific knowledge far exceeds mine. With respect to the rest of your post, let me quote Epicurus to Addalled.

      "This is the problem with people like you. You don't have the slightest understanding of science yet you think you know better than the people who do." How many people who've posted on this site do you think applies to? In other words, your anger is well justified and don't be gulled into thinking that you have to apologize for it.

    6. I on the other hand, think TopDocRocks has been civil all along, why wouldn't you be too. He will remember and consider your answer much more than if you called him names and answered in an agressive way.

      I agree don't appologize, just state what you have to say about something not against someone.
      But you know that already...not every one does!

    7. At least TopDocRocks doesn't claim knowledge he doesn't have. Therefore, he has received civil answers. The others, forget about. As Epicurus wrote to Addalled, "This is the problem with people like you. You don't have the slightest understanding of science yet you thinnk you know better than the people who do." In my book, these people deserve no respect and deserve being treated with scorn and derisiion.

      P.S. By apologize, I also meant to you.

  37. Robertallen1...I don't feel that ANY research has been done into the possibility of an original creator. And I don't blame the Methodological Naturalist community (Scientists) for not doing their research into this possibility. Methodological Naturalism has purposefully limited its scope to the natural world only. And by its dogmatical approach has rejected anything it considered non-natural. This is its greatest strength. With such a closed minded (to the non-natural) approach to examining the natural world Methodological Naturalism has consistently shown over and over that the natural world we live in is not run by magic, angels, demons, or some "god" being.

    But this strength is also its weakness. For despite all we know about the natural world through Methodological Naturalism, it offers us no answers to that which has traditionally been understood as non-natural. Methodological Naturalism has specifically chosen to ignore the non-natural. And so, Methodological Naturalism auto-disqualifies itself from offering any informed opinion on the non-natural. Methodological Naturalism cannot claim an original creator does not exist because Methodological Naturalism has not researched if an original creator exists or not. Methodological Naturalism can only claim that with all its investigations into the natural world it has not found a "god" being that exists in the natural world. I've always suspected that the original creator wasn't a natural part of our world (matter). And I'm glad that Methodological Naturalism has discovered this. But just because a "god" being does not exist in the natural world does not mean there is no such "god" being in existence period (or that there is no non-natural). And that's a reasonable position.

    Because with all we know now about The Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Flow, Time, Space, SpaceTime, Light, Particlewaves, Multiple Universes, Multiple Dimensions, Strings, Action-At-A-Distance, Quantum Mechanics, and what there was before the singularity (which currently isn't much but hey) there is no need to blindly claim that the what has been classically understood as non-natural just does not existent at all. The classically understood non-natural could be some "part" of nature that we just don't understand yet. We know that the Natural World can appear more non-natural than what has been traditionally considered non-natural (take Action-At-A-Distance for an example).

    My concern is that due to the religious politics of Intelligent Design theory, actual Methodological Naturalism (Scientific) investigation into the possibility of an original creator is not happening. Yes I know that by looking into the possibility of an original creator Methodological Naturalism may need to re-examine and expand some of its current paradigms. But this is nothing new (take quantum mechanics for example).

    But from what I see in attitudes and opinions of people I encounter here on topdocumentaryfilms I'm not encouraged to believe that this investigation is going to happen any time soon because the legitimate topic of an original designer is wrongfully suspected and attacked as Six Day Creationist agenda. There is a huge difference between evangelical six day creationist agenda and the possibility of an original creator. The existence of an original creator doesn't mean six day creationism is right or that evangelicalism is right or that any religion is right for that matter.

    My thoughts are that if there is an original creator than the more we examine what the original creator created (this does NOT mean accepting Six Day Creationism) sooner or later we are bound to encounter the original creator (wherever he/she/it/they are right "now"). And that this encountering can happen THROUGH Methodological Naturalism. This is quite exciting. And really has nothing to do with religion [because if there is a creator/god and humans encounter her/him/them/it there is no faith involved or belief needed or self righteous rules required...there is just amazing experience...quite different than religion actually].

    Now I could be wrong. And I'd be glad to be wrong. If there is or has been Methodological Naturalism investigation into the possibility of an original creator please point it out to me. I mean, is there or has there been scientific research into the possible existence of an original creator that I am perhaps not aware of? If not than my concern that this research isn't happening is not uninformed.

    And I desire this research to happen. And I desire it to happen free from repression, free from persecution, and free from "expel" tactics. And free from anger and antagonism at ID politics misdirected to the inquiry and researching of an original creator possibility and those pursuing this research and inquiry.

    1. Fine, then do it on your own. Don't bother science departments with it.

      Also, you must first prove that the non-natural exists and defining it into existence will not help. If you cannot prove that the non-natural exists, you cannot research it.

    2. P.S. If you have to change the parameters of science to "prove" the existence of the non-natural, then you are no longer practicing science.

    3. @TopDocRocks
      lets say we forget that a creator would have to exist within the supernatural and the laws of physics would have to be suspended in order for him/her/it to exist. in order for science to investigate something a hypothesis would have to be formed and tests done that can be observed ,repeated and demonstrated. how would you test for this? i am not trying to be smart i really cannot think of any test that would be valid. also the idea of a creator has been around for a long time and philosophers, religious scholars and others have tried to find/show evidence to no avail. scientists who are also proponents of a creator have tried and many have used their understanding of science to do so (behe comes to mind) and failed. the scientific method is open to all to use. now don't confuse that with every idea needs to be included into science. but some of the most powerful ans richest organizations on the planet believe in a creator and they are free to spend their money to try to prove anything they wish and use the scientific method if they wish. but demanding that science change what has proven to be the best way to the truth in order to accommodate something that is not science would destroy the very processes that make science such a great approach to gathering the truth. if science is forced to include Id do we then teach all the various creation stories? do we teach homeopathy, acupuncture,faith healing, Aromatherapy,Folk remedies,Magnetic therapy,,Reflexology and on and on to medical students? or the thousands of other pseudosciences that can at least be tested and observed. if not why not? if so you can kiss scientific discovery goodbye

  38. I'm glad that you Robertallen1 would not try to repress, persecute, or stop my inquiry...as long as I was asking about what Research has been done into the possibility of an original creator. But Robertallen1, what if I discover that there hasn't been enough research done on the possibility of an original creator? And I decide I want to try and encourage and expand and grow this research? Would you repress, persecute, or stop my attempts at inquiry into what evidence there is within Naturalism (Methodological, Metaphysical, or even Religious Naturalism) for the possibility of an original creator? It seems your statement "Freedom of inquiry has nothing to do with it" is only true if I or someone else refrains from actually trying to inquiry/research the possibility of evidence found via Naturalism of an original creator. I hope I'm wrong. I truly want there to be "Freedom of inquiry" (without repression, persecution, or "expelling").

    1. If you feel that not enough research has been done into the possibility of an original creator, there is nothing to stop you from doing it on your own (read freedom of inquiry), but don't expect the science department of an institute of higher learning to tolerate what is clearly not science or even scholarship.

  39. Robertallen1...you claim "Freedom of inquiry has nothing to do with it." But let me ask you something: If I wanted to inquire about the research of Methodological Naturalism into possible evidence in nature of an original creator (or lack of such research) would you repress my inquiry? Or persecute me for my inquiry? Or try to get me to stop my inquiry (a tactic of "expelling")? Or would you be consistent with your statement "Freedom of inquiry has nothing to do with it" and let me inquire to my hearts content (free of repression, free from persecution, and free from "expelling")?

    1. If you mean writing about the research conducted, no. For that falls under research (read intellectual freedom) just as writing about Creationism (a la Ronald L. Numbers) does or about the influence of the religious right on modern politics. It's non-scientific espousal which causes the problems and hence the much-deserved expulsions.

    2. @TopDocRocks
      lets look at the expelled
      Richard Sternberg |he published an article that previously failed peer review and refused to list the names he used for his peer review, he claimed that he was told that he had to give up his office and turn in his keys but fails to mention that everybody at the time was asked the same thing as the offices were moving.

      Guillermo Gonzalez claims that his tenure was denied because of his views but neglects to mention that 60% of those in his department are refused tenure and in this highly competitive market he did not bring grants into the university and did not publish enough.

      Caroline Crocker was not fired her non tenure position it expired and she was not brought back (not unusual) as for her being blacklisted after her "blacklisting" she continued to teach at Northern Virginia Community College then at Uniformed Services University, now she found her niche she is executive director of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness center.

      Robert Marks claims that his website was shut down after mentioning intelligent design. when in truth it was the universities site and he would have been allowed to keep it going if he placed a disclaimer on all articles stating that this is not the view of the university and he still works there

      Pamela Winnick claims she was fired for just writing about intelligent design and then blacklisted. but she fails to mention that her articles were biased and even then she continued to publish in the paper mentioned and others

      Michael Egnor claims that he was viciously attacked for his views expressed in a article he wrote on medicine and evolution. he fails to mention that the article in question was only open to " high school students" and even then his was not up to the standards. his claim of being shocked by the “viciousness” and “baseness” of the response. forgets to mention that this was an online essay contest . apparently he has never been on the internet before if he didn't ezpect some to be rude

      finally "Freedom of inquiry " does not grant you the right to say or do anything you want especially if you are paid to represent someone else. if these or any other persons wish to spend their own money,facilities and time looking into intelligent design then they are welcome to. here is an experiment for you go to work do what ever you want ignore all warnings and discipline and see how long before you are "expelled"

  40. Robertallen1 and Over The Edge you have given your answer and you have demonstrated it too. Thank You!

    I sadly do need to worry that those wanting to try and use scientific methods to look for evidence of a "Supernatural" Intelligent Designer (despite trying to use scientific methods to do so) will be repressed will be persecuted and will be expelled from schools for trying to.

    And here I thought this documentary was just hype.

    I guess despite the "propaganda" of this documentary, "freedom of inquiry might not be so free" afterall.


    1. Because science is based on natural explanations, there is no way to look for evidence of a supernatural intelligent designer (a religious concept) using scientific methods and those who bring this into the science classroom are no longer scientists and deserve expulsion.
      Freedom of inquiry has nothing to do with it.

  41. We can't prove there is no Santa either, does that mean Santa could actually exist? if the fact that science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of god is your only argument, then you have no argument at all.

    god is simply a being made up to explain the existence of what our minds could not comprehend, now we have science and understanding. Some people just cannot face the fact that we are all mortal, we will all die and infinite darkness will be our existence.

    We will have no thought's, no memory, Nothing. we will cease to exist. If people try and tell you otherwise they are either deluded or what your money.

  42. It's really about time we put this fing crazy ass b.s. where it belongs. It's very simple...We go with what we have evidence for. There is absolutely zero evidence for anything supernatural....fear of death is the rub...anyone who says different is either delusional, lying, or has a hidden agenda...such as Money, Power, right down to the smallest church pastor who gets food to eat and has a few people looking up to him/her. Get it?? Spread the word fervently

  43. @Raf Fak and AUWR: So since this doc is just "loud and ignorant America" and Ben is "pathetic" and "has no journalistic integrity" I can relax and not need to worry that those wanting to try and use science to explore the possibility of Intelligent Design are being repressed, being persecuted, and being expelled from schools for trying to?

    1. There is no scientific way to "explore the possibility of intelligent design" for two of three of the elements of science are sorely lacking: hard and fast evidence, naturalistic explanation and repeatability. Thus, it is a religious or philosophical concept, not a scientifone. Hence, anyone teaching such non-science (and nonsense) in a science class deserves to be expelled from his position, as he is a traitor to his supposed profession. And yes, Ben Stein is pathetic and, especially in light of his "interview" with Dr. Dawkins, has no journalistic integrity, much less intelligence.

    2. @TopDocRocks
      you stated "those wanting to try and use science to explore the possibility of Intelligent Design are being repressed, being persecuted, and being expelled from schools for trying to?"lets break this down shall we science cannot be used to explore intelligent design. you see science deals with the natural world and id is supernatural and therefore not science. the vast majority of scientists say so, the courts say so and you even showed your belief in theism in your other post so you say so. watch " ben steins flunked no intelligence applied" right here at tdf to see the complete lack of credibility that this doc has. i will not go into detail (i have done here many tines before) but even if id was scientific (and it isn't) the classroom is not the starting point for new ideas.form a hypothesis and go through the trials that demands, upgrade to theory and the trials that demands,have it peer reviewed (honestly) . show that it isn't in conflict with existing facts and gain acceptance from a significant number of scientists in relevant fields. then and only then should it be presented to school children. that the problem id and its predecessor creationism can't pass the tests so they try to get in the back door. you don't want a level playing field you want special treatment.

  44. This sadly is the loud and ignorant America. Ben Stein, just pathetic.

  45. Ben is a tool. No journalistic integrity.

  46. For someone to state ,in so many words, that morality comes from religion is not only rediculous and obsurd but is highly offensive.

    Morality didnt come from religion it preceeded it. Without knowing not to imbreed, not to harm your fellow human, not to take from but share with eachother were all things that without we wouldnt be here. There was a time when we were down to a few thousand hunans. Long before these religions started popping up claiming ownership on morality. In this time period those humans more prone to doing these things were the ones to have children. In turn were also more inclined to do so and so on. As well as the fact that anything harmful being done was surely looked upon as harmful and was dealt with accordingly. The punishment idea for wrongful acts isnt a part of religious construct but these things were known then. Even pack animals and herd animals do these things.

    Now to state that morality is of religion only implies that us nontheists are subject to living an immoral life without your cults doctrine. Thats offensive in many ways. How dare you imply that i am not a moral person because of my lack of believing that your txts are from a supreme being. Or for not believing that the laws of physics momentarily suspended themselves so that jesux could walk on water, given he even existed. I live morally sound because its the right thing to do and us beneficial to not only myself but to those around me. Shame on you.

  47. ben stein is a clueless pod.
    Freedom huh? You mean like the Europeans showed the native Americans or African slaves... Ben stein is such an id**t... it is impossible to even sit through this. ID is not a movement. It's magic, aka nonsense/

    It is not that there may not be some kind of creator but that there is no need to postulate one because it adds nothing to our knowledge. Teaches us that not knowing is a form of knowledge.. and simply begs the question on an even more complex god's own genesis.
    (And Michael shermer cannot possibly be as skeptical as he imagines if he cant see that the evidence overwhelmingly proves that wtc 1 2 & 7 were brought down with explosives : ajl.smugmug com/911

  48. Done! nice to have an in-house tutor. Thanks

  49. @ Achems_Razor and robertallen1
    Too much to respond to on a forum. First, I would have love to discuss this in person. I am able to respond further to each of the rebuttals you have posted, but this comment based discussion really isn't the ideal setting. 2nd, by the increase in the condescending tone of your responses, I can see this conversation is becoming more than what I had intended. Well it was great discusing with you both. Your responses were enlightening. I only hope the same were true of mine. Thank you Gentlemen

    1. @Tyler Cook:

      Yes, no problem, religious do seem to have a hard time to refute science. So, another one bites the dust!

    2. No its not that, i could respond to your replies. its just hard to do so in this setting and i dont really have the time to sit down and clearly explain what I am trying to say (I have 2 major tests tomorrow and I need to study). Also, please if you hear only one thing i say, please dont think i was trying to disprove science with religion. That is not possible. They serve 2 different purposes. I never was attempting to do so. I enjoy science and find it fascinating. Science is not my enemy and neither are you. Now again, thank you for taking the time to debate with me.

    3. @Tyler Cook:

      Okay, do not take our discussions to heart, wish you the best with your exams!

    4. And thank you for the cop out.

  50. @Achems_Razor
    I disagree. Religion is not in any way a means of control or economic gain. If you view it as such, then you are a hypocrite. Your hypocrisy is in that you call the religious narrow minded and ignorant, and yet you draw vast, inaccurately biased assumptions about religion as a whole . I cant argue about scientific means to existence because my knowledge on such things is limited, which i regretfully admit. As for our use of science to "garner more converts to strengthen their coffers and their hold on the masses", we must accept fact to be fact. What would you have us do? As our understanding of the world changes so most our understanding of our own religion. Our intentions, just as they have been for centuries, have been to spread our understanding of our purpose in life. Money and power are irrelevant to religion. Now, some people have warped religion but your accusations are not true of religion its self. I know that's arguing semantics to a degree because the people are what define the religion, but your accusations are only true of a small group among many. But corruption has warped everything at one time or another. When religion is as it should be, it is a means to give purpose and order to a world ruled by chaos. Without religion there is no moral code, no ethical guide line. The purpose of religion is not to convict the world, but to offer hope, love, peace and a means of salvation (depending on the religion). Religion is not perfect and shouldn't claim to be so. Religion revolves around the fact that we are imperfect and offers hope for redemption. You may disagree with me and you can ridicule me all you want, but the reality is we don't know the answer to our origin. It is not a question any single field of study can answer on its own. All theories we currently have on the origin of the universe are incomplete, which is why they are just theories; but they are talked about and taught are as though they are fact. The incomplete nature, whether you acknowledged it as such or not, is the center point of the conflict I mentioned. Not once did i ever say Science and religion were at conflict with one another. The conflict is between people with different world views. The reason that conflict exists is because scientists have attempted to enter the realm of theology but simultaneously refuse to acknowledge things of religion because these things are illogical. But it is only outside of the logic based limitations of science that the universe can be viewed in its entirety. Only by seeing the world beyond such limitations will we ever truly begin to understand our origin.

    1. @Tyler Cook
      i know that your comment was directed at Achems but i have a few observations/questions.
      1 "Religion is not in any way a means of control or economic gain"
      why then is there a hierarchy, places to gather the flock, tithes. and so on?
      2 "Without religion there is no moral code, no ethical guide line" can you point me to the religion that originated moral codes and ethics? maybe a study that shows religious to be more moral (i have one that states the opposite) ?
      3 "the reality is we don't know the answer to our origin" agreed but that doesn't mean religion is anywhere the most probable answer.
      4 "origin of the universe are incomplete, which is why they are just theories" this statement always bothers me. do you know what it takes to reach the level of theory in science? a theory is the best answer we have at the time to a fact. gravity,nuclear,germ and so on are just theories that doesn't make the fact that these things exist any less true.
      5 "these things are improvable by logic." finally something we agree on. please look into "Russels teapot"

    2. 1. Could you you explain what you mean by places to gather to flock?
      - first, hierarchy is in place to give organization to the church. Before a hierarchy was put in place, it was easy for false teachers of the biblical doctrine to infiltrate the church. By establishing order, Christians had a safe place to gather together and fellowship with one another. Tithes go directly to the church not the pastor. The church is considered the body of Christ. The members of the church make up the church. The actual building is irrelevant. Tithes go directly to the church. These are to help with social projects the church is undertaking. Thins like funding for mission trips or outreach events. These also help pay for the upkeep of the physical church building. This also helps pay the staff of the church: pastor, worship minister, ect. because these individuals don't have other jobs, unless they are part time.
      2. That statement i can honestly say was a bit ignorant of me to say. based on the belief that the universe began by God, this would be true. I don't really have any way other than the christian beliefs to prove this. I shouldn't have said it the way i did. Id love to see what you found if you could send me a link to it id love to take a look at it. Basically, my thought process was this. If we were to strip a way every religion from the face of human history what would we be left with. Well we would have humanity, but it would be in a state of chaos because we would lack a purpose. This is where most would disagree because religion is seen to be created by man. I cant really respond any further to that because well i dont know. In fact Im not sure anyone really knows for certain. But I do apologize for addressing it the way i did.
      3. Yes, I absolutely agree with you, but i do think that we cant just rely on science to get us to a plausible conclusion. I do think it will play and has played a big part, but i do not think all responsibility rests on the shoulders of science. I think as i said earlier, I believe the answer to our origin will lie in the synthesis of theology, science, philosophy, mathematics, the arts, history ect.
      4. Yes yes, i do understand. My main concern is that our acceptance of such things, we often forget their are gaps in the theories and these gaps are often over looked. I think that the full picture of the theory needs to be presented when being taught or discussed. the difference between those theories, and the big bang and Darwinian theories, is that they are observable. With those that i mentioned, we have evidence that points to them, but we cant actually observe it.
      5. "Russels teapot" is an interesting concept. I have been challenged with this concept before. Ok, here's an attempt to explain, but before i do please don't let my explanation be a factor to determining you opinion of this. Im just a college student and am very limited in my knowledge of these things. Ok, Russel's argument, logically is good. But when dealing with God we cant allow our selves to attempt to fit God into the structure of our world. Typical christian cop out right? Ok ill keep going. The reason something like the existence of a god is different from the existence of a tea pot is, no one really cares if a tea pot is up there. Sure the concept is the same, but the difference between being wrong about the tea pot being there and being wrong about God are beyond astronomical. However, it is through my experiences i have had in my christian faith that i can, with 100% confidence tell you that there is something bigger out there. When viewing our existence through the eyes of religion, things just seem to make since. My question is if there is no God then why are we here? Why did the universe just happen? Whats the point of it? If there is no God why carry on? If there is no God why is everything so detailed and complex? The reason a God must exist is because it gives purpose to every element of our existence in the universe. With out it, our everything is empty. So, yeah the existence of a God my be some tale passed down through the ages, but as for me I would rather live my life with a deep purpose. Im sorry if that seemed to religious for you, but that is just my perspective. If you want to talk any more email me...(email censored no personal info allowed) Its really annoying to try to talk here. That goes for you too Achems_Razor if you want to continue our discussion.

    3. I thought you were done, that you had to study for tests. Yet you apparently have time to assail us with another wall of blather. Quite frankly, I think you're a liar. However, I will touch on just a few points.

      " . . . hierarchy is in place to give organization to the church." A hierarchy, especially a church hierarchy, is in place to ensure the church's own existence and self-perpetuation, resulting in the well-being and comfort of its members, nothing more. Your naivete is laughable.

      "Before a hierarchy was put in place, it was easy for false teachers of the biblical doctrine to infiltrate the church." First, how do you discriminate between what is false doctrine and what is true? Because you are ignorant of history, it's probably escaped your notice that doctrine has varied through time and sect--or perhaps you're averring that those in the hierarchy are the only ones qualified to determine what is true and false doctrine or they wouldn't be in the hierarchy in the first place.

      Tithes are no more than a form of extortion--and who pays them? It is all too often the poor who cannot afford to and who deprive themselves and their families of the necessities of life because in their ignorance they believe what drools from the mouths of the fat padres.

      "However, it is through my experiences i have had in my christian faith that I can, with 100% confidence tell you that there is something bigger out there." Why should any rational, person believe you who has shown himself to be a liar and an ignoramus? But again, religees are not rational. "The reason a God must exist is because it gives purpose to every element of our existence in the universe. Without it, our everything is empty. So, yeah the existence of God may be some tale passed down through the ages, but as for me I would rather live my life with a deep purpose." In other words, like a baby who cannot live without his security blanket, you need a fairy tale to pacify you. If these last two statements epitomize the intellectual depth of your religion, your Christan faith sucks!

    4. yeah I though this might give you that impression, sorry. I should have posted my long post first before telling y'all i was done. I just saw his response and decided i would be done after responding to him. Mainly, im just sick of discussing things in this manner (in a forum over a computer). I don't think its an efficient way of communicating and is definitely not a place to debate such sensitive topics. I promise i wasn't lying. Any way if you want to discuss more id appreciate it if you contacted me. But based on your response i can see your just looking to pick fights because you are arguing semantics from an objective and biased state of mind and Id much rather spend my time discussing more relevant issues other than your opinion of my competence and ability to explain topics to an unfathomably accurate degree. God damn me might i say something that does not fit your infinitesimally narrow perception of the world. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Just like your arrogance because for some reason you think Im trying to convert you or something. This was a simple discussion. To see it as anything more is pure stupidity. So forgive me, but talking to you has been a huge waist of time. Respectfully, id ask that the next time you decide to get in a debate with someone you'd check your immaturity and bias at the door. You obviously have no respect for me and therefore this conversation is incapable of advancing any further. I am truly sorry your experience with religion has left such a sour taste in your mouth. Goodbye

    5. You're right about that. I don't believe a person's beliefs should be respected just because he has them, especially when they are based on ignorance and misinformation such as yours. In short, I have no respect for you because you have nothing to respect.

    6. Do you live under a bridge?

    7. Do you live in a cave?

    8. No. I live in a house. Why?

    9. You certainly don't express yyourself with any class.

    10. ....and you do?!


    11. i expected that.

      Certainly more literately that you do.

    12. You expected that?

      Wow, you must be smarter than me.

    13. And more grammatical.

    14. Is that why you wrote yyourself?

    15. Does your community offer a course on debating? You would gain so much from attending. You have a knack at killing all good conversations.

    16. You probably wouldn't learn much from a course in anything.

    17. How do you know what he has to respect?
      Robertallen1, you are a shite disturber on TDF, plain and simple. Good night, have nice dreams or nightmares.

    18. Obviously, you never read his posts.

    19. Did your parents have any children that didn't suck?

    20. all of you should add me on skype. it is the same name as my name here.

      I also wanted to say it is very refreshing to see a religious person argue and keep it civil. you would be a great person to discuss this stuff with in person.

    21. Yeah I'd love to discuss further. Do you think we could continue our conversation on Thursday? I have a paper to finish up and 2 test to study for today and tomorrow. I appreciate you willingness to remain civil as well. Progress is only accomplished in a civil manner.

    22. good luck on your paper and finals.

      i just finished mine up last week. such a relief.

    23. @Tyler Cook:

      Your post is like Swiss cheese, riddled with holes.

      "Money and power are irrelevant to religion"?? Say again?
      Religion IS a means of control and monitory gain, as the late great Georges Carlin said "money, they just cant handle money, they always need more!"

      And now, one of my favourites from you..."Without religion there is no moral code, no ethical guide line"??

      You sound very pious, is this taught or inherent? Every sentient being in the universe knows the difference between right and wrong without the advent of any religions.

      Religion is the cause of major strife in the world then and now, counting all the persecution of past ages to the religious factions fighting for supremacy in the world right now as we speak.

      Also get your facts straight on what the word theory represents, look it up.
      Do not suggest that religion even has any theories, all they have is a belief, doesn't mean squat! not worth the paper it is written on.

    24. Fine, just one suggested emendation: Instead of "which means squat!" how about "doesn't mean squat."

      P.S. Mr. Cook's chestnuts are all my least favorites.

    25. "Our intentions, just as they have been for centuries, have been to spread our understanding of our pupose in life." First of all, whose intentions? Secondly, did it ever occur to you that because purpose comes from within, it varies from individual to individual. For example, yours seems to be to spread religious nonsense whereas mine seems to be to show you up for the vacuous fool you are.

      "Money and power are irrelevant to religion." Have you ever heard of the Crusades? How about the Inquisition? Do you know anything about the history of the Catholic Church or for that matter about organized religions in general, including Islam? To view these calamities as mere warps or occasional aberrations is to blind yourself to the world around you and to history in general.

      "When religion is as it should be [read the way you want it to be], it is a means to give purpose and order to a world rule by chaos." If the best that religion can do is posit a belief in an entity which by its very nature nothing can be known about and abase and ostracize those who refuse to brook such nonsense, it can hardly be the medium to achieve what you seem to want it to, assuming that this not just some trumped-up need,such as salvation and redemption, to provide religion with a raison d'etre.

      "The reason that conflict exists is because scientists have attempted to enter the realm of theology, but simultaneously refuse to acknowledge things of religion." What type of conflict are you referring to? What are the "things of religion?" Or do you know? Kenneth R. Miller, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists in this country, is also a church-going Catholic. How does your statement apply to him and those like him?

      "It is only outside of the logic based [on] limitations of science the the [sic] universe can be viewed in its entirety." How do you know this or this just an example of wishful thinking passed off as fact?

      In your opening, you admit that you know little about scientific "means to existence," yet later on you posit, "All theories currently held on the origin of the universe are incomplete, which is why they are just theories, but they are talked about and taught . . . as though they are fact." First you admit your ignorance (amply evidenced by your misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is and where it fits into the hierarchy of science) and then, still keeping your ignorance of res scientificae in mind, aver that theories (from your perspective, conjectures) are being taught as fact. This is not only illogical, but false.

      Your ignorance of science and history does not stem the flow of your empty pronunciamentos; in fact, it seems to encourage it, for your walls of text appear to grow with every pathetic, puling, psuedo-apologetic post.

  51. @robertallen1 my argument is not that everyone should believe what my religion says, my argument is that it is a combination of ignorance and pride on both sides of the argument that keeps us from advancing any further than where we are at currently as far as this conflict goes. On either side we are not satisfied by either solution because it compromises fundamental elements of both science and religion. So I question why can we not stop screaming at each other and calling names and with open minds fully analyze the possibilities. Essential what Im saying is out of pride religion is rejected and out of ignorance science is rejected. I have no answers for what really happened with the origin of our universe. No one does. Any one who would say they know what happened with absolute certainty is a fool . That goes both ways. The religious ignorantly explain the unknown by the supernatural while scientists see the world to be made up of purely math and science, and hastily reject the possibility of religions solutions. I believe the answer will lie in the synthesis of Theology, science, philosophy, mathematics, the arts, history ect. We can not just answer these questions through the narrow spectrum of science or religion. All things must be combined. I simply think we aren't seeing the whole picture. Just to clarify, my intention in my last post was not to offer some proof that you were wrong and I was right. Because in all honesty, it was saying a lot without really saying anything at all. It was more to evoke a response.

    1. @Tyler Cook:

      Conflict? what conflict, the only conflict that science has with religion is when the religious through the ages push there creationism and ID as a given, against the empirical (disambiguation) evidence that science has to offer, like I have said before when the religions found out that science can work in their favour to garner more converts to strengthen their coffers and their hold on the masses, they have stopped burning at the stake!

    2. While science is rejected out of ignorance, religion is not rejected out of pride, but out of aversion by the intelligent to the unfounded, the unproven and the unprovable. The very nature of religion militates against its ability to explain anything worth explaining except itself.

      "Because in all honesty, I was saying a lot without really saying anything at all." How accurate and how pathetic. It's as pathetic as your belief that religion (theology) has anything to offer in the way of anything, especially science or mathematics and as quixotic as your chimera of a synthesis as a panacea.

  52. Our minds, limited by logic and time, restrict us from fully understanding the possibilities of a supernatural and divine force working through creation. It is by logic that we experience life. Furthermore, we experience life relative to our capability to understand the world around us. Anything that we deem to be irrational or illogical is disregarded as highly improbable. Our minds are rigid. As a result to our rational and increasingly inflexible state of mind, God has come to no longer fit into our perception of life. This is because God is ultimately incapable of being explained by logic and is beyond what our human minds are capable of understanding. Our inability to fit God into our box of logic and reason sets him outside of all things relative to logic and reason. Among these is science. It is by “science” that Stephan Hawking and those like him attempt to disprove the existence of a God. In an interview done by the Discovery Channel Hawking says, “Science does not deny religion, it just offers a simpler alternative.” In other words he believes his explanation of the origin of the universe to be more compelling than one of supernatural inspiration because, according to natural limitations of our universe, his explanation can be understood in the way we experience life. But God cannot be separated from science because God is science; thus, science cannot be used to explain God, for God is the explanation of science. The creation of the universe and our planet was done through a combination of natural and supernatural means. Science is incapable of disproving the presence of God’s supernatural hand in the creation of the universe because God is outside the realm of science. It is through science that God is revealed to man on a level our minds can comprehend, but it is because of our minds’ rigid nature that we are blinded to this. When analyze the universe and see the order of things, can you really just dismiss the innumerable coincidences to be just coincidences? That in itself is illogical and it is by our own pride that we choose to ignore such things. If religion is simply an illusion than so is the order of life. I do not close my mind to the advancements in scientific discovery, but when science begins to attempt to disprove the existence of a God, it has officially stepped across the line and into theology. At this point it is beyond just simple logic and reason. Theology is seen to be a simple fictional system of beliefs accepted by the ignorant and simple and is quickly dismissed when dealing with issue of origin. This is narrow minded. For theology if not viewed by a religious man is still philosophy and should be considered as relevant to the advancement of knowledge.

    1. You know nothing about something which by your own admission you cannot know anything about. Yet not only do you claim that it exists, but insult the intelligence by demanding that everyone believe so as well. The only support you offer is a wall of textual drivel of which "The creation of the universe and our planet was done through a combination of natural and supernatural means" (How do you know this?) is a pathetic example.

      You've done what every ignorant religee does: attribute what at present is not understood to a higher being and denigrate those who refuse to accept you at your word and, like intelligent people, demand proof. What you go to great lengths to describe as our limited understanding does not give rise to the existence of the supernatural until it is proven to exist and mere assertion is not proof.

      The intellectual level of your post (which consists of no more than empty expostulation) is proof of theology as a "simple fictional system of beliefs accepted by the ignorant and simple . . . " which is why it has contributed nothing to the advancement of knowledge.

    2. @robertallen1
      well said. but i doubt it will be well received by the intended target.

    3. It is not intended to be.

      Are you familiar with Kenneth R. Miller. He's one of the foremost evolutionary biologists in this country and a church-going Catholic to boot. Now, him I can respect and admire.

    4. yes i am. i gained a lot of respect for him during the Dover trial.

    5. So did I. Also there are a number of videos of him on Youtube.

  53. I have heard so much talk about how this movie is propaganda and presents a skewed view point.

    My question is this: Why attack this movie? when a movie like Religulous is at least as skewed as people claim this movie is, if not more so? People don't seem to attack Religulous. I can't help but wonder why that is.

    Just something to think about.....

    1. @Loki DeWitt
      this movie is propaganda. he lied about the people being fired, he lied about what id is. he lied to the anti-id people in order to interview them . he misrepresents science. and he selectively edits interviews and refused any of the interviewed to record these interviews for themselves. now religoulous is on this site not only did people attack it you are free to do that yourself

    2. Some words have apparently been omitted. Do you mean he refused to allow any of the interviewed to record these interviews for themselves?

      Let me add, the distorted "interview" with Dr. Dawkins during which he not only tries to put words into Dr. Dawkins' mouth, but compounds this with inappropriate and inaccurate textual blips.

      Let me also add the idiotic and inaccurate conclusion during which he endeavors to juxtapose atheism to the atrocities committed by the Third Reich.

    3. @robertallen1
      yes that is what i meant. thanks

    4. religulous is done by a comedian. it is meant to be funny.

      this is supposed to be honest and truthful and it is the exact opposite. it is deceitful and out right lies.

  54. Did you mean to say that the boarding kids are "more" street smart than "less"?

  55. I don't see what all the confusion is about.
    Charles Darwin created the theory of Evolution, and God created Charles Darwin. Scopes case closed.
    Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

    1. First, Charles Darwin did not create the theory of evolution, just natural selection. Second, how do you know that "God" created Charles Darwin. Third, how ignorant can you get?

  56. 1 hour 30min in this docuthesis; admissions stand true, metaphorically to support the Bible account by Richard Dawkins. Definitions of words as ETs
    being angels and explicable being the Bibles actual account. Actually I find
    most troubling is that the anti-I.D. proponents do not see their belief system
    as religious. I long for the day when truth reigns and all beneficiary life forms give their love and allegiance to the only sovereign of the universe we inhabit. Psalm 83:18

  57. @Epicurus

    Did you know that the debate between William Lane Craig on whether the resurrection occurred is on the internet, both the transcript and the video? Look up William Lane Craig - Bart Ehrman. I read through it last night. Guess who came out the winner as far as I'm concerned?

    As there are some very telling points in it, I was wondering if you had look at it and if so, I would appreciate your opinion.

  58. Hi all,

    Thanks for the responses. Nice to see the rudeness is gone.

    I am not going to get into every point raised, this is getting old.

    I know what I know; you may think differently, your loss and not my pace to edumacate you.

    A quick word on the 'empirical proof' one of you likes to chant. I was amazed to find researching my thesis that what I considered 'hard science', chemistry, physics, atomic theory, etc is in FACT second to 'soft science', physiology, sociology, epidemiology; by three orders of magnitude!!!

    Science, that you hold out as some kind of God or alternative to God is in fact piss weak! We can predict with 1000 times more accuracy how a person will react to a given stimulus / situation than we can predict the outcome of chemical reactions. Don't take my word for it (I understand you are DETERMINED not to). Just walk through your local University library (if you can find it LOL). Walk through the chemistry AND physics AND nuclear science sections... then walk through the section dedicated to pain / addiction. You will be amazed to find the addiction section is twice as big as all the science sections combined! try it!

    1) I do not have a moral code to claim the high ground. I follow His code, since tie eternal. It ain't open to debate.

    2) the 1st act Washington did after being declared President was to lead the entire congress out the door and up the street o an evangelical Church service for 'praise and worship'. then he led congress back to the meeting and continued.

    ... "all men are CREATED equal, with certain... hmm... what Constitution is that written i???

    Here's a little something I wrote earlier today...
    I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag,
    Of the United States of America,
    And To the Republic For Which It Stands,
    One Nation, Under God, Indivisible,
    With Liberty And Justice For All

    I thought it sounded better that way, as opposed to the deist you lot mentioned... I'm an Australian and seem to know your history better then you lot???

    The whole reason for the founding fathers going to America was to flee religious persecution in Europe and England. The USA was founded in the pursuit of religious freedom and governance.

    Evolution was first taught in USA schools in 1963... lets look at the 'enlightened' results...

    Sexually transmitted diseases - Gonorrhea: ages 15-16 - Up 226%

    Divorce Rates - Up 111% since 1963

    Unmarried Couples - Up 536% since the mid 1960's

    Unwed Birth Rates - Up 325% since 1963

    Pregnancies To Girls Ages 10 thru 14 - Up 553% since 1963. The difference between the two figures is being aborted.

    Violent Crime Offenses - Up 995% since 1963.

    Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores - Decline in Student - From 980 in 1963 to 900 in 1990... today's youth are flat out speaking or basic literacy.

    Start teaching people that they are only animals they start acting like animals.

    "The divide between science and religion is less than 45 years old, fact!!!"

    It is also easy to tell you Dudes are youngsters and have been raised to believe the guff around you; TV brains. Cannot tell sh*t from clay!

    Read "Destiny and Character" A Nation in Search of its' Soul and you shall clearly see the direct link between the VERY RECENT fall in morals and Christian principles and the resulting sad statistics above. Turn from God and those are the results. Statistically significant.
    That might help you figure out the other 'abominations' I elude to.

    Copernicus: Among the great polymaths of the Renaissance, Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, jurist with a doctorate in law, physician, quadrilingual polyglot, classics scholar, translator, artist, Catholic cleric, governor, diplomat and economist, with a distinguished ecclesiastic career. His major works were in Latin, the language of the Holy roman Catholic Church. He was decorated by the Pope. The greatest story of his contribution to history was his personal dilemma between the primitive astrological understanding of the Church and his inner conflict in bringing them the truth!!

    Around 1616, Galileo defended heliocentrism, (Copernicus) and claimed it was not contrary to Scripture; he took Saint Augustine's position on Scripture: he too was a pious and devout Catholic.But, he was willing to fight the Church as he knew he was right. As we all do today.

    You see lads, as history shows, the Church has always been slow, reluctant to yield to new proofs of science; no debate from me on that. However, there is a great difference between the Church and having a real relationship with God and living by his code.

    The inquisitions and crusades for example were just all out aggressive wars of expansion. It was only after the Church was promised a generous share of the booty they 'endorsed' the wars a 'Crusade'.

    Same with Walter
    Raleigh, a bloodthirsty English pirate, until he f*&ked Queen Elizabeth I of England , and was knighted in 1585and promised to hand over a generous share of the booty... Sir Walter Raleigh, patriot and Knight Defender... LOL

    Epicurus; Man, "what exactly are these abominations that you are referring to and what is an amoral world view".. you really ought to change your avatar name to Donald. Goofy or Pluto. It is not right to take an intellectual name and then display such foolishness. You actually have less than no idea of what you speak!! Sorry dude, you really are out of your league!

    But briefly (and I mean briefly, because only a fool matches wits with a fool).
    Germ theory; right on.

    Atomic theory; right into it Man.It is ONE of my greatest passions. Higgs Boson particle (God) particle... well it gets back to an earlier post "the interaction of matter and conciseness" it went over your heads. Anyway, as particle physicists 'concentrate' and 'look for' this particle they keep finding 'what they are looking for'. However, they will never find the answer to "life' as that is what they are searching for; because life began on the spiritual plain, not the physical.And if you want to throw that 'empirical proof' crap into the mix; there is NO empirical proof in quantum mechanics as it is an abstract construct based on other layers of abstraction. You do not seem to understand this basic lore of science.

    Newton's theory of gravity; irrelevant, what's your point?

    The theory of evolution great theory and I Love it!! No conflict at all with the THEORY of Evolution, very good work! Awesome theory to explain incremental changes within living systems. However, that is all it explains. The misconception that the theory means ALL life came from some single cell 'whatever' is ludicrous and pitiful!

    Big-bang theory; beautiful!! Especially the 'universal' constant (Universe expanding at UC rate) absolutely shows God made that sucker 'bang' at EXACTLY the right velocity.. awesome!

    Well, got carried away again. Been sitting here a good 20 minutes when I have boxers to coach.

    People, please try to grasp the concept that science is just one little slice of the pie. Just one piece of the jug-saw puzzle. Please do not put your 'faith' in science, you will be sorely disappointed.

    Bearing in mind that science never 'proves' ANYTHING!!! Science merely offers the most plausible explanation that fits our mental constructs and observations. It is 'right until proven wrong'.. never proves a thing! Any High School Science teacher will tell you that!

    Please try to use science as one of the ways you explore this great Universe as you enquirer further into it! Also, as you get older and gain both wisdom (different from accumulated knowledge) and discernment; you start to gain the faculty of critical thinking and see past the polarized propaganda you are currently swallowing hook, line and sinker.

    Seriously, Epicurus, change that name to something more befitting; his philosophy of Epicureanism, striving for the happy life is a World away from the 'prove it, prove it' drivel you spout. I am a philosopher and can take it from all sides at once and assimilate what is truly meant; you are a polarized, blind fool. You are not in the same league as Epicurus by a galaxy.

    Oh, yeah; "kill em all and God will sort them out" That line ain't mine, but I Love it and that's how I've gone through my boxing career. As General H Norman Schwarzkopf said "It isn't our job to judge. But it is our job to arrange the meeting". Do not mistake Christians for pacifists or wimps... 'up the guts and tons of smoke'.


    God Bless

    Steven Wootten

    1. @Steven Wootten,

      The ruddiness is gone but you're still rude. Not good.

      I realize you haven't been able to watch "Ben Stein’s Flunked: No Intelligence Applied", apparently because it was boring to you, but I also see that "Through the Wormhole" was boring to you. Sorry, but it seems to me that it might be something with "short attention span." I think what goes against your preconceptions is boring to you.

      Anyone here could be writing walls of text refuting everything you've said. But what's the point. You'll stay the same. So I'll just comment on the following, since I couldn't find anything else worth commenting in your huge comment.

      "Bearing in mind that science never 'proves' ANYTHING!!! Science merely offers the most plausible explanation that fits our mental constructs and observations."

      Are you sure about that? Here are two very simple PROVED scientific claims:

      1. The Earth rotates around its own axis. The shape is oblate spheroid, and revolves around the Sun.

      2. The age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years.

      There are hundreds of thousands solidly proved scientific claims.

    2. @Steven Wooten:

      Rudeness is gone? seems you replaced rudeness with your weak ad hominem attacks, so will give same back to you. Your post is a pile of empty wax rhetoric gibberish, does not mean squat!

      Your rant is full of holes, what do you know of the big bang, your god made it at the right velocity? then why is the universe speeding up into atrophy?

      Quantum mechanics is abstract, no it is not, quantum field theory is the most precise there is.

      Your a$$inine religion wanted to fry Galileo, so don't do no apologetics on your religions behalf.

      "Science never proves anything" That remark is so $toopid I will refrain to delve into it, no use.

      By the way my god "Ehwa" can whip your pu$$y foot god hands down!

    3. Now, Achem, we must not disparage those who are more ignorant, mentally challenged and boeotian than you who are simply trying to spread what they believe to be the way, the truth and the light. Instead, we must vilify them!

    4. Well I honestly try not to vilify, to stoop to their level of ignorance but sometimes can not help taking umbrage to their vilifications, so offer them the same.

    5. "The theory of evolution great theory and I Love it!! No conflict at all with the THEORY of Evolution, very good work! Awesome theory to explain incremental changes within living systems. However, that is all it explains. The misconception that the theory means ALL life came from some single cell 'whatever' is ludicrous and pitiful!":"


    6. Now, Epicurus. Don't ask him why, he probably doesn't know--and now you've put him on the spot. Shame on you. We must respect the beliefs of others, even if founded on ignorance, superstition, lack of education, "factual" hand-me-downs and dogma. After all, this is another human being who was created specially for some reason or other, not a dumb animal.

    7. You have as much right to post on this site as anyone; however, after reading your latest opus, I almost wish you didn’t. I was going to write another wall of text in response to yours until I read Vlatko’s answer—and he’s right. So I’ll confine myself to a few remarks and leave the details to others if they care to waste their time responding to you as I am now doing. If you find this rude, it is meant to be.

      Juxtaposing the teaching of evolution (which began long before 1963) to sexually transmitted diseases, divorce rates, unmarried couples (what’s the matter with that?), unwed birth rates, teenage pregnancies, violent crime and decline in scholastic aptitude is as valid as linking it to the increase in parking violations, jaywalking, obesity and heart disease. This coupled with your egotistical belief that you are following “His” code, places you on a level of intelligence and education commensurate with Ray Comfort, your companion down the way and to the right.

      Your ignorance is consistently spread over history, especially American, and the sciences—I assume that it extends to the arts as well. Certainly facts play only a small role in your asseverations. Let’s take one: “Start teaching people that they are only animals they start acting like animals.” I guess this applies to the conduct of Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and just about every modern scientist, a more degenerate bunch never existed.

      And speaking of facts, the name of the book you cite is “Character and Destiny” by D. James Kennedy of the Coral Ridge Ministry, hardly an expert in much of anything.

      It’s you who are blind and clinging doggedly to your ignorance and dogma makes you a fool as well. You have been previously advised to go back to school, but even assuming that you could matriculate, I doubt that it would do much good.

    8. @ Steven Wootten

      Wow, all those increases in violent crime, unmarried couples, child pregnancies, bastard children, STD's, divorce rates and lower scholastic aptitude scores is the result of Evolution being taught in schools?
      Hmmm, maybe we should wind back the clock, to when the Church had control over what little was being taught. You'd no doubt be able to find some stats, something along the lines of;
      Crusades-- up 100%
      Witch's burnt at the stake--- up 100%
      Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores--- down 99.9%
      Kids molested by Catholic Priests -- up 90%
      Rate of basic education -- down 95%
      Rate of general BS in the world -- up 50%
      Rate of azzholes that feel they have the right to knock on my door with religious rantings -- up 80%
      Chances of our species learning more --- down 90%

      (the above is farcical and made up, as was your statement)

      "Start teaching people that they are only animals they start acting like animals."
      That idea, teaching people they are more then animals, worked real well for the Nazi party. Funnily enough, they kinda had the same attitude as you, "kill em all and God will sort them out".

    9. @Steven Wootten
      like everyone else i will not answer your text in it's entirety. one you seem to continue to confuse correlation with causation. next "The theory of evolution great theory and I Love it!! No conflict at all with the THEORY of Evolution" cool but then "misconception that the theory means ALL life came from some single cell 'whatever' is ludicrous and pitiful!" but it does say that. that is not a misconception. and that statement (backed by proof) is more ludicrous then "god did it"? if god did do it(i might not understand you correctly) are you saying we and all animals were "created in the form that we have today in six literal days? now with id there is a chance that it is correct (very small chance) but these ideas have to follow the proper channels before they enter the classroom. this idea has guidelines that must be followed. first form a hypothesis (you or someone else) test said hypothesis. make predictions based on the hypothesis.verify hypothesis. see if the hypothesis is in conflict with existing theories and laws. if it is refute said laws and theories or change /discard hypothesis. form theory base on hypothesis.repeat all above steps. put theory up for peer review. have others verify or refute theory. if verified then and only then present it to schools. the school system is not a testing ground. and most importantly science only deals with the natural world and natural causes so purge all supernatural from anything you want included in science. does that sound fair?

    10. The passage from the sentence beginning with "No conflict at all . . . " i and ending with "then 'god did it'?" is not up to your usual standard of clarity. I believe I know what you're getting at, but I would like to hear it from you. Thank you.

  59. All progress comes from the unreasonable man. I ain't gonna play along with the status quo or go with the flow... Bro!

  60. These great comments made me wonder: who had and when were the "first" science versus religion arguments printed? I would be curious to read what they brought to the table in those days?

    1. Az, wondered the same thing myself. After looking into it, believe it is a new phenomenon the 'gender neutral' and other abominations of our 'enlightened' age have promoted to deny their own conscience and delude themselves into an amoral World view.

      It is not an old, ongoing debate. The USA founding fathers were genius and they were Christians. look up Washington's 1st act after taking office!

      We have always had smart people, but never had so many of them trying vainly to throw up a wall of ignorance and division between faith and science.

      I do NOT believe it is a two way battle either. We of faith really have NO problem with science, it is the curiosity God built into us. Just the propaganda of a minority that way overestimate their intelligence.

      Anyway, their loss! Kill em all and God will sort them out.. LOL

      The divide between science and religion is less than 45 years old, fact!!!

      Actually, the scoffers do not seem to know the origin and history of great scientists; Churches, theological universities, the great libraries at Alexandria and Constantinople. Probably do not even know that Persia and Greece were the birthplace of modern numbers, writing, science and philosophy; if they did we would ALL be more respectful of other cultures and people. Just a symptom of our Western ignorance and TV addiction.


      Steven Wootten

    2. I am really sick of people like you characterizing our forefathers as Christian and by corollary, this country as founded by Christians. While they were certainly influenced by various forms of Christianity (who in this modern world hasn't been?), many of them such as Jefferson and Franklin were deists--and this is part of what made them as great as they were--they didn't have a church or a religion to bog them down.

      I'm also sick of this unholy juxtaposition of morality (or ethics) with a concept of a higher being and the concept of a higher being with the idea of purpose. This is simply specious and unprovable justification for what cannot be justified.

      As stated some many times before by me and others, science is irreoncilable with faith, for one is based on evidence and the other on nothing--and, quite frankly, in the words of Kate Smurthwaite, "I am not an id**t," but I am a scoffer who not only acknowledges but admires and studies the paramount contributions made by the various cultures you enumerate in your last paragraph.

    3. @Steven Wootten,

      There are some problems with your arguments:

      1. You claim higher moral ground than the heretics. Not true.

      2. You clam that USA founding fathers were Christians. Not true.

      3. You claim that you really have NO problem with science. How about evolution, Big Bang, the age of the Earth and the Universe, condoms and abortion?

      4. You claim that the divide between science and religion is less than 45 years old. Not true. Try 17ht century (Galileo, Copernicus), or even before that.

    4. Right on all counts.

      By, Vlatko, you haven't gotten back to me regarding the posting of Matt Dillahaunty's e-mail address which he has given permission to do. I would really appreciate an answer.

    5. @robertallen1,

      I gave you an answer via email.

    6. I never received it.

    7. @robertallen1
      if i remember correctly he answered you on "The Atheist Experience: Ray Comfort Interview"

    8. He answered me with respect to a quote, but I never received an answer with respect to whether it was all right to post Matt's e-mail address, even if it were cleared with Matt.

    9. Do it, all email addresses and web sites included in comments end up with the moderators anyway. It gets flagged instantly.

    10. Since yesterday, I have asked three times and received no response. If I do not receive one within the next few hours, I am going to assume that it's all right to do so and post the address.

    11. As i said write the address with the full @ included and it will go straight to moderators. Vlatko is here working, he is commenting on the doc 10:10:10 pill or perception.
      You are very attached to this issue, aren't you?

    12. I finally received Vlatko's answer:

      "This is the third time I'm sending this to you:

      "I will not advise putting up an email address publicly on a forum.

      "Spiders will quickly harvest that email and his inbox will be spammed to death.

      "I think anyone can find their email addresses and communicate with them in the same way you did.

      "They can go to their website; they can call, etc.

      "I hope you understand."

      So here it is. I think the people behind that show are jerks and that Matt is the head jerk, but I would be an even bigger jerk if I caused him to be spammed to death.

      I gave up on the issue some time ago. My further efforts were undertaken mostly as a courtesy to you and others who have shown an interest.

      Once again, if we had our show, we could leave theirs in the dust.

    13. @robertallen1,

      I'm sending you the answer to your question thrice over email. Please check your spam and trash folders.

    14. That smile fits perfectly with that response. You are so patient....you're the best!
      Do you need a secretary?...lol

    15. my mistake. that's twice in a short period of time. my bad

    16. "After looking into it, believe it is a new phenomenon the 'gender neutral' and other abominations of our 'enlightened' age have promoted to deny their own conscience and delude themselves into an amoral World view."

      what exactly are these abominations that you are referring to and what is an amoral world view?

      "The USA founding fathers were genius and they were Christians. look up Washington's 1st act after taking office!"

      LOL no they were not, they were deists.
      Upon taking office, Washington initially focused on the establishment of the federal judiciary and executive departments.

      "We have always had smart people, but never had so many of them trying vainly to throw up a wall of ignorance and division between faith and science."

      faith is belief in things without evidence or sometimes in spite of evidence. science is a process to understand phenomena as objectively as possible. they are opposites.

      "We of faith really have NO problem with science"

      okay tell me what you think about each of these: Germ theory, Atomic theory, Newton's theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, and the big-bang theory.

      tell me why you agree or disagree with each one.

      "Anyway, their loss! Kill em all and God will sort them out.. LOL"

      how christian.....

      "The divide between science and religion is less than 45 years old, fact!!!"

      the divide between science and religion is about 150 years old. you know when man hit the age of enlightenment and came into the modern world of technology and medicine. nothing about religion or faith gave us space exploration or modern medicine.

      Stay in school.

  61. Tsk, tsk, you are a touchy lot of tigers... ha.

    Your emotional vitriol shows you really are very insecure; what's with the insults... nothing like that need occur.

    Anyone care to demonstrate or explain how evolution, or quantum mechanics are repeatable, measurable, etc. The 'scientific method' is very limited.

    'Over the Edge', sorry for whatever makes you so angry.
    But as a wiser man than me once said (Bob Dylan) "not my problem".

    Why are you even commenting here when you obviously did not watch the movie?
    Crystals building 'ever more complex patterns' that amino acids 'piggybacked on' to form the complex molecules of life' was one of the funny theories put forward by one of the science Dudes.. really... and he said it with a straight face. It got better, lightning (may) have been the 'spark' that then caused those crystal riding proteins to form life.

    Come on, I couldn't make something so wacky up, let alone say it like it was for real. Then,act surprised it didn't make any sense. If you want to vent your spleen in support of theories like that; go ahead.. bahahahah!!!

    True North Principles; read Steven Covey... it will come to you. Google can help you Bro.

    Never said anything about the unchanging Bible; that is your issue... read slowly "principles never change".

    Not out to burst anyone's bubble; but you gotta do better than that to mix it with the big boys Bro.

    At least you agreed with the obvious observations on the body language and behavior of both sides of this story "yes they looked nervous" and 'yes Ben did look believable". I 'm not going to pollute things with "where is your empirical proof"... seems you are either a mind reader or.. who knows? Maybe you were the camera man and actually know of what you speak???
    I can only go on what I saw... hmmm a bit like looking out the window and knowing God is great and He created all this for all of us to share.

    One of the basic conflicts 'your type' have is to carry on as you do; you have to deny your own experience, just as you stated you have!

    Not that it appears you have put much thought; scientific, moral (manners, you know... insults and bad language like Mummy told us ALL is naughty). But, Dude, "science doesn't say God doesn't exist"... blah, blah, blah. What are you trying to say??? Actually, never mind.

    Perhaps you might benefit from some meditation, anger management therapy or learn some self control. You only upset yourself acting like that. Then you have to shame yourself reading what you cannot take back .

    Oops, silly me, I'm judging you with my antiquated morals; yeah, boo hoo!

    My God is a Mighty God, wise and righteous... bit like myself.

    Nothing supernatural going on Bro; we both walk around the same Earth, looks real to me!

    Oh ,other Dude; faith is 'belief in things unseen".. you know like electricity, magnetism, atoms, quarks, almost everything in our modern World is built of abstract constructs, we cannot see most of the 'scientific' processes and systems we ALL use everyday and yet ALL believe in.

    It is a LOT easier to apply those same intellectual constructs to creation than to random weirdness, chance mutations and thunderbolts.

    Bros, the chances of a random mutation forming life that evolves into US... the paragon of all creation... has been compared to the chances of a tornado screaming through a junkyard and 'creating' ... oops, spontaneously evolving...a functioning 747 jet... hmmm if you really want to go that way.. do so.

    Just keep your nasty comments for your other genius and leave these comments to the documentary. .. couldn't help it.. you make it so easy ...LOL. I am actually laughing out loud at your comments. Seems I'm not in the little club, so i will leave you all to have fun in the bath together, comparing theories.. bahahahahah

    He was a strong man in Jesus form; knocked over the money changers tables in the temple... try doing that today! You give the impression of a sheeple wage slave or frustrated professional student try hard guessilectual that cannot get a job. Anyway, God has and continues to bless me; I am very wealthy and I mean good old dollars, cars, property, happy family, Boom Boom! Bro; just like He promised to 'bless us abundantly'

    Then he 'bruised Satan" when in hell after the crucifixion. As a National Champion Thai Boxer and with the awesome brain God gave me; can punch holes in flimsy arguments and then do the same to their proponents.

    (All true, just put that arrogant bit in so you can relate Bro.. LOL)

    You are funny kiddies. Now back to your gender neutral, tolerant, 'enlightened' little hate filled lives.

    God wins hand's down Dudes... you may begin wailing and crying now!!! hahahaha

    One more, 'give me YOUR empirical evidence' and explanation of the duality states and nature of light.

    Why doesn't water 'fall apart' with the weak bonds?

    Yeah, I know, you cannot answer. don't feel bad, you do not have what it takes...

    1. The usual idiotic, ignorant standard drivel. Why can't you learn to write clearly and cohesively?

    2. @Steven Wooten:

      What in the hell are you talking about? Sounds like someone having tantrums, stamp the floor somewhere else.

    3. Achem, are you suggesting that Mr. Wooten fill the floor with decals and if so, why and of what type?

    4. Ha, Ha,...robert, seems us Canucks do have different inflections of speech than you Yanks, what I meant by stamping, is when a child who can not get his way will scream and stamp their feet, jump around and so forth, I know from experience, since I always wanted to get my way. lol

    5. Then the word is stomp.

    6. Definitely stamp, stomping is a stampy way of walking.

    7. In British English the word is stamp, as to stamp your feet, with stomp the action must be directed to a place, as to stomp out of a room, a person does not stamp out of a room, but when a child/adult has a tantrum, they will stamp their feet, unless they are moving out of a room than could be stomping.

    8. Perhaps it's a regional difference. However, the point is a niggling one which I did not make with any degree of seriousness.

    9. Stamp is a Tax the English put on the colonies - Stamp Tax Act.

      Stomp is what the Americans did to the British for Stamping.

    10. Makes sense, I guess the words have to originate from someplace.

    11. Not supposed to make sense. Just a little play on the British vs.American English thing.

  62. God created the oceans; any smarties out there want to explain the hydrogen bonds of water? the 'structuring' of water? The interaction of consciousness and water? the quantum mechanics of consciousness, intent and their effects on matter?

    The intelligentsia have perverted most of the fundamental laws of science. For example, Einsteins' Law of Relativity (as he lamented) only applied to heavenly bodies (no, not Kim Kardishian, LOL)' now it has been applied to nonsense and ends up feeding nonsensical ideas such as ''relativistic ethics' (situational ethics; where right and wrong, good and bad change with circumstances.. poppycock!

    Gods' principles (true North principles in modern speak) never change! Fashions change, social norms change, economic, financial and political systems change; but principles never do.

    The decline of our great western culture and freedoms; divorce up, teenage pregnancy up, drug use up, suicide up,homosexuality up, child abuse up, corruption up.. etc, etc, etc is directly inked to society moving from Gods unchanging principles... yeah the ones Lincon and Washington founded the greatest power on Earth on. Moving towards 'ethics', humanism,. The utopia of man... sound familiar; Marx, Lenin... blah. blah, blah... it don't work.

    Even on a philosophical level; once honesty, fidelity, chastity, faithfulness, loyalty, perseverance, FAITH; were all virtues to be admired and striven for... now the ONLY virtue left is 'tolerance'. Be tolerant of any abomination, any lifestyle... hahahaha

    Cop this "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society" – Aristotle

    "Tolerance is the virtue of men who no longer believe in anything" - G. K. Chesterton

    Those who believe in nothing will believe everything.

    Not trying to put down science or genuine scientific inquiry; as a Christian these are groovy, fun questions my God has laid before me like an instinctual buffet to contemplate, ponder, discuss, study and enjoy.

    Really, reading the socialistic, political, rhetoric you scoffers carry on with; and the vitriol and sad, angry emotions you project. What are you so scared of to react like startled tigers??

    Relax, we, and God, do not need your blessing or permission to enjoy the wonderful spectrum of inquiry into creation we can all share.

    Sorry you scoffers, on ANY level your arguments are without scientific substance.

    You are only working yourselves up. Now settle down and play happily together. ; very childish.


    1. @Steven Wootten:

      ..."Relax, we, and God, do not need your blessing or permission to enjoy the wonderful spectrum of inquiry into creation we can all share"...

      So you have a pipeline to your gods do you, you are buddy, buddy, the gods little sunbeam, and you speak for your gods also? in the vastness, time scale of the cosmos you are an insignificant carbon atom.

      Anything you have said on your religious rant is without any scientific merit whatsoever!

      And since you have brought it up show us your empirical proof that your gods exist!

      Funny religee's!

    2. "The interaction of consciousness and water. The quantum mechanics of consciousness, intent and their effects on watter." The zanies have come out to play with the toys of humpty-dumpty science.

      I second Achems_Razor, a member in good standing in the intelligentsia--at least the last time I looked. He has something to offer; you have only yours tepid morality and religious caterwaul.

      Now get this straight, mouthpiece of god, the belief in something without proof (FAITH) is far from a virtue; it's one of the worst vices known to man, for it abrogates the intelligence and inspires nescient ranters like you to let go the arrows of ignorance, especially scientific ignorance, from their quiver.

  63. They thought they were wise, even as they knew of and denied their own knowledge of God... and their wisdom was foolishness they could not see as their eyes were blinded to the truth.

    This story was very simple and easy to follow; as the truth often is. Ben seemed steadfast, easy, earnest and confident; the 'scientists' were all emotional, flustered, edgy and shifty. Really, if Police were interviewing the two; who would come across as covering up the truth?

    The parsimonious principle (one of the 7 rules of the 'scientific method') says the simplest explanation is often correct. When an undergraduate in physics I challenged the Professor, in front of 400 students, to explain the existence and origin of light. He waffled on endlessly and covered three boards in formulas and gibberish. When he asked for my theory I said it in six words "God said let there be light"... won the bet and didn't have to attend any pracs that semester... Boom Boom.

    Science is to enhance our understanding and wonder at Gods' creation, not to tear it down. The greatest scientists of history were believers almost all led to science in their thirst to acknowledge and understand and appreciate the magnificence of His creation. Very simple, until you try to explain it away... LOL

    Crystals, lightning, some other higher intelligence... grow up guys and gals. It really isn't rocket science Guffaw Guffaw.

    1. @Steven Wootten
      ok lets break this down.
      "Ben seemed steadfast, easy, earnest and confident" yes he did but he was lying check out the real story of why the people he "claims: were fired for their beliefs

      "the 'scientists' were all emotional, flustered, edgy and shifty" yes he lied to them about the film the interview was for then lied about content of interview. also ben has the luxury of editing.

      your let there be light example is void of any facts and is not an answer. science does not invoke supernatural causes sorry

      "Science is to enhance our understanding and wonder at Gods' creation" no it is not. again science doesn't involve itself with the supernatural

      "Crystals, lightning, some other higher intelligence." what? we have perfectly natural explanations of how crystals, and lightening form

      "smarties out there want to explain the hydrogen bonds of water? " not really. the answer is there for anybody to look up for themselves and a proper explanation would be too long.

      "The interaction of consciousness and water?" what? really explain this for me please

      "Gods' principles (true North principles in modern speak) never change! " first off what are true north principles? secondly the fact the bible never changes is the greatest weakness of religion so much of this book is based on an era long past and where they did not have our understanding

      "honesty, fidelity, chastity, faithfulness, loyalty, perseverance, FAITH; were all virtues to be admired"you are guilty of looking through rose colored glasses the atrocities commuted during the height of your religion would make you wish for the problems of today. also as i posted before (and will repost if needed) Christians in the u.s. are proportionally more likely (based on ratio to general pop) to go to prison than any other group and you Christians are the vast majority there. get your house in order before condemning mine

      "Sorry you scoffers, on ANY level your arguments are without scientific substance." what? again god is not and cannot be scientific. it is impossible by definition. science doesn't say god does not exist only that science tries to explain the world around us using natural causes. in closing you provided no evidence for your claim. do you have any actual evidence or just more of the same?

    2. LOL

      so god said let there be light and you think that answers how it was done?

      LOL you are completely full of s***

    3. You're funny.

  64. It is kinda depressing that people are still debating this anno 2012

  65. Regardless of the nature of this documentary, and whether or not it skews facts, there is a distinct tone of disdain and real animosity towards anyone with religious leanings from the science community.
    There are brilliant leaps happening every day in science and especially theoretical physics, but that is a constantly changing field of understanding, and should be approached with an open mind.
    The hostility toward any form of spiritualism comes in direct conflict with the basic principles of science- you should not be out to prove God does not exist, you should approach it with an open mind until something can be definitively proven. These physicists who start out with an atheistic ideology have already tainted their findings.

    I am not trying to convince anyone to accept Jesus Christ or whatever, all I'm asking is, have you allowed your personal qualms to warp your opinions? When you think of a religious person, do you think of a narrow-minded maniac who has no time or patience to listen to the science and theories that you hold as truth? Being an atheist does not automatically exempt you from bigotry.
    A true atheist would have the respect for humanity to fight irrationality with calm certainty, not snarky remarks about a person's belief system.

    1. @MoiraF
      first off an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. that is it it has nothing to do with science or anything else. next the "disdain and real animosity " (at least for me) comes from the injection of religion into areas of life/study that it is not welcome. science tries to explain the natural world using natural phenomena, god is supernatural and therefore not part of science. that is not to say that god doesn't exist but only that god is not part of science. so scientists might get angry when they have to explain something that science isn't designed for. i find it extremely arrogant of religious people to need to inject their beliefs where they are not wanted. when you accuse people of not having an open mind because they reject religion you forget that most of us were raised in religious households and many atheists were believers until overwhelmed by the evidence. i would suspect that there are more atheists that truly experienced both sides than the religious. so while we have experience from both perspectives many of the religious have only one and we are closed minded? now some of us respond with snarky remarks but try having many areas of your life influenced or controlled by something that is false and see how calm you are. then to add insult to injury we have one area (science) that is supposed to be free of religion and we can't even have that. do your own study if you wish take an entire week and see how many times god or religion is mentioned to you compared to how many times atheism is mentioned and see the results for yourself

    2. Scientific proof of a supreme being will open all minds, but until then, religees deserve the disdain and animosity with which they are met not only by the scientific community, but by the intelligentsia at large.

      Also, science doesn't draw from anything as idiotic as a belief system, but rather from direct evidence and abstraction from it.

  66. You know the sad part of this is the 10% of the opposing extremes are the ones who get represented most often and loudest. The other 90% accept the "lets agree to disagree" mentality and get on with the rest of their lives, yet rarely get even a mention in anything.

  67. Wow. Ive never heard someone cry SO much about where a video is categorized. You asked and they said no. If you worked for them, maybe u could have the discussion but they said no. NO MEANS NO:) Your persistance could really benefit someone, not saying this to be cruddy, find a cause that matters.

  68. I want a dislike button

    1. Not a bad idea.

  69. Stop harrassing me Achems_Razor. You're not helping me. You're insulting me and being antagonistic towards me. And I don't appreciate it. Please be kind to me and stop.

    Epicurus, what I choose to do with my time is up to me. I appreciate your concern.

    Both you and Achems...I would like to somehow take responsibility for flooding your email and help you out somehow but I'm not emailing you. I'm commenting in this section of TDF. **scraches head**

    1. @13,

      Since Epicurus and I are moderators, all comments to TDF, comes to us as emails, including yours.

      So like I said you are flooding our emails, and don't even try like you said, to help us out! I "suggest" you stop commenting on TDF, it is getting redundant.

  70. Don't know what to tell you. Religion isn't the determining factor for me.

  71. But my point is that if this doc is considered a conspiracy then all religion docs would have to be considered conspiracy. Better to have a religion category with this doc in it otherwise there would be nowhere to draw a line.

    1. Thank you lakhotason for your vote. Reasonable logic.

      I'll need to know if you are religious to include your vote though.

      Are you religious lakhotason?

    2. It shouldn't matter if I'm religious or not. The same reasoning would hold.

    3. As far as reasoning goes yes.

      But I'm not gathering reasoning.

      I'm gathering opinions from actual religious people. Specifically a survey sample group of religious people who can answer my question. Thus supporting or not supporting Vlatko's and Epicurus theory about the opinion of religious people.

      Don't feel like you have to be part of my survey if you don't want to.

    4. I'm saying that is my opinion.

    5. I can add your opinion to my sample if you are religious.

      Are you religious?

      You can say you don't want to participate. That's fine too.

  72. Epicurus I'm trying to validate you and Vlatkos currently baseless assumption that moving this film to the Conspiracy section WILL result in complaints of bias discrimination from religious people...the only non-biased non-discriminatory reason you've provided for keeping it in the Religion section. I mean Bias and Discrimination are kinda reasonable in the face of creating more Bias and Discrimination. But without tangible evidence of that possibility then we're just left with plain old unwarranted Bias and Discrimination. And I like TDF. And I don't want the appearance of bias and discrimination on TDF. And it's boggling to me that my attempts to have TDF seen as un-biased and non-discriminatory are not supported by TDF Admin (but are ironically treated with bias and discrimination).


    If I can find a reasonable sample of religious people who would prefer it stay in the Religion section then yes I would agree with your assumption and move on (that said please don't go and get people to fake that they're religious just to come on here and vote).

    Like I said, I like TDF. I support TDF (like not financially...not yet...but it's my favorite documentary site!). I want to promote TDF to my Atheist friends, my Deists friends and my Theist friends. But it's really hard for me to justify doing that given the apparent bias and discrimination.


    So like I said, I'm trying to find evidence accordingly so I'm Not left with a conclusion I don't like.


    Please support me in this.

    1. Do you know what monomania is?

  73. Thanks Upwardcall78. Very fitting points for not only this Religion section but also this film about the "expelling" of ID from general view.

    Thank you for your views on ID over the edge. It's unfortunately off topic as I've already pointed out that my view and the views of two TDF admin staff persons are that this film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a Conspiracy film.

    Thank you robertallen1. Your reply to Upwardcall78 was very much in the spirit of this Religion section. If I may, I'd like to respectfully suggest we learn from past religious mistakes and forgo the insulting.

    Now are either of you three religious and if so could you please go ahead and answer my question? I'll re-ask it.

    Would you prefer this film be in the Religion section or Conspiracy section?

    Unfortunately if you are not religious I cannot use you in my sample.


  74. 1. Evolution is a paradigm, you cannot question the "black box", everything as far as life's origin must be viewed from this angle. Read Thomas Kuhn, and some Karl Popper. The Scientific Method is a logical fallacy - affirming the consequent, and denying the antecedent
    2. Evolution is not observable, testable, or repeatable - it is not Operational Science it is Historical Science
    3. People have worldviews, worldviews are made up of presuppositions: Every person presupposes an absolute morality, laws of logic, that your senses are reliable, uniformity in nature, that your memory is reliable
    4. people do not take the time to internally critique their presuppositions, they just assume that there senses are relaible, or there memory is. Someone will say that morality is relative until someone does something to them they do not like
    5. If evolution were correct, knowledge wouldnt' be possible. You would have to have blind faith that you evolved correctly. How do laws of logic evolve? Where did they come from? They have to be from one source, you can't have contradictions in logic. Why would you expect to see uniformity in nature? why are we not made of spagetti every other day?
    6. Only in the Bible, do we actually find a solid worldview. We can account for our reliability of senses, uniformity in nature, absolute morality, I can stand on those things in my worldview?
    7. To be an evolutionist you have to stand on the Biblical Worldview being correct to do anything... you concede defeat by opening your mouth. You have knowledge because you have the Knowledge of God written on your heart, don't beleive me Read The 1st chapter of Romans in the bible.

    1. 1. In case you didn't know it, by its very nature, evolution must consider the antecent and the consequent for the two are interdependent. Had you read anything about evolution or cracked open a work or two on biology, archaeology, zoology, you wouldn't make such a pathetically ignorant statement--you've also probably never visited a museum.

      2. Have you ever had problems with cockroaches and their built-up resistance to pesticides? Have you ever read about microorganisms or perhaps examined them through a microscope? So much for the observable.

      3. Do you have problems distinguishing between the subjective (world view) and the objective (science)?

      4. See 3.

      5. You go on and on about what you think logic is and yet this item begins and ends with non sequiturs. By the way, what is "correct evolution" as opposed to "incorrect evolution?'

      6. What is a "solid worldview?" Has it ever occurred to you that an Islamite might think the same way about the Koran as you do about the Bible and that he could be right and you could be wrong or that perhaps these two terms are relative?

      7. For the most part unintelligible and your cheap reference to Romans doesn't help it any.

      All in all, yours is one of the most ignorant, benighted, uneducated posts to appear on this site.

    2. lol everything you said showed a complete lack of education in the field of biology.

  75. I am religious...so for my sample I count. And I prefer it in the conspiracy section.

    My current sample is 100% for Conspiracy section.


    But the sample is way to small.

    I need more feedback from religious people.

    Could those who are not religious please hold your comments for a while so as not to confuse things for those religious people who might stumble on here and see my request?

    Much appreciated.

  76. robertallen1...you don't even make sense.

    And are you religious?

    I can't use you in my sample if you are not.

  77. Vlatko and Epicurus postulated a future outcome (omg the religious will complain!) with no evidence whatsoever.

    So much for practising the science they preach.

    You are religious Achems_Razor?

    Because I can't include you in the sample if you're not.

    Calling me a baby for demonstrating a rational approach vs irrational and with insults...I think is a bit off....

    1. Me religious?? I almost choked! But wait! there is the FSM. hehehe

    2. Are you just trying to be dense or does it come naturally? Vlatko and Epicurus limited the term "future outcome" to--but why bother to try explaining it to you?

    3. loyell13
      id is religious to most of its followers.the modern id movement started up in 1984 with Jon A. Buell's the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (he was a creationist who believed the designer was the christian god). the first id textbook "of pandas and people " has been shown to be a creationism textbook with designer replacing creator. the biggest id group is the discovery institute which is a christian organization. also the dover trial where id had it's chance to show it's credentials in a court of law,presided over by a christian judge fell flat on it's face when brought to task by science. judge jones ruled that id is religious. so as i stated the vast majority of the scientific community thinks it is religion, the person responsible for the movement thinks it is religious, the biggest supporter is a religious group, a christian judge thinks it is religion. but you say otherwise so.....

    4. lol you are being insanely ridiculous.

      I will tell you that if i had any say in the matter this documentary would stay here JUST in spite of you and your antics.

      you are being a baby and not being rational. you can ask, we said no. that is that. this is not a democracy. once again. QQ

    5. @Epicurus

      Well I clicked it but here is an additional thumbs up....

  78. I've sent in my complaint over that link you sent me Epicurus.

    To cover your worries that religious people might complain....

    The consensus of the Admin staff at TDF is that this film is a Conspiracy-Theory rant (Vlatko and Epicurus). They even admit it should be in the conspiracy section (Epicurus). But they have purposefully kept it in the Religion section. When I asked them to put it in the Conspiracy section instead of the Religion section accordingly they said no because they might get possible complaints from religious people of discriminatory bias. I pointed out that I am a religious person and I am actually complaining and that it is actual discriminatory bias (to leave it in the religion section at this point). I asked them to move it to the Conspiracy section accordingly. They called me a Troll saying I should have politely asked them to move it to the conspiracy section via email in the first place. And they directed me to other websites so I could see that it's in the religion section on those sites too. I am of the opinion that this film would be more correctly at home in the Conspiracy section. As a religious person I am offended and feel that people of religion have come under bias and are being discriminated against by having this film, which covers Science and Conspiracy topics, in the Religion section. In looking at evidence for/against the worries of Vlatko and Epicurus of possible complaints of discriminatory bias from religious people if this documentary were to be in the conspiracy section....

    For those who are religious, would you prefer to have this film be in the religion section or the conspiracy section?

    1. Interesting question but should not all religion be considered a conspiracy?

    2. Thank you lakhotason for not flame/bitching me. Much appreciated. yes it is an interesting question.

      Your question is a bit off topic though. I'm not talking about Religion or Science or ID or propaganda. I've established that I and Epicurus and Vlatko believe this film to be a Conspiracy film.

      The topic is if religious people would complain of this film was in the Conspiracy section vs where it is now.

      I'm gathering a sample of answers from religious people on that question.

      lakhotason are you religous?

      If so can you give me your answer to that Conspiracy section vs Religion section question?

      If you're not religious I cannot use you in my sample.

      Sorry =(

      BTW lakhotason are you a TDF Admin?

    3. loyell13,

      I wanted to ask you, are you 13 years old? You sure sound like it, so now I will forever hold it in my mind that you are indeed 13 years old, a little kiddie, and so no doubt will others here on TDF.

    4. Thanks Achems_Razor...wtf did I ever do to you?


  79. What other documentary sites?

  80. Epicurus you are full of $h#t. Previously you argue that this film belongs in the Religion section because the subject is Religious (ID being a religious subject to you and not a science subject). Now you argue that you can speak from a science perspective in the Religion section because this documentary...in your own self contradictory words, "talks about a science subject."

    You're also full of $h#t because you argue that my wanting this Conspiracy OUT of the religion section is a small complaint. But that potential hypothetical complaints in the future (vs. my actual complain NOW) hold more weight because they'd be right in claiming Discriminatory Bias (yet somehow my real complaint actually happening right now can't claim discriminatory bias?).

    1. "Epicurus you are full of $h#t. Previously you argue that this film belongs in the Religion section because the subject is Religious (ID being a religious subject to you and not a science subject). Now you argue that you can speak from a science perspective in the Religion section because this documentary...in your own self contradictory words, "talks about a science subject.""

      yes it speaks negatively about a science subject (evolution) so you can use science to correct it and discuss it.

      "You're also full of $h#t because you argue that my wanting this Conspiracy OUT of the religion section is a small complaint. But that potential hypothetical complaints in the future (vs. my actual complain NOW) hold more weight because they'd be right in claiming Discriminatory Bias (yet somehow my real complaint actually happening right now can't claim discriminatory bias?)."

      those would hold more weight because there would be A LOT more of them.

      I also conceded yesterday that it should be in the conspiracy section and I accepted your argument that it is a conspiracy theory doc.

      your complaint now can and has claimed discriminitory bias. that is fine. it might be the case. but it is also the case that this movie was made by a religious group with christian religious ideals. its target audience is religious people.

      if you go to every other documentary site on the net you will find it in the religion section.

      you seem to be getting a little mad.

    2. I have an idea. Let's create a humor section and put it there.

    3. there is a comedy section and perhaps you are right. lol

    4. I defer to your judgment.

    5. even better...I am going to lobby the site, for ALL religious documentaries to be slated to the Comedy section.

      ...or at least the fictional section

      Is there one of those?

    6. That tops my idea.

    7. @loyell13,

      I said move on. The film stays as it is.

      If you want to discus about it fine. If not, as I've said, there are plenty of choices around the Web.

      If your intention was just to suggest another category for this film, you could have done it politely via email (contact link). But it is more than obvious that you're just trolling.

    8. I wrote my offical complaint and posted it in response to Epicurus comment that he is a TDF Admin. And thus I had not seen your comment suggesting an email. Please direct me to where I can send an email because I do want this film moved OUT of the religion section.

    9. @,loyell13

      I'll just second that: Your complaint is noted. it has been ignored. have a good day.

  81. I originally asked that this film be moved into the Science section of TDF. I've since discovered the controversy with this film and can understand why it is not currently in the Science section. But I had also requested that if it would not be moved to the Science section that it at least be moved from the Religion section and into the Conspiracy section. That was my request from the early onset of my posting here. Apparently it is the view of TDF admin that this film called Expelled is a Conspiracy film. So why this film called Expelled is in the Religion section and Not the Conspiracy section of TDF is a mystery. And although it's been fun talking about ID and such I want to get back on to my topic of why this film called Expelled is in the Religion section and Not in the Conspiracy section where it would more accurately fit. So I have documented the conversations up to this point that are on topic with how this film called Expelled should or should not be in the Science or Religion or Conspiracy section of TDF. I have done my best to edit the conversation to make sure the comments are threaded in the order they appeared and without editing the content. I have excluded comments that were not on topic. I have also corrected some grammar and punctuation. My apologies for any editing errors. This is my first attempt at trying to accurately document something like this. I want to get back on topic of why I think this film called Expelled should Not be in the Religion section and Should be in the Conspiracy section. Especially since the TDF Admin even called it a Conspiracy film (the term Vlatko used was "conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry").

    loyell13: Why is this Science documentary "expelled" into the Religion section?

    Epicurus: LOL it's not science that is why. it is completely religious and has no science in it.

    timesoftrouble: Well done Ben Stein. This documentary tells the truth and those who don't like it are sure to try to bring it down. The battle is on against an atheistic culture that can no longer reason.

    Vic Demise: No Atheist will try to "bring down" this movie- it's too darned amusing!

    loyell13: You mean like "Expelling" this documentary to the Religious section instead of the Science section? Or even Conspiracy section?

    Epicurus: But it fundamentally is a religious argument. intelligent design stems from creationism. it implies a supernatural creator. it is religious.

    Vlatko: Intelligent Design = Creationism = Religion = your own 2+2 = 4 thinking process.

    Epicurus: IF IT WERE THE CASE that intelligent design were true, one way to verify that would be to look for some sign in genetics

    loyell13: I'd also like to point out that that is my point. Let's look for those signs in genetics. And stop discouraging folks who want to look for these signs even if YOU don't believe those signs exist. Especially since Dawkins says there IS possible evidence of these signs!

    Epicurus: no one is stopping people from looking. they are stopping people from prematurely teaching it in SCIENCE class.

    loyell13: Yes people are being stopped from looking for these possible signs of a designer. We're not even allowed to investigate it scientifically because we're being brainwashed that it's not even a science topic/question. Richard said it is possible an advanced civilization could account for the first DNA on earth. And their signatures could be in our chemistry and our molecular biology. It's his thought process for the plausibility of Intelligent Design. Who cares of Dawkins doesn't believe it's worth investigating. Why the paranoia and repression? How is the concept that DNA was seeded by an advanced civilization RELIGION?!!! Seriously...stop with the anti-creationist paranoia.

    Vlatko: Evolved-By-Darwinian-Means Advanced Civilization DNA Designers = Sir Francis Crick in 1960s = Directed Panspermia = Complete Wild Speculations without any tangible evidence whatsoever. Even if it's true it is not support for ID.

    loyell13: If that evidence does exist, it IS EXACTLY proof of Intelligent Design. Not one thing you or I have said has ANYTHING to do with Religion Vlatko. In fact we've only discussed SCIENCE topics and by using Science terms. Keep this film in the Religion section if you must Vlatko. But...FOR DARWINS SAKE...and to respect the Scientist who said it IS SCIENTIFICALLY possible...PLEASE ALSO put this DNA-Designers-Might-Exist film in the SCIENCE section. These SCIENCE discussions belong under the SCIENCE section.

    Vlatko: Well you're trying to convince us that the ID is valid. You need evidence for Advanced Civilization DNA Designers.

    Over The Edge: yes id is possible. yes evidence could be in our dna. but possible does not mean probable.

    Vlatko: @over the edge, Well said. Thanks.

    loyell13: But more to my point, please show me the evidence for how Panspermia = Religion (per the apparent phenomena that mere mention of Panspermia in a Documentary on TDF = put said documentary into Religion section of TDF).

    Vlatko: Move on, there are plenty of choices around the web. This doc stays in the religion section. There is no solid evidence for or against Panspermia, thus it is only speculation.

    loyell13: My claim is that TDF's credibility is hurt by not including this film also in the science section. And I want it also in the science section SO THAT THE FILM IS WRONG! The film appeals to viewers...and I quote, "to see science as intolerable" (last line of the TDF review of this film). And apparently all I've seen with all these comments, and especially Vlatko's is that YES SCIENCE IS INTOLERABLE.

    robertallen1: Do you mean intolerant or intolerable.

    loyell13: I'm discomforted that science really is intolerant (I'll say it correctly...the review of this film has intolerable...and that doesn't make sense...best have someone fix that).

    Epicurus: this isn't a science documentary. it is a religious documentary funded by a religious organization crying because they aren't allowed to teach religion in science class.

    loyell13: Vlatko I'll ask again (third time now). How does Panspermia = Religion (hence requiring this documentary to be in the Religion section)?

    Vlatko: I'll tell you why: The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to fascism, the Nazi Holocaust, communism, atheism, and eugenics. Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary. A conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry and an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. Any further questions?

    loyell13: Thank you for answering why you don't like this film called Expelled. And I understand how you feel. I too have experienced negative things said and portrayed about the things I cherish. I gotcha man.
    Listen, as someone who cherishes religion as much as you cherish evolution (well I don't cherish religion That much...ha...but still) can I please suggest that this film be put in the conspiracy section? Because in all reality...this Expelled film really is just a conspiracy film.

    1. if your only beef is that this is not in the conspiracy section, well thats a pretty minor complaint. im sorry that it is not but im sure if it were we would have all kinds of religious people complaining that we are discriminating and being bias.

    2. Are you TDF Admin Epicurus?

      Do you get to speak for them?

      Do you disagree with Vlatko?

      Are you saying this film called Expelled is NOT a conspiracy rant?

    3. "Are you TDF Admin Epicurus?"

      Yes I am.

      "Do you disagree with Vlatko?"

      No I do not, however I do see your point that this should be in the conspiracy section (as well). but I explained we would just get religious people who agree with it arguing with us that it is in there.

    4. So now we have TWO TDF Admins verifying that this film called Expelled IS a conspiracy-theory rant.


      Because the TDF Admin person known as Vlatko wrote concerning the film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed that it is a "conspiracy-theory rant" and because the TDF Admin person known as Epicurus expressed agreement with wrote statement and because the TDF Admin person known as Epicurus separately wrote concerning the film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed "this should be in the conspiracy section" and because the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is currently in the Religion section of TDF and not in the Conspiracy section of TDF, I as a religious person do formally complain and claim discriminatory bias and do respectfully ask that the film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed be moved out of the Religion section of TDF and into the Conspiracy section of TDF. If the film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is moved from the Religion section of TDF and into the Conspiracy section of TDF I will retract my complaint of discriminatory bias. If the film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed remains in the Religion section of TDF but then also is added to the Science section of TDF I will also retract my complaint of discriminatory bias.

      I am a real and actual religious person (not some possible one in the future) and my complaint about discriminatory bias is real (not some possible one in the future) and is happening right now (not some possible time in the future) and I am claiming real discriminatory bias (not some "minor" thing).

    5. your complaint is noted. it has been ignored. have a good day.


    6. Waiting for directions to that email Epicurus.

      Your rude "QQ" is noted.

    7. You are sounding like a spoiled baby, you should not demand anything, there is such a thing as manners!

      Did you ever hear of politely asking, you just seem to want to get your way, only Vlatko puts the docs where he wants to put them, and I agree with Admin., this doc should stay put!

    8. What you are is a fool.

      And, by the way, what do you plan to do if Vlatko (there's only one TDF administrator that I know of) still refuses your demand?

    9. im an admin, but i have no say in where the videos go.

    10. If the time you have spent blogging on this issue had been spent learning about the subjects . . .

    11. robertallen1. The subject now is why a Conspiracy film is in the Religion section. Get on topic.

  82. Anyone here believe in Demons? That's a Religious topic. And semi-related to this film about Expelling.

  83. Epicurus...one bacteria evolving into another "species" of bacteria is not the Species to Species via evolution proof I'm asking for. I don't see bacteria species evolving into another bacteria species any different than one kind of Dog evolving into another kind of Dog. What I'm asking for is a scientifically proven example of something like a Dog evolving into a Cat or a Bacteria into a Virus. I think you get what I'm asking for.

    1. you dont see it any different? im sorry i was unaware that you were a microbiologist and were the one who decided what the definitions were......

      nothing about evolution says that a bacteria will evolve into a virus or a dog into a cat. i cant say i know what you are asking for.

    2. @loyell13
      i know Epicurus already answered this. the example was correct based on the rules of science. you cannot change the definitions of scientific terms to fit your argument. there will probably never be an example of a dog evolving into a cat and evolutionary theory never made that claim. all of the changes claimed within evolution are incremental accumulate over time. all you have done is show your lack of understanding of evolution. how can you be against something you clearly don't understand? anyway you will be happy to know that this will be my last comment to you til you provide evidence for your argument. i have had these conversations before and i know how they go. you claim that ".Intelligent Design is Logical and Supported by evidence." but refuse to give this evidence. then you either go off topic or continue to ask questions til somebody stumbles and you claim a victory. all the while never showing any hard evidence for your original assertions (yes you started this).

    3. over the edge,

      You are right, loyell13: started all this, and never gave one iota of empirical evidence for his assertions, that is why I have stayed out of this discussion, leads nowhere.

    4. I never started this Achems. You guys pestered me for Scientific Proof/Evidence of ID. Like I care or am even the spokesperson for ID. I don't even really believe in ID. But hey...I played along. And Hey...You can't complain about not experiencing Scientific Proof/Evidence IN THE RELIGIOUS SECTION.

    5. I gave evidence for an intelligent designer (external agent) per 2nd law of thermodynamics being a part of our universe. Epicurus only pointed out that it was LOW entropy at the beginning of the Universe vs now. This is only logical (low then high now). But ANY entropy in our Universe requires an external agent (if our Universe is closed). Don't cry that I'm assuming...Dawkins assumes things too.

      I pointed out that Natural Selection works within a system...but doesn't create the system. Example being DNA. No one knows how DNA "the computer program of life" actually came about. Just calling DNA "programming" is interesting as computer programs themselves need an external agent to come into being.

      Richard Dawkins said that he's only "more than 50%" sure that there is no God. He didn't say by how much. But with that said, given that ratio, Richard would be merely less than 50% sure God exists. These ratios are NOT 100% or 0%. And the kicker is that they're only speculative.

      I've pointed out that it takes Faith regarding the most important part of Evolution...DNA. We don't know how it came to be. The Atheist has faith we'll find a non-creatorthingy answer. The Deist has faith we'll find that a creatorthingy is the answer. Both positions require faith.

      I pointed out that a creatorthingy is the default position...because quite frankly, we don't have anything better for how it all began. The only scientific alternative to a creatorthingy is infinite universes. Not only will scientists call infinite universes not science but if there were infinite universes then there are infinite possibilities and with infinite possibilities...God Exists! :-o

      The argument of "you're making things up to fit your equation" is really no different than Dark Matter and Dark Flow. These are completely unproven. They only exist within "the equation."

      These are only some of my evidences (just off the top of MY head mind you). I'm not going to claim their scientific because...pssst...this isn't the Science section....


      Funny thing is. None of this matters. It's not even my point. I just want this film moved out of the religion section. Keeping it here hurts me. Is Science intolerant? Keeping this documentary here has me thinking so. This film is a conspiracy documentary. It belongs in the conspiracy section.


  84. @loyell13
    you seem to be missing the point. yes id is possible. yes evidence could be in our dna. but possible does not mean probable. it is also possible any 1 of the 28 million gods that are or have been worshiped are the creator (all but 1 are wrong for sure) but it is up to the person putting forth the claim to support it with evidence. that is your problem no positive evidence. you can state possibilities, raise questions , argue against the evidence we have but you still provide no evidence for your claim. you keep bringing up dawkins but all he said was something is possible and gave an idea of where to find the evidence if it exists. that is not evidence for anything at all. you are arguing "Russell's Teapot" and no better than someone yelling on the street corner

    1. @over the edge,

      Well said. Thanks.

    2. I wish you wouldn't have mentioned "Russell's Teapot." He'll never get it.

    3. @robertallen1
      sorry about that lol.

    4. over the edge...really? My claim? Have you even been reading what I've been writing?

      My claim is that TDF's credibility is hurt by not including this film also in the science section. And I want it also in the science section SO THAT THE FILM IS WRONG!

      The film appeals to viewers...and I quote, "to see science as intolerable" (last line of the TDF review of this film).

      And apparently all I've seen with all these comments, and especially Vlatko's is that YES SCIENCE IS INTOLERABLE.

      That's my unfortunate claim at this point. And the evidence is all the purposful maligning, avoiding questions, attacks and just outright non-inclusive language (aka intolerable language) from you guys because I've simply asked that this film not be given biased treatment.

    5. Do you mean intolerant or intolerable. I hope you understand the difference because you don't seem to understand anything else.

      Maybe you are simply a shill after all.

    6. Intolerant

  85. So yeah. Still waiting to hear how the possibility of Evolved-By-Darwinian-Means Advanced Civilization DNA Designers = Religion.

    I'm looking at you Vlatko....

    1. im still waiting for a response to everything i said.

      if something is not supported by evidence it is not science. if someone suggests DNA designers without first showing the existence of these designers, they are jumping the gun.

    2. What a fine refutation of intelligent design despite its grammatical flaw. Substituting the word "pixie" or anything else for "intelligent designer" etches in the absurdity of this concept.

    3. ...so Richard Dawkins is absurd?

    4. getting childish now.

    5. I can't believe this. You're having Dr.Dawkins saying the opposite of what he actually states.

      Who are you shilling for?

    6. ...so Richard Dawkins is jumping the gun?

    7. He gave a hypthetical scenario in response to a question put forth by someone who was fishing for that type of answer.

      how many times do i have to explain this to you?

      IF Richard Dawkins ACTUALLY meant what he said then yes he was jumping the gun. if he was just giving the interviewer the simple answer to his loaded question then who gives a s***?

    8. So Epicurus...we shouldn't take Dr Richard Dawkins literally?

      I'm confused.

      You see Epicurus, I've taken what Dr Dawkins said at face value, seriously, and literally, and I'm not re-interpreting it with "well he didn't mean it."

      Dr Richard Dawkins said that Panspermia is possible and evidence of it is possibly in our chemistry and our molecular biology.

      Not seeing the Religion there.

    9. *facepalm* refer to my last post to you explaining that you should not have taken what he said at face value.

    10. I'll say it again. The Man said it's possible. Why are you making it out like he said it's IMPOSSIBLE?

    11. no one is making it out to be like that. the only person who wont let go of a hypothetical here is you.

      you dont even know what you are complaining about anymore. anything is possible. is it probable? do we have any evidence? until we do keep it out of science class.

      im sorry that your religious beliefs seem to interfere with your ability to think about this rationally.

    12. Epicurus...I for one have stayed steady and true to my original "complaint" all this time. Read my first post. It's always been about having this film be in the science section as well. I've only diverted a little to hear what you guys had to say. And haveing heard it I'm not comforted that Science is NOT intolerable...the opposite actually.


    13. this isnt a science documentary. it is a religious documentary funded by a religious organization crying because they arent allowed to teach religion in science class.

      Michael Behe attempted to falsify evolution by searching for irreducible complexity. he thought he found it in the bacterium flagellum. his papers were peer reviewed. he was wrong.

      we study DNA constantly, if there is some sign we will see it.

    14. I'm thrown by everything from "I'm not comforted" to "the opposite actally." Does this mean that you feel uneasy that science is tolerable, that you feel comforted that science is tolerable or that you feel uneasy that science is intolerable--or perhaps something entirely different.

      If you can't help me see my way through this, I appeal to Epicurus or Achem's Razor--or perhaps you need someone with a different type of expertise.

    15. I'm discomforted that science really is intollarant (I'll say it correctly...the review of this film has intolerable...and that doesn't make sense...best have someone fix that).

    16. It's there in one of the recent posts. You're a big boy now (I guess) and must do your own research.

    17. There now, pause, take a deep breath and everything will be all right
      --I think.

    18. It's also possible the world might end tomorrow and you with it.

  86. Love how my comments first appear as replies in the correct place and then as random comments per being out of place....

    1. its everyones, you just have to look at the bottom of each comment and it will say who it is in reply to.

  87. @Achem's_Razor

    I respect an ignoramus seeking knowledge, not one who expatiates on what he doesn't know or cannot know.

  88. @Achems_razor

    No I'm not a scientist and as for being a man's man, the only p*ssy worth considering . . .

    But seriously, I respect an ignoramus (a relative term) who seeks knowledge, not one who merely expatiates on what he knows nothing about or can know nothing about.

  89. @loyell13.

    Unlike Epicurus, I do blame you, not only for your gullibility rooted in an appalling lack of education and discernment, not only for your inability to learn or to want to learn about a subject before putting your thoughts in writing, not only for your pretentiousness in trying to go up against those who know more about a subject than you do (e.g., Richard Dawkins), but for your basic dishonesty.

    1. I like you robertallen1 because you blatantly Troll and don't Troll about your Trolling.

  90. @robertallen1 Trolling is for Trolls.

    1. Robertallen is not a troll.

    2. @lakhotason Then robertallen1 should stop trolling.
      Nothing he said is worth responding to.
      It's just Troll language.

      "How dare you..."
      "don't...insult my intelligence..."
      "your remarks...reveal only an ignorance...."
      "What can one expect...."
      "Dr Dawkins never said... [what I referenced everyone can here for themselves that he actually did say]"
      "This makes you a cheat and a liar"
      "Epicurus reported it accurately [not exatly]"
      "Why can't you [I have and did...see my reply to Epicurus]"
      "you should be ashamed...."

      Who writes like that and expects not to be considered a Troll?

    3. He's not trolling.

    4. If you feel insulted (and hopefully humiliated), I've succeeded.

      Not only do you misquote, misconstrue and lie about Dr. Dawkins, but also about me. Nowhere have I have indicated that I do not expect to be considered a troll (now that I have figured out what the term means as used here).

      Now get over your abashment with a little education.

    5. Would you please enlighten me as to what a troll means in this context so that I can determine whether to thank you.

    6. No need to thank me.

    7. I must say no matter the subject, following Epicurus on this thread is pleasant even though it is argumentative it remains civil and informative, following Robertallen is like listening to insults over insults over insults. No need to insult people. He makes me imagine the kind of father he must be, snob, unpleasant and terrorizing.

  91. This discussion, argument or agreement to disagree, (depending upon which side you wish to defend) Is simply never going to be finished in this lifetime.

    You can tell Christians that as world religions go, their's is a relatively new upstart and you will be told NO...the entire planet is only a few thousand years old. (anything that appears to be older, apparently, was placed on Earth by a GOD to test or fool us.) At one time, I would have argued till I was hoarse. I no longer have any inclination to declare my own thoughts or opinions as any better or worse than anyone else's, where Faith and Religion are concerned.

    What I would really like to see from all of us (I've beaten this one to death, I know, so I apologize for repeating it yet again), is the ability and tolerance to accept that everybody has the the right to follow any belief or lack thereof. Here I will place a proviso: As long as it doesn't hurt another person's being or property.

    How does the fact that I believe in the "Frog of Alturi" effect your own belief in Jesus, or Mohammed or anyone or anything else? Most people who follow a specific faith (at least in my experience) are much more inclined to tell a confessed atheist; "you are going to hell" or "you are wrong". Often they will quote passages to highlight their point. The problem I have always had is that the Bible (Christian) is filled with stories... Theologians, have explained that much of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. But parts can be taken this way if it helps an argument...For me, this is far too subjective and convenient. This book still seems to be the only book not subject to critical analysis by peers or detractors.

    How does my non or altered belief, effect you as a pious person following your own path? Do not most "accepted" (theres a great word where religion is concerned) faiths, embrace tolerance, acceptance and help for your fellow man/woman, regardless of how far down he/she may have fallen? Even if the very book doesn't actually reveal this...it has become what people believe it teaches.

    There are comments on here about Agnosticism. This is where I would have placed myself at one point. Now I simply just don't believe in outside forces effecting my destiny.

    To me, blaming or thanking a supernatural being for your own effort is ridiculous and a complete cop out.

    If you want to discuss what I have written here, please do. However, I rarely respond to rants or poorly researched points. This includes people who misquote the Bible to serve their own ends...I may not agree with most of it...but, HAVE actually read it more than once.

    1. You have the right to believe what you want. Just keep religion out of the public places, especially the schools, and especially out of the science classes.

  92. Vlatko by not addressing my logic about Agnosticism vs the Atheist Faith you appear to lack faith in your own ability to defend your beliefs against my logic.

    If that is true it doesn't surprise me that with that level of faith/confidence in defending your beliefs against my logic you try the tactic of expelling (and that in the comments about a film about expelling opposition).

    You've used your authority as a TDF admin and tried to appeal to readers to view me as a creationist (but you don't know me) and that since it is impossible to discuss with a creationist (which is not scientifically proven but simply your own opinion) they should view it as is impossible to discuss with me (the effect being the same as expelling me if they do).

    I don't know if it's impossible to discuss with you Vlatko because I never have discussed with you. And Vlatko I will not pre-judge that I cannot discuss with you because of your Faith (whatever that may be). And I will not appeal to readers to pre-judge you that way either.

    It's cool you have a website (TDF) that you can proselytize your Faith with Vlatko. More people should be as confident as you about their Faith as that. But to so openly attempt to suppress opposition to your Faith by labelling me and opposition as un-discussable does not encourage me to view your Faith or your website with respect.

    Ironically it encourages me to take this Film about the Expelling of Intelligent Design as fact with regards to the level of expressed animosity at Intelligent Design out there. And it is scary to have an Admin try and "come down" on the subject (per a Film about the subject).

    You can't expect positive results by openly judging someone with "it's impossible to discuss with you" and then asking them to go watch documentaries that support your position. You've set yourself up to fail from the beginning. Just ask them to watch documentaries and keep open the lines for debate.

    And your statement "Intelligent Design = Creationism = Religion = your own 2+2 = 4 thinking process" is just wrong. It would take quite the communication dialogue to show you how it's wrong...so for now I'll just say...it's wrong (not true, not accurate).

    Interesting that when I pointed out some simple logic about agnosticism vs the Atheist Faith not only does no one attempt to refute me but a TDF Admin comes on and tries to "expel" readers from attempting to refute me as well.

    If I my logic is off, people could have pointed out how it was off. But Vlatko you did not attempt to correct my logic and instead you argue that people should Not try to correct my logic either.

    That kind of behaviour reminds me of the behaviour of repressive regimes when confronted with opposition.

    If that is Not how you want to appear, please consider letting go of pre-judgements and instead embracing hope and faith on your ability to persuade.

    I will watch those documentaries. It will take some time (I still have to watch what Epicurus suggested). After I have I expect to be able to discuss them. And without being prejudged or repressed when I try to discuss them.

    1. loyell13
      could you please explain what you mean by " atheist faith" atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods nothing more how can that be considered a faith? also do you believe in a god?

    2. @over the edge There are three Faiths. The Deists Faith, the Theist Faith and the Atheist Faith. I don't mean organized religion. I mean actual Faith in what one believes in. On matters of how the Universe began and if it required a God Agent and how that God Agent might affect/interact-with the universe and humans, because we humans are still so finite in our knowledge, comprehension and experiences, any position more than an attitude of "I don't know" is really just our own personal Faith in Deism or Theism or Atheism. Choosing what Not to believe in (Classical Atheism) is no different than choosing what To believe in (Classical Deism or Classical Theism). Any of the three positions at its core are really just personal Faith in ones belief.

      Agnosticism on the other hand is not a Faith. Agnosticism is the humble admission that one does not know.

      To answer your question about if I believe in God, currently my personal Faith is in Deism and Theism. I've also done my research and currently I do not believe in Atheism (and thus do not have Faith in it).

    3. i think if you look at the words you will see that agnosticism comes from the greek words a and gnosis which mean without and knowledge respectively.

      to claim to be JUST an agnostic isnt enough. we are all agnostic truthfully since we are without absolute knowledge one way or the other.

      but when it comes to how you live your life or what you believe based on that lack of knowledge one is either an atheist (meaning they dont believe there is a god usually because there is no evidence to support one), a theist, a deist, a pantheist, an animist etc. but they are all agnostic.

      if you could point out a single atheist who says they know for sure there is no agent i would like to see that. rather they dont assume there is one because there is insufficient evidence to do so.

  93. If we don't know our universe is closed or not then we don't know if there needed to be an external Agent or not. So what we have is not certainty that there is no external Agent (the Atheism Faith) but uncertainty if there is an external Agent or not (Agnosticism). With Agnosticism one can remain humble in their unknowing or they can arrogantly claim that their Deist Faith is true, or that their Theist Faith is true or that their Atheist Faith is true.

    And no my evidence is not a variation of the standard creationist canard. It's the result of my own 2+2 = 4 thinking process.

    1. There is no logical person who says with absolute certainty that there is no external agent. most atheists say they have no reason to assume there is.

      also just positing an external agent leaves us with questions like, how did that agent go against the second law of thermodynamics? it still leaves us with an infinite regress.

      it leaves more questions without even being sure the assumption is correct. it is more honest to say you dont know.

      one is either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist (or agnostic deist/pantheist etc), and to me agnostic atheist is the most intellectually honest.

    2. Your first paragraph is well put and has been stressed time and time again, especially by Dr. Dawkins. The problem is that so many people read or listen selectively--and sometimes not even that. As god created man in his own image, theists created atheists in theirs.

    3. Dear Robert, don't you think it's about time you get an appropriate avatar?
      I never liked the grey man with the cap on the head, it really doesn't suit you well. I always thought it looked like an unused safe.
      May i suggest perhaps the cover of a book, or a scientific logo design, or the photo of an old smart guy like Epirurus uses....or a young one which would be the opposite duality.

    4. I didn't choose it; I never noticed it and quite frankly, I don't care, but thanks for your concern.

    5. @Epicurus Now we're talking. It really does boil down to your statement "to me." That statement is one of belief. I'm glad you have it. It's not my belief. But it is a belief. And so the argument of Atheism vs Theism/Deism really boils down to arguments between personal beliefs. I like the honesty.

      As for your Infinite Regress idea...no it does not need to leave us with an infinite regress. We're not asking how God (external agent) began. We're asking how it is possible that, given the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the Universe could have created itself. Our universe seems a closed system. If it is then it requires an external agent. I can eliminate infinite regress by postulating that the External Agent does not need to be under the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. And that the External Agent doesn't need to be finite or need to have had a beginning. Yes I don't have evidence for this. But again, until we have evidence about the External Agent like we do about the Big Bang, we don't need to ask these "How'd the External Agent..." questions like we do about our Universe.

      And it's not that farfetched. Remember that the proposed idea for how our planet has...by chance alone...overcome the ASTRONOMICAL odds for complex life to exist...by chance alone (because the default is that there was an external agent)...is the idea that there are infinite universes. Infinite Universes is pretty much the same as infinite regress. And remember that there's no evidence for these infinite universes (it's just a theory to explain the ASTRONOMICAL odds given no External Agent).

      I argue that there does not need to be infinite regress as the External Agent could have existed forever and with no beginning and without entropy. My theory actually removes the need for infinite regress. Infinite Universes actually keeps something very similar to Infinite regress. I'm only proposing one infinite being. Multiple Universes is proposing that there are an infinite amount of universes. Neither of these theories have any evidence. They're just theories. I'd argue that Occam's Razor would vote for my One Infinite Being over the idea of an Infinite Amount Of Universes.

    6. but what does one base this belief on?

      what do you base the belief that there is intelligent aware agent?

      i base my belief that there isnt for the same reason i dont believe in the hindu gods. there just isnt sufficient evidence.

      our universe seems a closed system but we dont know that it is, and even if it is, there is sufficient energy in it initially to produce what looks to us like order, but if you remember what i said earlier:

      "in the very early stages of the universe, the distribution of matter and energy was very, very ordered, as demonstrated by the uniformity of the CMBR. As such, one could characterize the entire distribution of matter and energy in the universe with a single number (the temperature) to a very good approximation. Compare that to the universe we see now, filled with complicated, disorderly distributions of galaxies, stars and gas. The amount of entropy in these objects is enormous (recall our earlier discussion about the lack of coherent orbits for stars in elliptical galaxies and galaxies in galaxy clusters)."

      if you look at the CMBR it would appear that our universe has gone from order to disorder. there are pockets of area where order is happening (us) but it is extremely brief and will fade as the sun goes through entropy.

      you can not just posit a being that doesnt obey laws of physics because it cleans up your model. thats like saying "magic" and wiping your hands.

      the fact that a universe exists and energy exists already makes the model of infinite universes better than that of an all powerful eternal entity.

      occams razor would dismiss your being claim and allow the universe one based on my prior paragraph.

    7. i dont think you read everything i put there....let me try again, and i guess just the important part.

      "our everyday conceptions of "order" and "disorder" do not really apply to the physical quantity called "entropy". Indeed, the entropy of the early universe was extremely low. This makes sense if one remembers that, in the very early stages of the universe, the distribution of matter and energy was very, very ordered, as demonstrated by the uniformity of the CMBR. As such, one could characterize the entire distribution of matter and energy in the universe with a single number (the temperature) to a very good approximation. Compare that to the universe we see now, filled with complicated, disorderly distributions of galaxies, stars and gas. The amount of entropy in these objects is enormous (recall our earlier discussion about the lack of coherent orbits for stars in elliptical galaxies and galaxies in galaxy clusters). Hence, the idea that the entropy of the universe has somehow decreased in violation of the second law of thermodynamics is largely nonsensical."

  94. Everyone, listen to how robertallen1 speaks, "with intelligence and comprehension this limited, you have the gall to decree the purview of the courts." This after he wrote, "I expected you to miss the point." This is not an intelligent or reasonable approach to any dialogue. It's divisive, aggressive, rude, disparaging, and a horrendous way to try and proselytize the Atheist Faith.

    As for his point, I have above average intelligence and above average comprehension and I do have the gall to decree the purview of the courts because I think for myself.

    One of the argument tactics I've found that those of the Atheist Faith do when in an online discussion (Trolls do this too) is to ask the opponent to go find gobs and gobs of information and then get back to them. Two things happen when the opponent does this. 1. They find out details the Atheist Faith member missed and bring it up. or 2. They can't find the information. In either scenario, the common response by the Atheist Faith member is to either not address what the opponent brings up or to reference more gobs and gobs of information. So it becomes a never ending journey to find gobs and gobs of information that in the end...the Atheist Faith Member (sometimes Troll) does not even discuss anyways.
    With an attitude of "I expect you to miss the point" I'm not interested in further dialogue with robertallen1. That's outright admission of Trolling.

    1. First of all, I wasn't speaking, I was writing.

      Secondly, you assume that I'm an atheist.

      So much for your intelligence and comprehension.

  95. "The animosity against intelligent design isn't alarming; it's deserved..." -robertallen1

    There you have it folks. The animosity is real.

    How soon before the potentcy of that animosity resembles Nazi Germany's concentration camps?

    Oh...and robertallen1...please learn to reference...please. Per lack of references...again...I'm going to have to call you out as a truth fabricator again.

    1. Two of my references are in the documentary itself--they're easy enough to find, except perhaps by you. For the third see "Ben Stein's Flunked" which is also on this website.

      Of course, the animosity is real. Why says it isn't? However, your linking of this animosity against the pseudoscientific with the concentration camps is puerile and pathetic.

  96. @Lovell13

    As Epicurus and Achems_Razor have tried to drum into you, the documentary is fine where it is.

    Also, I see that Epicurus has cited the relevant portions of Kitmiller v. Dover School District. Why don't you take advantage of his generosity and read his post and perhaps the entire decision?


    1. The evidence for Intelligent Design could care less that it's called science or not.

      But this topic is NOT a religious topic, it's a Scientific topic.

      Because evidence for an intelligent designer (vs say a blind watchmaker) should be examined and judged by scientists...not clergy (and definitely not by courts).

      Religious groups using Intelligent Design to attempt a legal advancement of their religious agenda...and then getting legally thwarted...shouldn't stop investigation and dialogue about the evidence of an intelligent designer. I think that's why this film does not touch on the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. As the case is not the point. But rather the evidence of intelligent design and especially the scientific examination of intelligent design evidence is. Let's have the evidence out in the open and scientifically examined and discussed. Then we can settle this once and for all (instead of eloquently saying back and forth over a website "you're wrong" over and over).

  97. Well, when I went to answer your question about me apparently not answering where I get my information on how I think the film is true about how there is an agenda to expell anything contrary to Darwinian Athiesm by first labeling it as inferior and then expelling it away from view/topic/conversation so it can't have a chance to prove itself otherwise...I got a message that my comment needed to be approved by a moderator...and it hasn't been posted yet...so...does that answer your question as to where I'm getting my information about why I might think this film might be true about the Anti-Intelligent-Design behavior out there?

    I'm reposting my reply here since I was allowed to post/edit this message without censorship.

    1st: I answered your question.

    2nd: Your own. Duh.

    Anyways: One reasonable logic for this film being in the Religion section is that Atheism is a Religion and Intelligent Design is a topic that belongs under the Atheist Religion umbrella.

    I mean...what else could Atheism fall under if not under Religion? Atheism is not 9-11/Arts and Artists/Biography/Comedy/Conspiracy/Drugs/Economics/Environment/Health/History/Military and War/Music and Performing Arts/ Mystery/Sexuality/Media/Nature and Wildlife/Politics/Philosophy/Psychology/Society/Technology/Sports/For Preview Only. Atheism as a theory is technically a Philosophy so Atheism films could go under Philosophy. But what this film trys is asking why such Anti-Intelligent-Design behaviour? Intelligent Design is really only an Atheist topic. Deists/Theists don't discuss Intelligent Design. It's neat if they find that it's true. But Deists/Theists don't need it to be proven for them to be Deists/Theists. Intelligent Design really only smacks in the face of Methodological Naturalist Atheism. So as an Atheist topic, perhaps TDF has this film in the Religion section per Atheism films belonging in no other section then the Religion section.

    Or perhaps TDF wants viewers to consider Intelligent Design films as non-scientific and akin to religious propaganda...thus expelling this film to the Religion section.

    Hey wait a second...the preview of this film is pretty biased on how it attempts to lead the viewers into a negative opinion of the film instead of just explaining the topics brought up by the film and letting viewers form their own opinions (like most of all the other reviews on this site).

    Hmmm...and I'm asked where I get my information that this film is right about the Anti-Intelligent-Design behaviours out there....

    Sorry, but I really won't be convinced this film as false about the Anti-Intelligent-Design behaviours out there as long as this film is in the Religion section and has such an upfront negative review like that....

    1. Do you even make sense to yourself, for you certainly don't to me.

      To state it simply, intelligent design is illogical and unsupported by evidence. As it posits the existence of a supreme being, it is theology (or religion) and not science.

      I suggest you read the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District which is on the internet. There is also a fine documentary about this case on this website.

      From your last two posts, you need more than a moderator.

  98. I just couldn't watch it.....

    And to all the Id peoples out there ; filling the blanks with themagicmandidit isn't science.

  99. Well done Ben Stein. This documentary tells the truth and those who don't like it are sure to try to bring it down. The battle is on against an atheistic culture that can no longer reason.

    1. 1. What's the matter with an atheistic culture?
      2. What makes you think that an atheistic culture can no longer reason?
      3. What makes you think that this documentary tells the truth?
      4. What makes you think that Ben Stein has anything amounting to intelligence?
      5. What makes you think that you have anything amounting to intelligence?

    2. That is the stupidest thing I've read all week.
      (Maybe God will deliver your message to Ben while he's busy NOT delivering anyone from the horrors of a made-up hell).
      No Atheist will try to "bring down" this movie- it's too darned amusing!

    3. You mean like "Expelling" this documentary to the Religious section instead of the Science section? Or even Conspiracy section? It's the Athiests who WANT it in the Religious section. What better arguement against something that challanges Athiests than to have it seen as illegitamate from the get go ("oh it's in the Religious section...can't take it seriously now...")...then Athiests can avoid having to deal with it. If Storks don't bring Babies...you should be able to say why...not just say "that's rediculous...we're not going to entertain that idea"....

    4. but it fundamentally is a religious argument. intelligent design stems from creationism. it implies a supernatural creator. it is religious.

  100. Why is this Science documentary "expelled" into the Religion section?

    1. LOL its not science that is why. it is completely religious and has no science in it.

      it would be as if a group of people that wanted to teach that storks bring babies got mad if they werent allowed to teach sex education.

    2. Apparently this film is true...there really is an agenda to expell anything contrary to Darwinian Athiesm by first labeling it as inferior and then expelling it away from view/topic/conversation so it can't have a chance to prove itself otherwise.

    3. "Apparently this film is true . . . " Where do you get your information?

    4. From comments like yours. Pretty much all the "against" comments I've read here about this film are the kinds of comments/reactions from pro-Atheists that this film shows exist. I've not read any "against" comment that has me thinking, "yeah, this movie is totally off...those sentiments don't exist"...quite the opposite actually.

    5. First, you haven't answered my question.

      Secondly, all the "pro-Atheists" I've met and read seem to be more knowledgable and intelligent than you've shown yourself to be. So guess with whom I side.

    6. 1st: I answered your question.

      2nd: Your own. Duh.

      Anyways: One reasonable logic for this film being in the Religion section is that Atheism is a Religion and Intelligent Design is a topic that belongs under the Atheist Religion umbrella.

      I mean...what else could Atheism fall under if not under Religion? Atheism is not 9-11/Arts and Artists/Biography/Comedy/Conspiracy/Drugs/Economics/Environment/Health/History/Military and War/Music and Performing Arts/ Mystery/Sexuality/Media/Nature and Wildlife/Politics/Philosophy/Psychology/Society/Technology/Sports/For Preview Only. Atheism as a theory is technically a Philosophy so Atheism films could go under Philosophy. But what this film trys is asking why such Anti-Intelligent-Design behaviour? Intelligent Design is really only an Atheist topic. Deists/Theists don't discuss Intelligent Design. It's neat if they find that it's true. But Deists/Theists don't need it to be proven for them to be Deists/Theists. Intelligent Design really only smacks in the face of Methodological Naturalist Atheism. So as an Atheist topic, perhaps TDF has this film in the Religion section per Atheism films belonging in no other section then the Religion section.

      Or perhaps TDF wants viewers to consider Intelligent Design films as non-scientific and akin to religious propaganda...thus expelling this film to he Religion section.

      Hey wait a second...the preview of this film is pretty biased on how it attempts to lead the viewers into a negative opinion of the film instead of just explaining the topics brought up by the film and letting viewers form their own opinions (like reviews of most of all the other documents on this site).

      Hmmm...and I'm asked where I get my ideas that this film is right about the Anti-Intelligent-Design behaviours out there....

      Sorry, but I really won't be convinced this film as false about the Anti-Intelligent-Design behaviours out there as long as this film is in the Religion section and has such an upfront negative review like that.

    7. 1st: I answered your question.

      2nd: Your own. Duh.

      Anyways: One reasonable logic for this film being in the Religion section is that Atheism is a Religion and Intelligent Design is a topic that belongs under the Atheist Religion umbrella.

      I mean...what else could Atheism fall under if not under Religion? Atheism is not 9-11/Arts and Artists/Biography/Comedy/Conspiracy/Drugs/Economics/Environment/Health/History/Military and War/Music and Performing Arts/ Mystery/Sexuality/Media/Nature and Wildlife/Politics/Philosophy/Psychology/Society/Technology/Sports/For Preview Only. Atheism as a theory is technically a Philosophy so Atheism films could go under Philosophy. But what this film trys is asking why such Anti-Intelligent-Design behaviour? Intelligent Design is really only an Atheist topic. Deists/Theists don't discuss Intelligent Design. It's neat if they find that it's true. But Deists/Theists don't need it to be proven for them to be Deists/Theists. Intelligent Design really only smacks in the face of Methodological Naturalist Atheism. So as an Atheist topic, perhaps TDF has this film in the Religion section per Atheism films belonging in no other section then the Religion section.

      Or perhaps TDF wants viewers to consider Intelligent Design films as non-scientific and akin to religious propaganda...thus expelling this film to he Religion section.

      Hey wait a second...the preview of this film is pretty biased on how it attempts to lead the viewers into a negative opinion of the film instead of just explaining the topics brought up by the film and letting viewers form their own opinions (like reviews of most of all the other documents on this site).

      Hmmm...and I'm asked where I get my ideas that this film is right about the Anti-Intelligent-Design behaviours out there....

      Sorry, but I really won't be convinced this film as false about the Anti-Intelligent-Design behaviours out there as long as this film is in the Religion section and has such an upfront negative review like that.

    8. no that is not true at all. if there is any evidence that goes agains evolution it would be the focus of attention and the discoverer would be given millions in grant money.

  101. Peep Dis!


    After watching this I took a moment to skim the comments below and found it curious to see how desperate some people are to dismiss, this documentary and do their darndest to discourage anyone else from seeing it.


    My father likes to say that a faulty premise will always bring about a faulty conclusion. So true!

    The first faulty premise in this “Review” is that Stein “paints science as the root of this evil.” This is simply not accurate.

    Heres the truth. To the contrary, Stein glorifies and admires science and scientific discovery; for example all the amazing new knowledge we are finding about our universe, mathematics and probability, as well as current insights into the complexity of our DNA and Cell Biology. What Stein does do is not so much “paint”, but methodically unmasks the hypocrisy of how many leaders in Science and Academia zealously distort science to support their own (highly faith-based) beliefs in Atheism (The Un-Religion) and Macro-Evolutionism; viciously attacking and expelling anyone who would dare even to question their faith.

    The 2nd faulty premise is the straw man argument that “If this persecution of dissidents was happening I would think he’d go and talk to people still working in the field and cite his examples for scrutiny. This never happens.” To be fair few people are ever persecuted or expelled by any establishment for supporting it! Imagine someone saying that for example youth trapped in Christian Boarding schools who use physical abuse as “godly punishment” not speaking out from inside their situation to try to discredit people who escape those situations and have the courage to speak out. I think these types of arguments tell us more about the person doing the review than anything else.

    Also the review states that “He only sticks to questions concerning how life began.” Also no true.

    Stein takes great pains I think to get a clear picture of what Evolutionism is and is not; that is to say it was never an explanation of how life began; but only a theory of how life evolved once it was here. Darwin’s theory doesn't begin until you have the first cell.

    By far THE BIGGEST FIB in this review is that Stein “doesn’t even really talk to them about why Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community versus why evolution is taught.”

    In reality much of the film has Stein dispassionately going back and for to proponents of Evolutionism and Intelligent Design asking very tuff questions to all to try to get to the hear of this very question.

    This reviewers description of Steins interaction with Michael Ruse is also telling. In actuality Stein does credit him and introduces him as a prominent proponent of Evolutionism. What really struck me about that exchange was the pompous presentation of Ruse presenting his theory that life on earth began by molecules piggy backing on the backs of crystals, and of course with crystals there are mistakes and mutations and in this process OF COURSE you get more and more complexity until you have life! Its fascinating to me that if Michael Ruse had mused that life on hearth could have begun by the god Poseidon slamming his crystal trident into the primordial soup and magically aligning the molecules that clinging to it to create life, Dr Dawkins might resort to cheesy put downs, calling him stupid, ignorant, or totally insane.

    I think the people who come off most credible when talking about this subject are those that aren’t' made punch drunk with the wine of their own self importance or intelligence. I think to honestly tackle these big questions requires great humility.

    “Admitting our biases is the best way to rational discussion”

    1. I notice that you have omitted the real reasons for those professors being terminated. contrary to those posited by Stein.

      I notice that you have omitted the moronically embarassing conversation of Mr. Stein with Dr. Dawkins, especially the asinine and inaccurate commentary in the background.

      I notice that you have omitted Mr. Stein's idiotic and ignorant
      use of Nazi Germany to justify the necessity for belief in a supreme being.

      Why don't you face it, Stein lacks the intelligence or the ability to ask anyone "tuff" questions much less analyze issues.

    2. I haven't omitted anything not worth omitting.

      I do want to use that omitted word and say that you have omitted links/references to your claims of "real reasons" and "emarassing conversation" and "use of Nazi Germany." Without links/references I'm going to have to call you out as a truth fabricator.

      But hey...if it makes you happy...eh hem..."Stein lacks the intelligence or ability to ask anyone "tuff" questions much less analyze issues." Happy?

      Now, what Stein doesn't lack is the ability to bring to the forefront the anomosity that exists Against Intelligent Design ideas and theorists.

      So far you haven't said anything that has me re-thinking that perhaps the films is wrong about the existance of anti-intelligent-design behavior. The one thing you asked me to look up only had me more convinced that there IS alarming behavior against Intelligent Design (Kitzmiller v. Dover).

    3. The embarassing conversation between Stein and Dr. Dawkins is right in the documentary as is Stein's moronic use of Nazi Germany to justify a belief in a higher being. Another documentary on this site provides the real reasons behind the terminations of those professors which it turns out were wholly justified and had nothing to do with intellectual freedom contrary to what Stein (and his creationist sponsors) would have us believe.

      And speaking of truth fabricators, what about Mr. Behe who lied about the flagellum during the trial in Kitzmiller and the member of the school board who lied about having provided creationist textbooks to students, behavior typical of those who support intelligent design as the perusal of any intelligent design publication will reveal. If intelligent design is valid, why do its proponents have to lie, misstate and deceive to support it.

      I know I'm being a fool to appeal to your judgment ("I haven't omitted anything not worth omitting"--hah!).

      The animosity against intelligent design isn't alarming; it's deserved, especially considering the idiocy propounded and the caliber of the individuals propounding it.

  102. Ben Stein is a staunch Zionist and supporter of oppression and apartheid. He was a speech writer for Richard Nixon. He understands the intricate workings of propaganda and the general bullshitting of the public. I wouldn't waste my bandwidth!

  103. If it's true that there is "No Intelligence Allowed", then Ben Stein is a man who always plays by the rules.

  104. Im sorry but I only manged to watch on hour of this Doc as I could bare iy no longer. It like many others of its kind have no substance.

  105. How can you be the most pretensions person on the planet and produce a documentary with zero substance? … Fast intercuts of painfully typical, pointless, sarcastic stock footage, ten second snippets of what was probably hours and hours of interviews, however filmed only for the inflammatory or solely expected parts within them, whiny as-a-matter-of-fact game show host. This documentary feels like it was produced by Mtv.

    I didn’t find anything of interest in this and I think its title should be considered at face value, more of a literal description of its content than its posturing, ironically intended meaning.

    I was really hopping for some new age take on Intelligent Design “theory” or at least a laugh but I got neither. This doc was really trashy.

    However, this is a fantastic website though isn’t it? I haven’t watched cable television for a year now … because I’ve been engaged to something else. High-five Top Doc! You rock! Let’s get married.

  106. @BigRatings

    Ben Stein's Flunked: No Intelligence Allowed.

    I apologize for not having provided it.

  107. I think your question might be answered by another documentary about "No Intelligence Allowed" on this site.

  108. Why does the description of the documentary sound more like a negative comment?

    1. I think your question might be answered by another documentary about "No Intelligence Allowed" on this site.

    2. Which documentary?

  109. @WesB

    If I tell you what was in a dinosaur's stomach at the time it was frozen solid, then back that up with what was in other dinosaur's stomachs at about the same time and then draw conclusions on the dinosaur's diet, I have gone through a scientific and logical progression. If I conclude that a certain dinosaur was a predator based on an examination of its structure, once again I have gone through a logical and scientific progression. Intelligent design offers no such logical progression. It merely argues without proof or support that the complexity of things is beyond nature (an untruth) and irreducible (another untruth) and therefore this must all be due to an intelligent creator. Its only "evidence" is the complexity of things. This is far from a different conclusion based on the evidence; it's an unsubstantiated quantum leap based on falsehood.

    The concept of "no one was there so we can't know" or "I don't see it, therefore it does not exist" is too puerile for a person of your intelligence, considering some of the issues you have raised.

    But let me set you straight on one thing: the distinction between micro and macroevolution is a myth dreamt up by creationists. It's all evolution.

    For some interesting reading and viewing, try the decision in "Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board." It's on the internet and there is a fine documentary on this site.

    Keep up the research and especially the thinking.

  110. I am failing to see how Evolution is less theoretical than Intelligent Design. To my understanding, the only thing that science has proven in favor of evolutionary theory is that species share similar DNA and Chromosomes which is made plain by mere observation. There have not been any fossils found that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans and apes have evolved from a common ancestor. I know that there have been fossils discovered that depict primates that could walk upright but does that prove common ancestry or an extinct species of primate? If that is a common ancestor than why do we not see others like the chimpanzees walking upright. Did humans just get lucky enough to catch that DNA that the chimps missed out on?

    I am not trying to be confrontational, just asking questions and would love a good respectable discussion if anyone has any thoughts.

    1. @WesB

      I have this thought for you! Get an education and open your eyes.

      Are you trolling?

    2. That's not quite the discussion that I was looking for but thanks for the thought.

    3. Observation from evidence is what it's all about. Thus, evolution has it all over intelligent design which uses none. A theory in the scientific sense implies a direction in which the preponderance of the evidence points and is not synonymous with its more popular use to mean conjecture, such as the conjecture of intelligent design.

      To quench what appears to be a sincere thirst, I suggest any of Richard Dawkins' works, especially "The Ancestor's Tale." One of the interesting points Dr. Dawkins makes is that even without fossils, we can determine the "ancestor's tale" based on DNA. Furthermore, Dr. Dawkins answers your inquiry regarding chimps and genetics in general far better than I can, as he has the scientific training which I lack.

      Thanks for your inquiry.

    4. I suppose Intelligent Design does have to rely more heavily on philosophical theory than evolution. A response such as, "That's just the way it was created," compared to, "This fossil or this DNA strand possibly shows common ancestry," doesn't quite measure up.

      Does "The Ancestor's Tale" draw from the Chromosome 2 discovery? I must say that Chromosome 2 is an interesting finding and I have heard good debates on both sides. Again though, I see these things as more similarity among species rather than sharing a common ancestor. I have not read Dawkins' books but I have heard lectures. I will have to look into his works in further depth.

      Thank you for a respectful reply.

    5. Anything that must rely on philosophy for its justification, such as intelligent design, is scientific bunk. In short, there is nothing intelligent about intelligent design. You might find it enlightening to read the article on it in Wikipedia.

      While there is considerable discussion of chromozomes in "The Ancestor's Tale," I cannot recall if Dr. Dawkins goes into chromozome 2 in any great detail, as he is basically writing for a lay audience. However, as I understand it, research into this chromozome is one of the main bases for asserting the common ancestry of all living things.

      I find that both interspecial and intraspecial similarity are both evidence of a common ancestor. Compare the arms of a man, the wings of a bird and the fins of a fish.

    6. I see your point. It would seem that intelligent design is failing in comparison in bringing scientific findings to support their ideas. There is nothing scientifically intelligent about intelligent design because it looks at what science has observed of species and concludes that because their design is intricate, complex and purposeful, something intelligent must have created them.Intelligent design is not anti-science but simply comes to a different conclusion based on scientific discovery.

      Now, that is most definitely because they approach science with a circular reasoning mindset but does evolution not do the same? An evolutionist compares arms, wings and fins and says that these similarities show common ancestry (of course that conclusion is based on other biological, skeletal, etc. similarities as well). But in the end, that's all that either side has, similarities. And taking observation into account. We have nothing that has been discovered proving macro-evolution took place, but assumes that based on what has been discovered,the findings show evolution and since no one was there to witness anything, intelligent design has no defense against the assertion. Which of course is the same problem that intelligent design faces when trying to promote themselves; we weren't there to observe it, therefore it isn't scientific. So should we not say the same thing for evolution then? It seems to me that all they have is all that the intelligent design community has, similarities.

      Of course I could be missing something which is why I will look in to Dr. Dawkins further.

    7. Maybe all species' upper extremities are in the image of God? That intelligent design would have less credibility than seeding by aliens or a molecule becoming organic from the back of an inorganic crystal is ridiculous. But more importantly, that this cannot be discussed without scientists being fired is frightening.

    8. @WesB

      My apologies, I thought you were trolling.

      I would add "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extented Phenotype" both by Dawkins to robertallen1's excellent suggestions.

  111. "He doesn’t even really talk to them about why Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community versus why evolution is taught."

    Pssst... Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community because IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Evolution is taught because it is based on scientific evidence. ID is a philosophy, not a biological science. There's no reason to not teach ID, it just shouldn't be taught in a science class.

  112. [...]you will find that this documentary is overly biased[...] Scientists who have allegedly had their lives ruined because of their belief in something called “Intelligent Design.” Science isn’t here to persecute people’s beliefs and this concept would probably outrage anyone…[...]

    You have to admit the irony is overwhelming.

  113. At the end, that doc shows that the main narrator already had his own opinion made up.
    And it take a while before we realise what that doc is all about.
    Other than that, it's nice to hear scientists justifying their views.

  114. I watched this for the laughs, Mates! This is probably the funniest I have ever found Mr. Stein.

  115. I recently watched "Why people laugh at creationists" and thought it only fair to watch this as to have a non biased perspective on the issue. I honestly commend any scientist who has to put up with anyone who takes this kind of material seriously. This whole documentary is about how people with ideas on creationism and more so Intelligent Design are being bullied and denied their birth right of free speech. They want to become part of the field of science and offer their views, however they have on numerous occasions tried this and failed due to their sheer lack of evidence and knowledge which is exactly what science is based around. Nobody is denying their right to free speech they can say it all they want, but if they want to come into the field of science and say it, they're going to need need to have alot more backup. Hence this is the reason for the Discovery Institute's tiny offices lost somewhere in the downtown area of an American City.
    Every piece of what they would call evidence against Darwinian theories can be properly refuted in the "Why People Laugh At Creationists" videos in a well put and logical manner. Even how one of the main interviewee's in this Documentary would not stand up for intelligent design in the trial spoken about in this film.
    This documentary dramaticises its points in order to make them sound more solid using phrases like Darwinism, which makes it sound like a definite solution that people follow, is hollow as its well known that all ideas brought up by Newton and Darwin and so on have been refined and re tested and refined and retested over and over again, however this documentary acts like scientists still strictly believe in Darwin's first ideas when this is completely untrue but as I say this is a dramatic technique.
    If people want to challenge science properly with their ideas they need to offer proof or statistical analysis or something to give some depth to their ideas. Don't just make a documentary and act like the victim when you have been ample opportunity to offer your views.
    I agree with views about taking all views with a pinch of salt even if they are scientifically proven but when u try to then pass off the idea of Creationism and Intelligent Design after that statement you are only taking advantage of skeptics!
    I have no qualifications in science or anything like that this is just a normal logical persons view on the whole thing which i think is pretty straight forward!

    1. very well said......long winded but well said : ) (joking) i also watched this to counterpoint why people laugh at creationists and found myself appalled that people are being presented with this drek as fact when there is nothing of substance here I feel sorry for the children that get indoctrinated at an age where they cant form a proper opinion on such matters

  116. If you are to believe in macroevolution, you've got to believe that atheistic scientists don't let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings.

    I don't believe.

    1. how is it possible to belive in microevolution and not macroevolution It is exactly the same thing there is no difference it only happens on a longer timescale. Microevolution just proves that genetic drift is possible look what we have done to dogs just in last 500 years do you think that if left alone to breed as they see fit they will all revert to wolves again they are changed forever that is how new species are created (for lack of a better term) and each of those different sub species will go on to look less and less like the commen dog ancestor and what do you think directed breeding would do in 2 million years? I bet we could produce a creature that wouldnt even look like a dog evolution works the same way as directed breeding but instead of nutering the animal the ones that dont breed are dead because they werent successful at finding food evading a predator or whatever

  117. @Julio Medina

    Perhaps you've heard something about current strains of bacteria resistant to every known antibiotic? Maybe you've had problems getting rid of cockroaches due to their developed immunity to insecticides? In case you haven't guessed it, these are common, everyday occurrences of evotion.

    If it's more proof you're after, how about a trip to the zoo, a trek through the woods, an excursion to the farm--Darwin did all these and came up with something. You've obviously done none of these and have come up with nothing.

    Don't insult science by confounding acceptance of evolution with belief in your cheap sense of the word. Evolution achieves its support through physical evidence and nohing else! Can you come up with anything more salient, consistent and intellectually satisfying?

    So before you go spouting off at the pen with your dangerous ignorance, learn whereof you write!!!

    1. very very well said.

    2. Thank you.

  118. @Vlatko...would it be possible that at the bottom where the page number are, that you add a little box where one can type the exact page where one wants to go. It would facilitate re-reading past comments, and skipping the pages one wants to skip?

    1. Good idea, hardly ever takes you to the post on the link, have to search, and for some posts that are loooong, I don't even bother.

    2. I usually get to the link, but I definitely preferred the way the posts were displayed in the past. Also, don't think typing the page you want helps a lot - even if you know on what page the comment you wanted to review was, it may have changed in the meantime due to the reply system which makes all the posts move. It is a bit messy in my opinion...

    3. @WTC7:

      Yes, I also definitely liked the way the posts were displayed in the past, a person could scroll through them like a running commentary, from the oldest to the newest with no lags in between. Like reading a book. With this system everything seems disjointed, goes all over the place. Does not give you a crux to the matter.

      No, giving the page number wont work , as the pages change constantly. And most replies have to look for them, wont go directly to the post.

      On docs that have a lot of posts, don't feel like looking through hundreds of posts for the reply's. So usually don't bother. Need patience which I do not seem to have, lol.

  119. subtitles?

  120. The Reagan speech thrown in at the end was the icing on the cake! I don't hate religious people, but I sure as hell hate Reagan. If an afterlife exists I hope whoever happens to be there is smacking Reagan like a bitch!

    1. Your not even old enough to have a opinion on Reagan. You were not even alive when he was president. I suppose your hero is Carter.

    2. I'm not old enough to harken back to Roosevelt's New Deal program, but I am informed about it. You see, there is this marvelous thing you can do on your own time called "Research". Perhaps you should try it some time. Also, the notion that you have to be old enough to have an opinion on a historical figure you weren't alive to see is a fallacy. I suppose you weren't alive at the time Hitler was in power. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to have an opinion on his methods of governing?

  121. Alexer,
    I still love you. :X

  122. There is one very profound point Christopher Hitchens made: believe whatever you want but leave the rest of us alone. It is as simple as that.

    1. Then where would the process of civilization go?
      Leaving something alone is just an easy way of
      saying. I don't want to be contaminated by the idea
      of science or anything other than God.
      To me, its a cop out. What would we learn if we left
      this alone?

    2. It is a rare success to persuade someone who is commited to a religious belief, of any type, to look at possible alternatives. I am suggesting that they stop proselytizing their particular brand, stop tampering, or trying to tamper, with secular laws and, as hard as it may be, to live quiet lives at peace with others. Perhaps you are right; it is a cop out, but I feel we would all be better off if religion were kept personal and not loud, political, nasty, dogmatic and devisive so that we could act as a common species solving the same serious problems we have on this pale blue dot.

    3. This is the whole point of the movie. The politics of "Science" have gone beyond science and imposed beliefs that do not leave the rest of us alone.

    4. For your statement to have any basis at all you have to assume equivalence - that is that both the big white guy in the sky and scientific hypothesis are of equal merit. In any event, "Science" is not a belief, it is a process by which a theory is proposed, evidence is weighed and a consensus is reached pending discovery of better evidence. Religion on the other hand is a belief, it by definition has to be founded on faith and if you turn on the spotlight of any rational consideration of its claims it disappears into a puff of smoke.

  123. I enjoyed the movie, I think we should like everything else in media thrown at us take it with a grain of salt. It encourages discussion and motivates people to think about what they are being taught rather than spewing back out what ever a professor tells you. This goes for people of any opinion in any field of study, your beliefs cannot be your own until you thoroughly and completely analyze and discuss them. Also to think critically about any subject you must put aside rampant emotion and petty agendas.

    1. ok, but it does not change the fact that this movie labels science as freedom of speech or opinion.....this doc is an abomination!!! This creationist/ID perspective is purely belief and opinion. Science is about FACTS......If you want to go by facts watch "why people laugh at creationists." Ben Stein is an extremely narrow minded and paranoid individual. It is actually painful to watch...

    2. if you were in science class learning how babies are born and someone argues with the teacher and claims storks bring babies what do you do?

      that is exactly the same as saying life doesnt evolve but just pops into existence suddenly.

    3. Kind of like the universe just popping up all of a sudden or the first cell. Evolution is a religion!!! It requires one to believe when there is no proof.

    4. @Julio Medina
      evolution is a fact.i am tired of educating the ignorant. i always wondered why some are rude on this site now i understand. evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe or the beginning of life. evolution is a fact i will provide you with the evidence for evolution (empirical ) if you can show the same for whatever crackpot alternative you hold dearly. is that fair? you say evolution is a religion here is Websters definitions show me where evolution fits "the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
      : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
      archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
      : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith " if you are going to attack evolution at least have a basic education in what you are attacking

  124. Most physicists don't attack religion because they don't take it seriously enough to even be called atheists.

  125. @none in particular and everyone in general

    Been following this eternal argument here (and elsewhere) with excitement and wanted to make a couple of observations or even philosophical conclusions (excuse me but english is my second language)

    First is the issue of Hierarchy that exists in the universe, from the lightest atoms to Canis Majoris to the food chain with us at the top of it; it is only fair to assume that spirits too or god must be in their trilion trillions as there are universes, which means they all have someone above them who is the real dude,the
    main man so what he does is he "raises" gods who in turm are given the job of running their own universe,
    eg create it according to their image, obviously one god is anthropomorphic, another maybe like the Aliens movie creature and subsequent E.T. creatures come form their respective god (or star or even universe?)(if God exists in this sort of arrangement it is somewhat acceptable, because he is not perfect like his creation; we cannot tell yet, but soon - I hope in my lifetime- we will know if our god has excelled or screwed up with his model!

    Secondly, even if an alien kind so technologically advanced to travel so fast for such long periods of time their social advancement would be of such a level they would have solved the mystery by now. The answer may be Panspermia (voila!)

    Alien1: you still driving around in that old banger?
    Alien2: seems unbelievable doesnt it? it weighs 1 trillion tonnes but it goes like a bullet, must be this stardustium I get at my local garage:P)

  126. @Achems~
    Look AR...I'm just busting. It's not really an attack on your name. I'm kidding. You know...a self-parody of spellcheck police.

  127. Now that's a great peice of christian right propaganda. I like how they give the theory of evolution an ism, very nice touch.

  128. @Vlatko,

    Is there a reason why my comments will not go through?

  129. Moreover... PS:
    Please cite it correctly. The preferred spelling is "Occam's Razor", named after the English philosopher, William of Occam (1300-1349). "Achems Razor" sounds more like a sneeze all over a bathroom shaving mirror.

  130. I must say throughout the first 3 quarters of the film I found it funny as much as tragic because while being pretty silly it is perceivable that the more simple minded and uneducated could be persuaded by it. But the last 20 minutes just leave me disgusted and furious. Taking eugenics, facism and communism out of context in such a cheap manipulative way is incredible. What a disgusting person could milk the suffering and murder of millions to drive home his cheap point. This nauseating populist deserves nothing less than a firm smack in the back of his head for exploiting the tragedies that other people had to endure.

  131. Whatever might be thought about design, evolution and all the problems of bias and fraud found within academia, whomever wrote the 4000 word spiel clearly hadn't viewed the film.

    On a related note, it is interesting that this web site pretends to make the entire film available but in reality does not. One might suspect that enlarging the audience and thus increasing informed debate on this film and the issues of concern are the very last things its critics desire.

  132. No, the phase we are in now is pre-class one civilization, when we achieve class one, all this god stuff will be gone, class two, will be able to control any threats from trying to blow ourselves up and any threats from space, meteors, asteroids, etc: class three, we will shoot for the stars!

  133. Well if the God stuff is passe and the quantum revolution is the next phase, what does that make the current phase?

    The capitalist phase?


  134. Cut to the chase, getting tired of some of this nonsensical verbage.
    "People that talk in metaphors should shampoo my crotch."

    Getting back to science. "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory this has already happened!"

    All this God stuff, ID, Creationism, is passe, the quantum revolution is the next phase.

  135. @Maargen

    The problem is indeed reading comprehension, because a lot of what you've said is incomprehensible because unclear and inconsistent.

    Leaving it aside that you quite plainly *did* conflate the concepts of detecting the presence or past effect of purposeful action and detecting the motives that explain that action... you leave it unclear whether you're arguing with the concept of inferring agency, or just saying it's 'not science'. If you're saying that the appearance of design can be explained by known physical causes, so while there may be intention behind those causes, such a suggestion is superfluous (the coherent, if overstated position of neo-darwinism), then I disagree.

    If you're not saying that, but saying that agency may well be the best explanation, but such a position isn't science, then the blind watchmaker hypothesis is not science by your criteria either-- even if were the best explanation.

    I find it most confusing when you say that inferring the existence of a designer from design is the purview of philosophy-- I would have thought it was more a matter of grammatical consistency. If words can't be understood to have any meaning whatsoever we can't get started with philosophy or anything else that involves them.

    If I'm rambling somewhat it comes as a result of trying to unpick the tangled and unorganised web of your statements.

    What are the 'applications' use of the idea that the appearance of design is the result of random mutation and selection? No direct ones whatsoever, it merely serves as an overarching framework within which to make sense of data. In that way, it may play a constructive role, but the conceptual framework in which the Sun was thought to go round the Earth has played a constructive role for navigators in the past. If agency, design, intention, or whatever you want to call it is a better explanation to infer from the evidence, then it may provide a better conceptual framework. And besides all that, science is primarily about describing reality irrespective of utility.

  136. @peelingpaint:

    And yes, much od Richard Dawkins work *is* philosophy. When he speaks about his belief that there is no God, he is making a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.

  137. @peelingpaint:

    Is the problem just reading comprehension here??

    QUOTE: [But your implication that ID suggests that the we can know everything *about* the intention, such as ‘why’ it was done, or whether the motive was ‘good’ is false, it only says that we can rigorously judge that there *was* an intention, that whatever we’re looking at was done *purposefully*.]

    I made no such implication.

    QUOTE: [If you think it was an easy point to counter, then you shouldn’t have made it]

    Again - I didn't. What I said was that any inferences drawn about the existence and nature of a designer from the design was outside the realm of science, since science is only concerned with describing the design in naturalistic, material terms.

    "Attention all students: Those interested in arguing for the existence of a designer from the existence of the design, please step down the hall to Philosophy class, where you can cover the same ground Thomas Aquinas did centuries ago. This happens to be Biology class, and we do not discuss that here."

    And again, let's say every biologist in the world throws up their hands and says "great, you win. There's a designer behind the design" where would the "science" of Intelligent Design take us next?? After postulating that one thing, what breakthroughs, what methods, what applications, what predictions have any IDers ever suggested?? Maybe now that we know there's a designer, when there's a disease rather than looking to see if it's caused by some biologically evolved mutation or some other material cause that we should counter in some material way, we'll focus our research on finding out how to contact the designer to design us a cure?? Seriously, what's the big idea behind ID "science"?

  138. @D-K

    Right. So agency itself displays specificity and complexity. You say that my assertion that there' no known purely physical law that can produce it is an argument from ignorance. If by that you mean that the blind watchmaker mechanism of random mutation.. etc, is known to be able to produce it, then I deny that, not from 'ignorance', because I'm aware of the standard arguments for that idea, but because I think those arguments are flawed. If you meant that, then as I say, some very secular biologists would disagree with you and say that agency is the only thing we know of that can cause specified complexity, because the blind watchmaker can't. Of course some of them suggest that 'self-organisation' can be completely physical-- but it seems pretty much an empty phrase to me- like 'punctuated equilibrium', but I digress again...

    Perhaps you meant something else though, like snowflakes or weather systems display specified complexity.

  139. @D-K

    A point I forgot to make was, that even *if* it were true that intelligent design necessarily implies an infinite regression of designers of the designers (which I dispute) then so what? I don't think this scenario is that useful to suggest, but it seems no less strange than the proposition that sentience can emerge from insentient process -- a premise that Dennett et al would have us believe is 'scientific' (tho I'd like to know how it's 'falsifiable'), but I digress...

    The point is, ID doesn't try to justify the implications of identifying design, just that design can be identified.

  140. @Peelingpaint:

    I fear you may have misunderstood my argument (and intent),
    "because anything that displays specificity and complexity can only be produced via agency" agency itself displays specificity and complexity. In fact, I'm not taking any philosophical standpoint, I'm merely making an objective assesment of the logical construct displayed in the section I quoted from you, and point out what I percieve to be a paradox.

    "There is no law that we know of that can produce them unaided"

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Please note I do not attack your premise nor your conclusion, I merely intend to scrutinize the logical mechanics you provide in the assertions you make.

  141. @Maargen
    "It doesn’t say anything at all about who put it there or why it was put there – that’s a complete other discipline! What is so difficult for IDers to understand about this?? Maybe a human can look at something another human did and make comments about the motives and state of mind of that other human, but then that’s like speaking to like."

    At the risk of sounding like a lawyer, did you or did you not say this? Are you not questioning the concept of rigorously ascertaining motive as opposed to agency irrespective of motive?

    If you think it was an easy point to counter, then you shouldn't have made it.

    OK then, ID isn't Science, then neither is 'Evolution' in the slippery way it's sometimes used to mean the action of a totally *insentient* process, like 'The Blind Watchmaker' of random mutation and natural selection. ID is philosophy, then fine. Richard Dawkins' books are works of philosophy then.

  142. @D-K

    'Narrow functional requirements within a wide range of possibilities' might have been better. i.e. scrabble letters drawn from a bag at random are likely to spell nonsense, but if they spell sentences, they are 'specified' because only *specific* arrangements out of all possible arrangements of those letters could be meaningful sentences.

  143. @D-K
    In answer to your 1st point, I disagree that that agent requires an agent ad infinitum. To assert that is only to assert that materialist philosophy is correct, and that insentient physical process is primary, and sentience merely secondary. That's a philosophical premise, and I don't find the philosophical arguments in support of it nearly as convincing as those against.

    In answer to your question, I believe I said how they say it can be detected, by a identifying the combination of complexity and specificity (it fulfills narrow functional requirements to produce a result). An example might be any of the posts here. There is no law that we know of that can produce them unaided. A law is simple, as it can be described with an equation. There's no short formula that can contain all the meaning inherent in a written word communication. Randomness can't produce them-- or at least it's so improbable as to be practically impossible. If someone's scrabble hands always spelt out words so they always got rid of all their letters, you'd think they were cheating.

    I guess you could say that some posts, including mine perhaps, could have been written by a computer, but even if they were, an agent who understands the English language would have had to program it.

  144. @peelingpaint

    "ID proposes that it’s possible to detect there *was* a ‘who’ and a ‘why’ behind certain phenomena, that it’s valid to infer that the action of an agent was responsible for them, because anything that displays specificity and complexity can only be produced via agency, and never through purely mechanistic, or random processes"

    I know what ID proposes. Philosophers propose this, and so do theologians. They may all be right, but IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

    After inferring the action of an agent, where else is there for ID to go? Will it go on to discuss anything at all about the designer? I never, as you mistakenly claim, suggest the IDers claim we can know everything about the designer, although I understand that claiming that I did gives you an easy argument to counter. I'm saying that since science limits itself to describing the design in naturalistic, materialistic terms, discussion and/or postulation of the designer falls outside of the realm of science. It makes a lot more sense to dicuss this within the realm of Buddhism, or any other theological or philosophical discipline you choose.

    There's a distinction between what a physchologist does and what a psychiatrist does, just as there is between what a scientist does and whatever it is IDers do.

  145. @Peeling paint:

    "ID proposes that it’s possible to detect there *was* a ‘who’ and a ‘why’ behind certain phenomena, that it’s valid to infer that the action of an agent was responsible for them, because anything that displays specificity and complexity can only be produced via agency, and never through purely mechanistic, or random processes"

    By that logic, the agent itself requires an agent, ad infinitum. Secondly, how would ID go about "detecting if there was a 'who' and a 'why' behind certain phenomena"?

  146. PS

    Meant to say that Buddhism says that there AREN'T really any 'selves' (before I get a formal reprimand from the grammar Nazis)

  147. @Maargen

    Science is the discipline of describing this thing in 100% "engineering" terms. It doesn't say anything at all about who put it there or why it was put there - that's a complete other discipline!

    ID proposes that it's possible to detect there *was* a 'who' and a 'why' behind certain phenomena, that it's valid to infer that the action of an agent was responsible for them, because anything that displays specificity and complexity can only be produced via agency, and never through purely mechanistic, or random processes.

    If you take issue with that, fair enough. But your implication that ID suggests that the we can know everything *about* the intention, such as 'why' it was done, or whether the motive was 'good' is false, it only says that we can rigorously judge that there *was* an intention, that whatever we're looking at was done *purposefully*.

    As a digression, having read about Buddhism, which holds that there really *any* selves, I think that assuming that intention necessarily requires an entity that *intends* can be a bit of a red herring. While I'm not *against* the concept of God, I think it's possible to be an agnostic supporter of intelligent design, thinking that there might be purposeful design without a *designer*. As Behe said, the designer could be *anyone(thing)*, even some kind of 'New Age force'.

  148. @Dennis Dostert: "As far as banshees go, if the evidence for them was even a fraction as good as it is for ID, I might consider them."

    Actually, there *is* no evidence for ID. Every argument presented as being "for" ID (irreducible complexity, special complexity, whatever..) is simply a question that is thought by ID proponents to be unanswered by evolutionary theory. I put it that way because in many cases the questions have been answered, but evolution, and science, just isn't understood by ID proponents.

    What if I asked you to explain how a plane worked, and told you anything you said about the mechanics of the plane would be a statement about engineering, and anything you said about the person who made the plane would be a statement about psychology? If you understand aerodynamics, you could explain every single part of that plane using 100% engineering terms. If you DON'T understand aerodynamics, when you come to the aileron, after scratching your head a bit and not knowing what it does, you might be tempted to say "maybe the designer put it there for esthetic purposes", or "I don't know why the designer put it there". Those last two statements would be statements of psychology, not engineering.

    What if it's not a plane? What if it's something you never saw before...a bacterial flagellum maybe. Science is the discipline of describing this thing in 100% "engineering" terms. It doesn't say anything at all about who put it there or why it was put there - that's a complete other discipline! What is so difficult for IDers to understand about this?? Maybe a human can look at something another human did and make comments about the motives and state of mind of that other human, but then that's like speaking to like. Why IDers, who are for the most part so very religious, keep wanting scientists to be able to presume to see God under a microscope is beyond me! They keep making statements like "God made the Earth look old to test our faith", because although these people can't understand human scientist, apparently they can read the mind of God perfectly well. Cheech...

  149. @ dennis
    you said "The argument here is the right to research and express ideas without being fired "
    i am assuming the examples you have are the ones expressed in this film. i will show the falsehoods in these claims

    Richard Sternberg-claimed he was fired for his views.he wasn't he was demoted for not peer reviewing the article before printing it and according to company policy nobody publishes an article without peer review regardless of subject.

    Caroline Crocke-claimed she was fired for mentioning id a couple of times.no she was never fired her contract wasn't renewed at its end and the non renewal was based on the fact she taught disproved facts.

    Michael Egnor -wasn't fired but was ridiculed and rightfully so saying evolution is irrelevant to medicine

    Michael Egnor-claimed that the university forced him to shut down his website and return grant money. wrong the university asked him to place a disclaimer stating his views weren"t the universities .

    Guillermo Gonzalez- said he wasn't granted tenure because of his views.not true he was denied because he stopped publishing papers and bringing in grants to the university. as a side the last 12 applicants for his job were refused tenure as well.

    any other persecuted you would like to mention?

  150. @peelingpaint

    At least physical causes have evidence to support them, as opposed to spiritual causes which do not. When it comes to science, physical evidence is everything and the preponderance of hard physical evidence unquestionably supports evolution along with everything it entails and continues to support it. This is what matters in science, not philosophical gobbledegook!

    You still have considerable trouble expressing yourself clearly. Well, I give up. I guess there are those who try to convince through bluff.

  151. @epicurus
    I have read a few of Dawkins's books, and know the arguments for natural selection and mutation being able to create complex form. I also know some counter arguments, such as Dawkins' 'methinx it is like a weasel analogy' being fundamentally (and fairly obviously) flawed.
    The main reason that I'm more and more unimpressed with neo-darwinism's staunchest defenders is that NOTHING will count as evidence against the materialist conclusions that they draw from it. For example, we're told that it shows us there's no causes but physical causes, but also, that even if it's shown to be not as solid as is made out, then 'evolution'- a word that can subtly morph into a synonym for a purely physical process- is still true-- because *that* definition of it just HAS to be true- a premise that is purely philosophical. When an apparent fact counts as evidence for a philosophy but it's unreality would have no implications against it, logic goes out the window and it's not really worth listening anymore-- it's uninformative and just amounts to being hectored.

    As the evidence against the modern synthesis leaks out people are going 'stop being so damn respectful' (to coin a phrase) of this kind of bluff- well I hope so anyway.

  152. @Dennis Dostert

    Wrong! The issue is using science classes to teach science and not being science in any sense of the word, ID does not qualify. In other words, there is no "other side" to present.

    Teachers must be held to an acceptable standard within the discipline. Thus, for example, any science teacher who teaches that the earth is only about 10,000 years old deserves to be booted out.

    By your reasoning, why not use mathematics classes to present numerology? Why not use astronomy classes to present astrology? Why not use medical classes to present biorhythm?

    In short, your argument has nothing to do with academic freedom!

    By the way, for the third time, are you related to Léon Dostert?

  153. The argument here is the right to research and express ideas without being fired - that is even the right to be wrong. The article I pointed to does explain the ID position. I don't agree that it is necessarily about God.

  154. @dennis
    behe you are kidding right? look up his testimony in the Dover school trial and then trad the rebuttal he was totally torn apart.but to sum up some parts he admitted that by his definition of science astrology would also be a science.he admitted that neither he or anyone else has had a peer reviewed paper published that supports his claims and his own example of irreducible complex systems was shown to be false. then the judge (a christian and republican appointed by bush) found intelligent unconstitutional on the basis that it is about god. just two quick quotes from judge jones
    “intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory"
    " 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"

  155. @dennis
    -what evidence do you have for ID?
    -by specified complexity do you mean irreducible complexity and if you do please provide an example
    - again i thought id wasn't about god but if it is what proof do you have

  156. I don't know Leon. He could be related. As far as banshees go, if the evidence for them was even a fraction as good as it is for ID, I might consider them. How did all those dedicated cellular machines come into existence? Why is there so much specified complexity? By the way, the evidence for God is considerably better than the evidence for extraterrestrials. Of course Dawkins would never consider the God hypothetical

    As far as the question goes, it is obvious that Dawkins was speculating. He said he didn't know the ultimate cause. However, he claims to know what it isn't. He doesn't know that either.

  157. @Dennis Dostert

    And banshees could exist!

    Why do you leave out the question Dawkins was asked?

    Why do you not answer my inquiry as to whether you are related to Léon Dostert?

  158. Dawkins said, "That designer could be a higher intelligence from somewhere else in the universe." Sounds like extraterrestrial intelligence as a possible explanation to me. He could even be right. But we will never know if we reject the possibility out of hand.

  159. It's also very easy to speak/write plainly when you're not. Dr. Dawkins does it.

    See your last paragraph. For your edification, "phenomena" is plural; "phenomenon" is singular.

    How you express yourself is just as important as what you express and, quite frankly, I cannot fathom what you are trying to express. How about giving plain English a try!

  160. @Robert Allen

    Well it's very easy to speak plainly when you're saying nothing more than a collection of Dawkinsesque platitudes and fairly empty assertions that we've already heard ad nauseum.

    @over the edge

    I sympathise with wanting to call it a day, but I feel there are is a lot of hidden philosophy in those definitions. Why for example does positing agency behind nature not qualify as a conjecture *about* 'the natural world'?

    That random mutation and natural selection has built complex form is a hypothesis *about* nature, which asserts that the cause is purely natural-- see the difference between saying that a valid hypothesis must be about *explaining* the tangible and measurable, and saying that a valid hypothesis can only *incur* the tangible and measurable?

    I'll also repeat myself for the last time, and point out again that the absence of agency is no more tangible or measurable than the presence of those phenomena. So, what I'm saying basickally, is 'wot's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'.

  161. @peeling paint

    I can see from your last E-mail to me that you are still unable to write lucidly (read: write). Well, this takes time and for those with nothing to speak of, an eternity (gossips, critics and politicians excepted).

    The first step is to formulate your ideas (or what passes for them) clearly and in an organized manner, then think them through (at least as well as you can), then put fingers to keyboard and hit the send button. Unfortunately, your apparent dyslexia doesn't help, but try to read and understand this: MY LAST NAME IS ALLEN.

  162. @over the edge

    Who defined science in this way? How do you define the 'supernatural'. If it's an unembodied intelligence, how do you know that the consciousness we know of- *ours*, is embodied- as in 'in our bodies'?

    That's not a scientific finding either, but another philosophical premise by which they are interpreted.

    That the explanation for life must be entirely physical is a premise, but why can't this premise be examined in light of evidence? If it can't be, why should we consider it 'scientific'? Can you see, weigh, smell, touch or measure the *lack* of intention or agency any more than those things themselves?

  163. @peelingpaint
    first of all i only speak for myself but the counter hypothesis you speak of is not allowed by science . by its very definition the supernatural has no place in science weather that supernatural "designer is god or something else makes no difference. in my first post i made a point of saying that i am not saying that i am right and others are wrong.only when ID has repeatable,testable and natural explanations for their side can it be included in science. as for other scientific hypothesis that either claim that Darwin got some to all of it wrong i say good . if and when their ideas are proven to be a better explanation then natural selection (note i didn't say Darwin theory since it has been updated since its beginnings) i will accept it as well as scientists in my opinion. unlike religion science has no problem changing and updating when new information and understanding outweighs the current views. but the current view of evolution is still the best we have

  164. @Robert Allan

    'Forget the philosophy', when you lot do, and stop calling it 'facts' perhaps.

    bloody philistines

  165. @peelingpaint

    Forget the philosophy! Stick to the facts!

    Why can't you write clearly?


  166. God, these 'rationalists' are sanctimonious.

    What is the neo-darwinian hypothesis apart from that it's unguided, that changes occur from natural causes and are saved by natural selection? How is that anymore unfalsifiable than ID? After all, you can always say that 'we haven't found the pathway yet, give us time'.

    If the neo-darwinian explanation of the *appearance* of design isn't the counter hypothesis to *actual* design, then why do Dawkins and others believe that it's great evidence against God teleology of any kind? 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist' apparently. So I guess if his proposed mechanism is not the explanation then it's *not* possible any more? Guess what? Many secular humanist renowned commentators, e.g. Jerry Fodor, Stuarts Kaufmann, and Newman *don't* think the modern synthesis is a convincing anymore. How is it possible for a hypothesis to be valid, but not the counter h ypothesis. (please try and answer without spluttering as if you're esteems patricians and guardians against the dark forces of superstition).

  167. @dennis
    science does not try to prove or disprove "supernatural" causes for anything. and by design ID invokes a supernatural cause. how can you in 1 response claim that ID is not about god ,so i and others did not mention god in our responses to you . them you imply that id is being crushed because our fear of the slenderest hint of god. so you are now saying id is about god? to answer your question i have you fear of your imaginary friend and science doesn't want to test it.by the way science IS trying to crush hypothesis that is part of the scientific method they try to disprove all hypothesis and when they can't they will accept it.

  168. @Dennis Dostert

    If you are referring to me in the second sentence of your E-mail, I suggest you read my E-mail again. You're right; some of you don't read well--especially you.

    I also suggest that you reread the E-mail from "over the edge." Scientists seek facts--they wouldn't be scientists if they didn't and for this reason, a hypothesis as boeotian as intelligent design masquerading as scientific postulation deserves to be crushed, along with those positing it.

    Once again, leave science to the scientists!

    P.S. Ben Stein is an ignorant fool.

  169. Some of you do not read well. My statement was qualified. Dawkins said "may be responsible" - "apparent design" - "research allowed" to discover an explanation. My conclusion, scientists should seek the facts, but not crush a hypothesis or those who postulate it. I have had personal experience with this crushing. It is real. Ben Stein is right.

    What would you call someone who fears the slenderest hint that God might be real? A "deiphobe?"

  170. @Dima, do you have any evidence of crying statues? do you really think if a god was real THAT is how it would show itself?

  171. @Dina

    You still have a lot to learn, such as what might be unexplainable one day becomes explainable the next. I suggest you read James Randi's book "Flim Flam" and Martin Garnder's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science."

  172. I am a biology major on my fourth year and believe in God, religion not so much, I consider the two mutually exclusive like evolution and abiogenesis. Anyway, there are strange, unexplainable things that happen in churches and other religious establishments such as statues crying tears as in Catholics and in Orthodox religions the icons of Mary or Jesus or any major saint that expel an oily substance on the surface right above the glass of the icon right near the face. These kinds of things along with all the credible scientists that secretly believe in a God is what solidified God for me.

  173. @Dennis

    I once had a brilliant linguistic professor named Léon Dostert. Are you any relation to him? Just curious.

    Please leave science to the scientists and religion to whom and whatever. "Over the edge" summed it up best.

    Also, please be sure your statements are correct before making them. In particular, Stein merely asked Dr. Dawkins if he could posit an interesting theory of the creation of the world and Dawkins obliged him. At no time, did Dawkins state that extraterrestrials might have been responsible.

    Also your definition of intelligent design, as least as that term is commonly used, is awry. I suggest you watch Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker which is on this site and read up on the debate between Paley and Hume.

    To sum up the intellectual quality of those espousing intelligent design and fads like it, show me a creationist or ID person who hasn't misquoted, misled, misinformed and downright lied to support his untenable position which is generally attached to a religion or form thereof.

  174. @ dennis
    where is your proof. this debate boils down to weather or not there is scientific proof, if this idea (not a theory at all a theory requires testable repeatable proof) has any backing within the scientific method. if you want to have your idea taught in science class you have to follow the rules set up by science. not saying you are right or wrong only that this idea hasn't met the standards of science. it is like me demanding to play in the majors in baseball (even tho i lack the skill) but the rules don't apply to me so as to level the field to make me competitive.

    Agree with you generally, but I think for various reasons that, having postulated agency as a cause, it actually is more reasonable to think it's a non-physical agent than a physical one (though the initial hypothesis of design may not require that). So materialists are right to be suspicious in a way-- but the modern synthesis has materialist implications as well (if it's true), so it cuts both ways. That's probably why some would like to see it crushed, because they realise this, and it's their basic premise that reality is entirely physical, so any hypotheses that may not lead to that conclusion are unscientific by default.

  176. Most of these comments are "either God or religion." Intelligent Design is not about this issue. What it says is that design seems apparent in cellular processes. The source of this apparent design is not clear. Dawkins says extraterrestrials may be responsible. Some research should be allowed which recognizes this apparent design. Maybe some new insights will come from this.

    Apparently, some powers in university science departments feel this idea should be crushed. If you agree with this, you are against free inquiry and for scientific orthodoxy. It is the science people who are afraid of possible religious implications, not religious people forcing their views on scientists.

  177. Dawkinsian
    @Robert allen

    (thanks for the correction Robert, i meant to write feign, there are more typos like "it’s early stages" should be "its" and some others, sorry didnt check my spelling. Also I apologise for adding the word homosexual, I have nothing against them. I am a photographer and use male/female "gay" make up artists, they are lovely people. It was just to expose Ted Haggard's pretentiouness and religidiocity)

    Well Robert, I think you've answered your own question there, but
    going so far back it is also possible they did refer to a higher
    spirit that was like a warden in a correctional institution and then some, ie answering prayers, punishing those who stepped out of line and taking serious action (earthquakes) when he got really pissed off with the people. However, I don't think they could be aware of the concept of evolution simply because it needs some science and we know they were primitive as far as science is concerned. Educated folk know, the earth's core has been shifting since all the dust became a planet,so attributing
    earthquakes,typhoons etc to "God" is...well,convenient, like
    "it's God who did it...don't need to think about it or try and work out a more plausible explanation...it works, so I 'm off for a sandwich and a cuppa!"

    I hope this gives a better picture,

  178. @Dawkinsian

    Your E-mail did me good. However, I offer one small criticism: "fain" as you have spelled it, is an obsolescent word meaning "rather" or prefer." e.g., I fain would go. I believe what you mean is "feign."

    Based upon what you've written, I wonder if the malevolent, self-centered, vain, vindictive, overbearing diety portrayed in Genesis and elsewhere is really the ancients' way of describing to the people of their time the vagaries and cruelties of nature (and, of course, evolution). I would appreciate your thoughts.

    P.S. I like Richard Dawkins, too.

  179. I like pepper sauce on pizza.

  180. I hear ya all IDers and just want give you a piece of my mind:

    So God created the universe, stars, planets, the lot
    and he also created mosquitos which suck your blood and give you disease, but he loves you :P

    You dont need a god or religion to have morals (no time to elaborate, google the sentence to understand why)

    It is not certain that God created man, but quite the opposite is evident: man created god according to his [lower} image i.e angry, testing, vindictive, capricious and above all vain! How else can you explain the eternal punishment of hell for not worshiping him!

    Can someone so powerful give a damn what each insignificant short lived entity thinks of him,
    I doubt it! In fact I doubt that God is a thinking entity, it is most likely that god is nature:
    a tree takes years to grow, a baby takes nine months to be delivered, this is the speed of nature; nature [or god or christ,etc] cannot change the molecular structure of dead tissue in an instant (eg raising a dead person)

    If there is a God, it is most likely he was done with this 3 dimensional universe the moment he exploded (one of my assumptions is that he got bored being a spirit and -since he's god - he turned into this incredibly hot molecule that created the big bang) Because otherwise, he's got to be omnipotent and omniscient. Yet we know he does nothing for the suffering while he let's tyrants like hitler, lenin, bushes, cheney, and many others wipe out millions, while they live it up!

    Wake up and open your eyes, we're alone! At least in a dark room science gives you a candle to see where you go, religion puts it out and encourages you to walk in the dark!

    An eye used to be a light censor before it became a fully functional eye, it worked even at it's early stages (look at snails, in a few million years they will probably develop eyes)

    It is cowardly to fain belief just in case there is a God, at least be honest to yourselves.

    Religion is full of muppets like Ted Haggard: a vicious, homosexual money collector who is one of the tele evangelists that has been bullshiting all these poor people in order to steal their money in the name of God.....

    You need to understand people, it is all symbolic simply because faith can truly get things done but cannot move mountains, sorry.

  181. It is appropriate look at a quote from Abdu'l-Bahá

    "Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism."

    I see wisdom in this writing of his also...

    "When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles--and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God."


  182. Apparently, to become a evolutionary biologist, one has to fail in mathematics. How one can understand evolution on the scale nature demonstrates without understanding the improbability of it having occurred is quite beyond me.

    What's missing is causal. What is causing the rapid evolutionary changes demonstrated in the geographic record? Natural selection has limitations as demonstrated in the math. There must be some mechanism, a cause, that influences evolution that we haven't seen yet, something like an evolutionary plasmid found only in certain parts of the world that kicks evolution in the butt by causing random yet coherent changes in the dna molecule, carried by an unknown vector. Injected or absorbed into a cell, especially haploid precursor cell(in humans, a sperm or egg), that causes a limited coherent change that is replicated during gametogenesis and causes no harm to the host cell, such a plasmid would act like a "patch", a computer program that modifies existing programming or adds to it, correcting, changing, or in the case of a computer virus, damaging the dna "program". Such minor changes over 2 million years would be unnoticeable in a population, but result in dramatic genetic differences between species with a common ancestor. Find that "causal" and you can rebutt ID. Without a "cause" there can be no "effect".
    Since Humans evolved out of Africa, the answer, the cause of human evolution, should be there, should still be floating around in one of the vectors. It's just a matter of looking.

    Though the discovery of a natural evolutionary accellerator, if found, will answer how man evolved from a "lower" common ancestor, it does not answer abiogenesis. Understanding abiogenesis and how proteins can be naturally combined to form "life" is the key to answering the question of ID or not ID. Speculation is for hack writers. What is needed is not hypothesis, but proof.

    It comes to this: If you can't recreate abiogenesis, then ID must be true. If you can recreate abiogenesis, then ID must be false.
    “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

    It may even be that the evolutionary subroutine is encoded in our dna (what we consider now to be "junk" dna) that only kicks in during times of environmental stress. But where did it come from?

  183. @peelingpaint

    The hell it doesn't! Why do people go to faith healers? In most cases, because they believe there's an omnipotent deity which through the medium of the "healer" can and will cure what can't and won't be cured. Why such an omnipotent deity needs an intermediary to work his alleged miracles is never explained, nor for that matter why this prime mover (read intelligent designer) in his infinite perfection visits such scourges on mankind (some of them caused by living entities which according to intelligent design he himself has created.) Now, when a so-called man of science "has brushes with" such charlatans, he calls into serious question his ability to perform as a scientist, thus engendering distrust of everything he postulates, will postulate or has postulated, such as intelligent design. In short, he merits his ostracism from the intellectual community and the opprobrium which goes with it.

    Specific complexity (this is the terminology I learned) seems to stand for the proposition that ultracomplex things must have a creator behind them. The mathematics employed by Demski in its support has been judged by his peers as faulty and incompetent. From my lay point of view, I ask where is the scientific reasoning behind this eldritch conjecture? Are there any facts or proof to back it up? In short, can CSI be proved only by coupling it with bad mathematics and distortion of the laws of probability?

    Miller's debunking of Behe's claim anent flagella deserves the praise accorded it. Behe literally lied about (or to be charitable) provided a distorted description of this lower form in a feeble attempt to disprove evolution. Thanks to Miller, he failed. Is this the way the little intelligent design people make up for their inane apostasy and complete lack of evidence?

    Not being a scientist or mathematician (actually they're one in the same), I, too, don't fully understand all the technical details (or even part of them) however, I can draw what I believe are logical conclusions (inferences) from what is presented. And what you present is a blind belief in Dembski the Discredited (apparently he has never published a paper in a scientific journal), apparently based on personal appeal rather than intellctual rigor.

    In conclusion, valid=right, invalid=wrong. There are a finite number of primes is invalid and incorrect; its antipode is valid and correct. Works just like the rain on the Eiffel Tower, only one of the hypotheses is valid.

  184. @Robert Allen

    I didn't know about Dembski and son's brush with a faith healer, but whatever the details, it doesn't have any direct link with his arguments for ID.

    CSI stands for 'complex specified information'. It's similar to Paley's idea of what a watch manifests, I think-- complexity to a purpose. Dembski claims to have made the idea rigorous, and provided a way of detecting it.

    Whether he has or not, I don't know, but I do think that there is a lot of automatic dismissal-- Miller's 'debunking' of Behe's claim that the bacterial flagellum shows 'irreducible complexity' doesn't deserve to be as lauded as it has been imo. For that and related reasons to do with other (imo) bad arguments on the part of people opposing ID, I personally am sympathetic to the arguments of Dembski and not prepared to take the word of his opponents just because I don't fully understand all the technical details.

    I don't think it's illogical to say that two contradictory hypotheses can't be equally valid. I'd say that until the truth is known, a valid hypothesis *must* have a valid counter-hypothesis. In statistics I believe they call it the 'null' hypothesis.

    Either it is raining on the Eiffel Tower at the moment, or it isn't. Both are equally valid hypotheses, though one in fact must be wrong.

  185. @peeling paint

    Please don't try to snow me. I resent it. I know who William Dembski is. How can you allude for support to a man of science who takes his autistic son to a faith healer and then complains of no cure? However, what I don't know is what CSI is or what the initials stand for in this context (certainly not criminal scene investigation).

    Speaking of Dembski, you need to clean up your logic as well. The way you have phrased paragraph 4 admits of only two possibilities. In such a case,the two contradictory statements you have crafted cannot be equally valid.

    By the way Wikipedia furnishes an informative article on Dembski. No wonder why he is villfied by so many members of the mainstream academic community!

    As for the concept of agency, Plato's demiurge provides a more comfortable pillow than anything knitted by the little intelligent design people.

  186. @Robert Allen

    I haven't averred only two possibilities, as I made it quite clear that there are biologists who reject telos and 'the supernatural' but also reject/question the modern synthesis.

    The evidence (genetic and phenotypic homologies, fossil record etc) that random mutation and natural selection has been responsible for the origin of body-plans, rather than just variations thereof, is dependent upon certain foundational premises, as is all evidence. In this case, that such a mechanism can do the job. More direct evidence would be evidence that that premise is true. I don't see any evidence that it is.

    The difference between alternative, but non-teleological theories, such as 'self-organisation' and Darwin's mechanism, is that we don't *know* whether the former ultimately requires agency as a factor, or not, since it is an incomplete and open-ended theory, like most in physical science. The latter intrinsically assumes that agency is not required.

    Surely if it is valid to have as a hypothesis that agency is *not* required, the counter-hypothesis that it *is* must also be valid?

    If Dembski is right that biological forms are examples of a real phenomena called CSI, and that the only CSI that we know of comes from agency, would that not be good evidence that agency is responsible? Not conclusive, but a reasonable assumption, I'd have thought.

    Or are you saying that we can't physically measure agency, so it can't be a part of a hypothesis? If so, Darwin's theory must be unscientific, unless you can explain how we can measure random mutation and blind selection by the environment (without begging the question).

  187. @peelingpaint

    In other words, it can't be proved one way or the other. Averring only two possibilites is myopic, in that this practice displays a blindness to the nature of the subject.

    To put it another way, there's plenty of proof for evolution/survival of the fittest (even if our record is incomplete)and possibly for other alternate theories based solely on science (i.e., observation, evidence), not on antithetical leaps of faith.

  188. @Robert Allen

    That is, I know what the words mean, but on what basis do you say that? Is it even relevant, when the usual charge against it is that scientific claims need to be falsifiable, rather than capable of being conclusively established?

  189. @Robert Allan

    What do you mean 'there can be no irrefutable evidence of it's veracity'?

  190. @PATRICK

    You're right. It was the artificial application of what the Nazi believed was natural selection/survival of the fitest. Because Darwin and Malthus were describers, not activitsts, I take umbrage at any blame or opprobrium attached to them for the atrocities of the Nazis. This is far from revisionism.

  191. Last comment was for Robert Allen. Also agency is just as good a hypothesis as mutation and selection-- which, btw, many biologists who reject teleological explanations are also rejecting as being sufficient to explain all biological form.

    I can't see much argumentation in these posts, just hyperbole. We all *know* that the majority perception and general consensus is that the modern synthesis is what educated, intelligent people accept, and that ID is for people who aren't really keeping up. You're not telling us anything by repeatedly asserting that.

    Why not discuss whether the supposed algorithm of random mutation and natural selection *can* create complex novelty?

    Dawkins' 'methinx it's like a weasel' analogy fails imo, because evolution is supposed to have no end in sight, and *also* because strings of nonsense syllables are not functionally fit as sentences-- so there's no 'reason' why they should survive-- apart from an agent allowing them too.

  192. Stein's checkered background bear is an unreliable witness, and it's testimony should be discounted.

  193. Anyway, ROBERT

    Eugenics (which finds its roots in Darwin and his associates, though I know he personally didn't favor such things), which is the artificial application of selection principles in absence of natural selection lead inexorably to Forced sterilizations in enlightened countries like the United States. Anyone who argues that Hitler and his cronies didn't eat up the principles described by Darwin and expanded upon by his associates is in complete denial of historic fact.

    In fact the first Eugenics law passed was enacted in Illinois, justified by the belief in evolution and natural selection. Obfuscating the truth has a tendency of blowing up in your face. Hitlers death camps were only the inevitable outcome of scientific principles acted upon by those seeking genetic purity in a fictional, romanticized germanic ideal.

    You have read about what was going on in Nazi Germany prior to 1939, haven't you? The Nazis were killing off anyone they considered unfit, including Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the mentally r@#$%^&*... the list goes on.

    Did not Darwin agree with Malthus when he considered that the advent of vaccination for small-pox had lead to the survival of less fit humans who would have died off due to lower constitutions? Did not he believe that this meddling would inevitably lead to a Malthusian event? Did not he and his family willingly participate in a selective breeding program among 5 families in close association? Exactly how long do you think we will tolerate your historic revisionism?

  194. @Patrick

    Bear in mind two things:

    1. God can do anything
    2. Like fundamentalists and little ID people, god works in mysterious ways.

    Which makes the demiurge all that more comforting and from what I hear, it has little to do with sociopaths.

    You're right. Capitalization does not make a statement true; it simply makes it truer.

  195. @Patrick

    I hate Newton's prolix version of Occam's Razor as much as I hate his refusal to accpet imaginary numbers, as much as I hate his notation (Leibnitz' was far better) but he is certainly one of the greatest mathematicians ever produced.

    Naturally, Occam's razor is far from universally applicable and when misused certainly "allows the obtuse to ignore others."

    The score is some number greater than 1 for evolution and 0 for intelligent design. From the way it's explained by its proponents, there can be no irrefutable evidence of its veracity and thus the score tilts more heavily in evolution's favor, that is until something new and improved, but still scientific comes along.

    Perhaps Plato's demiurge in its various incarnations through the millennia should be examined alongside intelligent design. At least, the concept of the demiurge has the virtue of possible reconcilement with evolution.

    Great title for a horror film: "The Earl of Occham meets Rube Goldberg."

  196. As to explaining the Ascent of man in Creationist Museums and the like....I say Baaaahhhhh Humbug.
    Why would God create two sociopaths, tell them not to do something, and expect them do follow through? They were sociopaths, not knowing the difference between good and evil....

    Urk...one really doesn't want to look too hard at Genesis, much less the rest of the Old and New testaments. Error abounds in all man's endeavors, including the Bible. Don't get me started. Anyone looking for scientific evidence in these and other writings are barking up the wrong tree.

    Further, name calling and TYPING ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS IN CAPS isn't evidence of anything, other than that mentioned about obtuseness.


  197. Ah...!!! I finally get the Occams Razor thing!
    To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[4](Wikipedia)
    Wow...but of course it is only a rule of thumb:
    In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.(Widipedia)
    The principle allows the obtuse to ignore others.
    Even Darwin recognized the place of religion in society, even as in later years he became more and more agnostic.
    Since neither evolution nor ID can be absolutely proven without a time machine (an impossibility), and since evolution has more physical evidence in its favor, the principle of Occams Razor would apply...
    unless someone found irrefutable evidence of ID.
    So...what are we afraid of? Are Scientists afraid of finding proof of God, or merely defending their obtuse stance to maintain tenure? Further, I have yet to see any refutation of the math.

  198. @Achems Razor:

    No one's ever been to Occam, but I hear that Ockham in Surrey is somewhat popular.

    Incidentally, let me recommend a really superior documentary on evolution entitled "What Darwin Never Knew." One viewing will drive home the inanity of and the distortions contained in the cavilings against Darwin from the mouths (but not the brains)of the little ID people in "Expelled."

  199. @Robert Allen:

    You are welcome.

    Yes it is deliberate, some commentors use Occam's in reference in their blogs, Achems does not seem to overlap.

    Never been to Occam, so do not know if it appears in any modern forms. So will take your word for it.

  200. @Achems Razor

    Just one more thing. I have seen a number of spellings for Occam, but never this one. Is this deliberate.

    Also, you might be interested to know (if you don't already) that Occam's Razor does not appear in Occam in any of its modern forms.

  201. Thank you.


  202. @Robert Allen:

    Well said, well written, and thank you for some new (big) well, new to me anyway, words.

  203. I could expatiate on this inane and jejeune documentary, but as I wish not to emulate Mr. Stein, I'll just touch on a few points.

    First of all, the opprobrium and ostracism which the intelligent design people claim they suffer at the hands of the dyed-in-the-wool members of the academic community is well deserved. Why not demand similar presentations of eugenics, phrenology and astrology? Why not give equal time to the concepts of number primes or that the possibility of trisecting an angle with just a compass and straight edge.

    The little ID people bemoan their well-deserved ostracism, give themselves over to a pseudoheroism arising out of their deviation from accepted norms and enlist academic freedom as their support and justification. THE OPPROBRIUM HEAPED ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS WELL AS THOSE WHO ADVOCATE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACADEMIC FREEDOM, MR. STEIN!

    People have deviated from accepted concepts and remained respected members of the academic community. For example, I was watching a documentary on dinosaurs and one paleontologist (I cannot remember his name) believes that the tyranosaurus rex couldn't have hurt anything ("anyones" were not around at the time). The difference between him and the little ID people is that he bases his contentions, not on some some misplaced, unintellictual or unintelligent faith, but on the very structure of the creature--this is called evidence. I do not know enough to take sides--it's not the point. This paleontologist remains a respected member of the intellectual community and I have not heard anything about his teaching position being on the line.

    Using another example, also from paleontology, there are a number of scientists are skeptical that birds evolved from dinosaurs. There is also controversy as to whether flying was preceded by gliding or running. These individuals are still scientsts who rightly deserve the respect they are accorded in the scientific community, for they reach their conclusions by analyzing the evidence and based their results on their science. The caliber of the "expelled" scientists/teachers presented in this documentary is tantamount to the caliber of intelligent design itself. If these "pundits" don't believe Darwin, why don't/can't they come up with alternate scientific theories, rather than caviling about some point of evolution/ survival of the fittest or when they don't know, leaping to the hebetudinous postulation that because things seem so well laid out, there must have been a creator. THIS IS WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A SCIENCE, BUT A RELIGIOUS BELIEF!

    Incidentally those of the ID ilk are far more notorious for distorting, misquoting and outright lying than any evolutionist ever thought of being.

    Mr. Stein takes up considerable screen time exhuming that tired cliché of the Nazi's committing their atrocities because of a belief in Darwin--by some convoluted "logic," this makes Darwin and survival of the fittest inherently evil and justifies the need for religion, ostensibly to keep us in check. Naturally, this presentation is accompanied by the usual maudlin display of footage demonstrating (however unnecessarily) for the average viewer what is being talked about. MR. STEIN,GET THIS STRAIGHT, THE NAZIS DID NOT COMMIT THEIR NEFARIOUS DEEDS BECAUSE THEY WERE INSTRUCTED TO BY DARWIN! Darwin merely described and deduced--HE DID NOT ADVOCATE A COURSE OF ACTION!

    Quite frankly, Mr. Stein comes off as a pathetic fool and this documentary, coupled with his checkered background bear, witness to the level of Mr. Stein's intelligence and understanding.

  204. @Charles:

    Your comment contradicts itself, your first sentence is correct though.

    Clarification: that which is eternal has neither beginning (origin) nor end.

    I also don't really understand how a belief in the mechanics of panspermia automatically entails belief in life as being eternal. Panspermia/exogenesis details destribution, not origin. Technically, it can explain the advent of man, just not the advent of the extremophiles that are cause to the advent of man (through evolution).

  205. Razor: Panspermia just pushes the odus of the origin of all life to another place and planet. But then again, those that really believe in panspermia also believe that life is for lack of a better term "eternal" anyway--exploding and falling to new planets all the time to start over again.

  206. It seems that Patrick mixed up my post with D-K's post

    Please note, I said "I think" not "Believe" that the advent of man came about by "Panspermia"

    How about this then? I think, not believe, maybe the advent of man came about by "Aliens" enough reference to that in the bible.

    Ezekiel 1:4-1:24...just to name a few!! Do you figure that is "New Age" also??

    Again I say, anything is better than the bronze age myths! And is just as viable!!

  207. @Patrick:

    I don't know which posts you've been reading but I'm an agnostic, which is about as far removed from absolutism as one can get.

    Maybe you could be more specific?

    Also as regarding your previous post, which was directed at me, it seemed a bit out of the blue. I haven't made the assertions you seem to adress, nor have I been defending "my" science as if it were a religion. I've merely corrected your faulty assumptions and misappropriation of the functionality of science, nothing more..

    Perhaps you'd like to wrestle some more with my questions which you have yet to answer, they're still right up there.

    No really, they are.. have a look!

  208. Read through more of your posts, D-K.
    Is the world really so black and white to you?
    What an absolutist.
    I guess your "science" really is a religion. You begin to sound more like an Imam than a rational person.

  209. Actually, D-K, The people in the Bronze and Iron ages thought the bones belonged to giants, monsters, and dragons. At least that is what archaeologists speculate.

    Panspermia generally does not generally explain abiogenesis, and many "scientists'" speculations about extraterrestrial intelligences (aliens) sound more like the rantings of new-age nutbags.

    Personally I believe in a bioproprogenetic principle underlying life on earth. Mere natural selection or random mutation cannot account for the diversity of life in any great age of Earth. I believe that principle was the work of an intelligence. Like a potter making a vessel or any artisan or blacksmith working in their field, this intelligence created us. I personally would like to know how this was done, how it is done, and am open to new ideas. So far, we have come tantalizingly close, but...
    the principle eludes us.

  210. @Andy:

    Noted, I took the statement very differently (sans humor) and thought 'this should be good'..

    Thanks for the clarification.