They don't need no stiiiinking evidence.

Update as of yesterday:  the judge upheld the temporary restraining order (over the Lennon suit) meaning that the film is still under restriction and cannot be shown in Canada or relased for DVD until the copyright issues are resolved.  The judge didn't seem to be buying the "fair use" argument.

Thanks for your well researched and thoughtful post!

Well done.

Isn't this the Baylor University that is a private Baptist institution?  Why would a Baptist university want to censor ID?  As long as they don't tell the sheeple that little fact, it's easier to sell the censorship scare.

you got to be kidding me....ID and the movie expelled is just fine for anyone that wasn't to watch it. The fact that ID is not taught and is looked down upon is reality, go to any school or college and start to ask about ID.

Look all I'm saying is give me a break, this movie is just like the global warming video put out by Al gore. CGI video used and misrepresented , not proven, etc...Except it was loved by liberals n the school system and forced upon student to believe as fact.

So give me a break if I don't give a crap about if you don't agree with this flick

BS, they don't teach much alchemy in colleges anymore either for much the same reason.

Superman, read number three.  Did you even read it before posting?   THAT is the reason why ID hasn't been studied seriously in academic circles.  It's been put to the test time and time again.  It has failed every time. 

I've never seen Al Gore's movie, so you need to reconsider your generalization that "liberals loved that movie".  I would ask you to show me a link to where Gore stole footage from someone else and tried to pass it off as his own.   And, don't close your eyes to the fact that reviews by Christians, on this film, has also noted the problems, lies, and bad ethics of the film.  

If you don't give a crap, then why are you reading?  This post was a direct response to another poster, not you. 

Possummomma  --  You've got to take into account where you are getting your information from. I would love to see an unbiased investigation of all the accounts mentioned in the film.  One says they were fired, another says they simply werent rehired ... etc.  etc.  I saw the movie and I believe what those people had to say, mostly  because of the bias I have seen and experienced for myself. 

You believe what they had to say despite the mounds of evidence showing that they are stretching the truth  or outright lying?  Do you imagine I got all of that info from one source?  Because, I did not.  I wrote an article for a publication wherein I had to speak with each of the "fired" employees.  Most of their employment records are public.  I also spoke with the Dean at two of those universities.  Both of these deans, that I spoke with, believe in God.  I also spoke with a Dept. Chair for one of the men and this DC was Jewish.  What would their bias be?  You have to ask yourself this question: in the United States, there are hundreds of thousands of professors  in the United States.  The last sample taken found that 71% were religious.  So, let's do the math.  Even if there are only, say, 100,000 profs, then that means 71,000 are religious.  But, all this film could drag out were five or six people who were "expelled" despite the fact that other theists in their department were not fired.

I'm also friends with two of the scientists who were interviewed and can say with absolute certainty that they were lied to.  I tried blogging this in your entry and you blew it off.  So, here's the list in number form.

1.  Paul Meyers and Richard Dawkins were asked to sit for an interview for a movie called Crossraods.  The film was supposed to be an unbiased, balanced look at the intersection of faith and science.  Both of these men agreed to be interviewed.  Richard Dawkins, an Oxford biologist, was interviewed by Ben Stein.  Paul Meyers was interviewed by Mark Matthis.  During the course of the interview, questions were posed to Paul and Richard for which there was no short answer.  So, in the film, they portray Dawkins pausing to think.  What they don't show is his answer.   The editing in this movie was unprecedented.

2.  Every scientist asked to sit for an interview was told the movie was called Crossroads.  Mathis told them he wanted to do a documentary that "didn't take sides."  So, imagine the confusion when the film was released under the title of expelled and was suddenly a one-sided sermon.  Matthis was confronted by Dawkins and Meyers and he claimed, IN A PUBLIC INTERVIEW, that he "didn't know he was going to make a movie called crossroads until AFTER he interviewed everyone."  So, why, then, was the website for Expelled registered by Matthis a year before any interviews were given?  And, why did Ben Stein say he was "asked to participate in the project" two years ago?  Surely, even if you believe in ID, you can see the lie here.  Matthis tried covering his tracks in another interview in which he said "PZ (Paul) knew the movie was called Expelled when he did the interview."  But, Paul has posted the contract he signed and it specifically states that the project is called "Crossroads. 

3.  There are many Christians who Mark interviewed under the same premise (a crossroad between faith and science).  These people were practicing Christians employed at major universities who had managed to maintain a belief and STILL TEACH within the confines of the class catalogs description.  Why did Mark not use that footage?  Perhaps it was because it's hard to believe that there's a conspiracy against religious people teaching in universities when there are thousands of gainfully employed theists who openly admit their philosophical beliefs? 

4.  When the film was shown in Minnesota, my friend Meyers was invited to purchase tickets.  After all, he was in the movie.  He followed the procedure set forth by Matthis and arrived to see the film with his wife, daughter, and Richard Dawkins.  When he got to the front of the line, he presented his ID (how may times have you been asked to present your ID at a movie theater?).  There were a few minutes when the ticket taker called Matthis and it was over-heard, by multiple people, even Christians, when Matthis said, "Don't let him in."  That's right.  He was barred from entering!  But, ironically, Richard Dawkins (who was using his passport as ID,since he's British and wasn't planning to see the movie in America) was let in.  Why?  Because Richard is his middle name.   Paul's wife and daughter were also let in.  Mark first tried to say that Meyers was being rude and causing a scene.  But, the eyewitnesses (including several Christians) said this was not so.  When that came out, Matthis backtracked again and said that Paul Meyers must have scalped the tickets.  Paul had purchased tickets for Richard, Paul's wife, and Paul's daughter at the same time he registered for his ticket at the Expelled website!!  So, if the tickets were invalid, then why were the other three let in?  Matthis AGAIN backtracked and said that the film was by invitation only.  But, Paul WAS sent an invitation.  As was Dawkins.  Matthis then said, and this may be the truth of his action, that he didn't want "the wrong kind of people" in the audience.  "Wrong kind of people"??  That's bigotry.  AND, it seems odd that he would interview the "wrong sort of people" for his film but not allow them to see it.  Don't you think?

 If you want to believe in ID, then I can't stop you.  You have your reasons, I'm sure.  But, I'm not clear as to how your devotion to creatonism and ID somehow blinds you to the shady tactics underwhich the film was made.  Believe in ID if you like.  But, a belief in ID doesn't mean this film was good or that it was presenting the truth. 

Youuuuu.....youuuuu............your good

Possummomma, that was a very good post and a thorough comment.  Thank you for all that you do.

Dcs, I notice one thing that concerns me, and you're doing it a bit.  You accuse critics of the movie of "bias," and the way that you do this looks to me as if you think to yourself, "they are biased, so I don't have to believe a thing that they say."

I hope you realize that other people can imitate that poor rationalization and use it to justify tuning you out.

As Possummomma says, you can believe ID without working yourself to death defending dishonest people.  I may be a Wiccan, but my being Wiccan does not forbid me from admitting that Ray Buckland, whom I admire a lot, likes to embellish our history quite a bit nonetheless.

I admit you make some very good points. But just because somebody is a "thiest" doesn't mean that they would give any creedence to ID 

  But there certainly does seem to be some misrepresentation in the making of this movie.  I really would like to see an investigative report on this.

  Of course if it came out bad, I'd probably stay true to form and say that the reporters are all evolutionists, and are "biased"

I wonder  .... Is there even one University where they are addressing the many problems with evolution and considering Intelligent Design as an alternative?  If not  --  why not?  There are many qualified scientists that would like to.

I will let other skilled hands take it from here, but the reason is that there are no problems with evolution of such a degree that they make Intelligent Design of this kind a viable rival.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, there is no reason why ID and evolution cannot both be true.

Would you care to elaborate on the "problems" with evolution?  I'll gladly consider and respond to any problem you can put forth.  In fact, those are discussions I enjoy very much.   Until you can name the "many problem", I can't tell you if/when/where there may be a university examining what you find problematic. 

I would like to say, though, that evolutionary theory is tested every day.  Evolution is a very specific word that gets mis-applied by people who champion creationism.  Still, there's no secrets about evolution.  It's out there for anyone to challenge.  With all due respect to you, I don't see that in ID or creationism.  Often, even in speeches and lectures, the ID/Creationist will start making false statements about evolution and science and never really get around to how they propose, with science, how ID/Creationsim works.  The Bible is not science.  If intelligent design were a valid scientific theory, then those supporting it should be able to do so with scientific data.  This data has to be fully disclosed in it's methods and findings.  And, then it has to be distributed for others to confirm or deny using more research and testing.  Have you ever seen "Dr Dino" (Kent Hovind) give a lecture about ID?  You should look it up on youtube.  Notice that though he says he's going to discuss "creation science", he spends the first hour throwing out logical fallacies about evolution.  Then, when he's tired of that..he holds up a Bible and says, 'This book has the answer to all questions and it says God created the earth, which is 6000 years old, and wiped away most life with a flood."  - That is a direct quote.  WHERE is the science in that?  He's made a bunch of claims, but fails to bring any evidence other than the Bible. 

Like I said, I am not trying to take away your religion.  What you believe about your personal deity is your right.  You can ask for any level of proof you need (included little to none) in order to create your own comfort in belief.  It's yours.  I look forward to your comment that points out the problems with evolution. 

   "Darwin's theory was published 149 years ago, and has been the primary origin-of-life theory since the 1930's. Since then, evidence to support macroevolution ( one species mutating to a different species) has advanced only marginally, while evidence questioning it has exploded.

  Advances in genetics, cellular biology, chemistry and many other fields have been seized to map human DNA and create wonder drugs. Yet they also raise questions about Darwinian macroevolution - questions that no scientist can follow up without being "expelled" from the respected ranks of the scientific community. It's absolutely absurd.  

   In a phone intrerview, Caroline Crocker explained that she regularly taught evolutionary theory at George Mason University, but then made one mention of it's contradictions and the intelligent design theory as one potential solution. She was immediatly removed from teaching and later fired.

A cellular biologist Crocker sees DNA complexity that "doesn't seem feasible from random mutation. I dont know if ID (intelligent design) is right or evolution is right. We are not at a place to say it is right. As scientists, we need to be able to explore"   

The above is a commentary by Shaunti Feldhahn.  

   I have a question for you. Can you give me a step by step account, in your best guess, as to how the spider could have evolved it's ability to spin a web, using random mutations alond the way, each one benefiting its suvival?

  You see in my simple mind that would be a "problem with evolution". Actually, in my mind,it is a complete impossibility. His ability to produce silk,his spinerettes to deploy it, his ability to produce sticky silk and unsticky silk, and his ability to weave a web - none of this would do him any good untill the whole system wass completed. And natural selection is not a patient instructor.

But scientists not so predisposed as I, also have concerns that it would not be feasible for some of the complex systems found in nature to have evolved by standard definition. They do the calculations, giving every benifit of doubt to evolution, and it just does not work out.

P.S.  I'm serious about my question. 

 I have a question for you. Can you give me a step by step account, in your best guess, as to how the spider could have evolved it's ability to spin a web, using random mutations alond the way, each one benefiting its suvival?

I can try.  But, right off the bat you have a flaw in your question.  Who said that webs were evidence of random mutation?  Whoever told you that was categorically misrepresenting natural selection.  There's nothing random about a trap door spider in, say, Australia evolving to catch small, ground rodents and birds on the floor since that gave them the advantage in the dry, hot climate.  It evolved this technique of trap door burrowing because it was the easiest and least taxing way to get food in the environment it lives in.  There's nothing random about a black widow spinning an ultra sticky, messy web because its environment tends to be small, dark, dry places.  To spin a web with large holes would miss things like ants, small insects that you'd find under rocks and logs (where you'd find black widows in nature).  It's better to lie a blanket of web and catch anything that walks near it.  Whereas, tree spiders tend to spin webs with a larger "net" because bats and birds use echolocation and sight (respectively).  A bat would ecolocate a black widow web, for example, because it's a tightly wove, sticky mess.  It's harder to for the bat to echo locate a web with no real "mass".  Birds can see and they avoid webs that have mass.  Hence, if the tree spider wants to eat, it spins a web that's like a large net.  None of these are 'random mutations'.  In fact, they're not mutations at all.  The webs are the result of eons of combined experience in their particular environment.  So...you see, I can't really answer your question about random mutation because it's not applicable.

You see in my simple mind that would be a "problem with evolution". Actually, in my mind,it is a complete impossibility. His ability to produce silk,his spinnerets to deploy it, his ability to produce sticky silk and unsticky silk, and his ability to weave a web - none of this would do him any good untill the whole system wass completed. And natural selection is not a patient instructor.

I don't think your mind is simple.  I don't doubt that you would find it a complete impossibility if you are thinking about it as "random mutation".  As I've described, however, it's not random at all...and I hope that will help you think about it scientifically.  There are many, many complex organisms on this planet that do things we are in awe of.  But, that's not evidence for a Creator.  It is widely accepted that, what we call spiders, are the result of 400 million years of evolution.  There are more than 38,000 species with different sizes, shapes, eye mechanisms, webs, venom glands, spinnerets, and other distinguishing characteristics.   That's a lot of variety for six thousand years (if you abide by the creationist time line).  In fact, it's impossible for that many species to evolve in such a short time.  Natural selection can't be patient or impatient.  Could you clarify what you meant by that statement?

But scientists not so predisposed as I, also have concerns that it would not be feasible for some of the complex systems found in nature to have evolved by standard definition. They do the calculations, giving every benifit of doubt to evolution, and it just does not work out.

How many scientists do you know?  I'm asking this seriously because I think you're misunderstanding what it is that scientists do.  Scientists don't enter a lab setting asking, "How can I disprove creationism today?"  Likewise, they don't enter the lab asking how they can prove evolution.  Scientists posit a question; then the develop a hypothesis; then they build an experiment to test the hypothesis; the data is collected; and then they interpret what they have collected or observed.  They don't "do the calculations" to give evolution a benefit.  It doesn't work that way.  Most scientific principles never touch anything related to evolution because it's not relevant to their study.  You're suggesting that they're stacking the deck with absolutely no evidence that that's the case. Ironically, though, what you're describing is EXACTLY the way creation scientists like Kent Hovind operate.  He has admitted, time and time again, that he does not start out with a question of science.  He says, "Read the Bible.  I read the Bible and I find passages that make me wonder how that's represented in nature.  Finding those examples says to me, "Kent! God is everywhere."" 

I don't know what to tell you about Mrs. Crocker.  I have laid out the facts as they are.  You are entitled to believe them or disbelieve them. 

I do have a simple (or at least uneducated) mind. I had high school biology  - thats it. When Random starts talking about ... eukorites or whatever, I know its time for me to bow out. I need to keep it on a common sense level, like my question to you. 

It has been good to debate with you. Quite different from when we first tangled. I think me meeting some of the bloggers in person was instrumental in changing me to blog more like I speak, instead of like  ... well, like I did.  : ) 

 I do have a simple (or at least uneducated) mind. I had high school biology  - thats it. When Random starts talking about ... eukorites or whatever, I know its time for me to bow out. I need to keep it on a common sense level, like my question to you. 

I think everyone has their own niche'.  Just because you may not feel as comfortable or knowledgeable with science does not mean you're simple minded or uneducated.  I would guess that you have some phenomenal talent in an area where I would look "simple".  Don't sell yourself short.  I've enjoyed our discussion despite our different approaches and I hope you have too.

It has been good to debate with you. Quite different from when we first tangled. I think me meeting some of the bloggers in person was instrumental in changing me to blog more like I speak, instead of like  ... well, like I did.  : ) 

Ha!  I guess I should've read ahead.  Like I was saying, I have very much enjoyed our discussion.  I have missed the last several get together because of health issues, but I know what you mean.  It's easy, on blogs/message boards, to forget that the person we're debating with is a real person with all the flaws, emotions, and uniqueness that you'd find in a coffee shop.  But, you wouldn't walk up to the guy ahead of you in line and say, "Let's debate the origins of the earth."  And, as sure as I am about our difference, I am sure that we have more in common than we realize.  I think as long as we try to remember that, even in the heat of debate, the better off we'll be.  Goodnight, dcs!

Possummomma,

I just read your reply, thanks for responding, This is the problem I have, number three states and let me know if I have this wrong, but  that untestable claims are not scientific and so ID is not being suppressed by Science its just not science, right?

And then your response to me was that its been tested time and time again right? Then it failed, I take from that your talking about scientists not being able to test is god created life or something to that effect? I hope I'm following right,

What I say is the ID is not evolution but is just as unprovable. And thus both should be taught as two different views, because neither are provable. ID is the answer for where life came from, that we did not just randomly mix with other elements and molecules and form life. That it took a ID'er to do that.

evolution says life came from a single cell organism that evolved to every type of life form we know today and a bunch we probably haven't discovered. Yet Evolution does not answer where life came from because to the best of my knowledge and please correct me if I'm wrong. We have not been able to mix random elements together to make life.

So going with the whole testable claim idea, we can test evolution and show that you can not mix up things together and make life? Proving um that its wrong? hmm.

I think the reason ID is not taught in school is because for along time in this country liberals have been trying to take god completely out even though it was a vital component in early American schools. Since ID suggests a "god" it is not promoted in classes.

What I say is the ID is not evolution but is just as unprovable. And thus both should be taught as two different views, because neither are provable. ID is the answer for where life came from, that we did not just randomly mix with other elements and molecules and form life. That it took a ID'er to do that.

Evolution has been demonstrated time and time again.  I am befuddled that anyone would say it was unprovable.  You only have to look at the way bacterias evolve into stronger strains as they are presented with different host environments.  If evolution is unprovable, then so is gravity.  I don't know how many times and ways I can say this, but there is NOTHING RANDOM about evolution.  Nothing "randomly" mixes with other elements.   To suggest so betrays a misunderstanding of what evolution is and what the term "evolution" means. 

evolution says life came from a single cell organism that evolved to every type of life form we know today and a bunch we probably haven't discovered. Yet Evolution does not answer where life came from because to the best of my knowledge and please correct me if I'm wrong. We have not been able to mix random elements together to make life.

NO!  That's not what evolution says.  You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution.  Evolution has never, ever purported to know how life started.   And, again...there's nothing random about it. 

As for things being taught in school,...no one has taken God out of schools.  If a Christian child wants to pray, then they may do so privately at their desks or around a flag pole before or after school.  They can say a blessing before they eat.  What they cannot do is mandate prayer time or belief.  They are not allowed to cause a disruption.  This is for your benefit, too.  Would you like it if one of my children stood up and asked everyone to pray to Buddha or Shiva or Allah?  Would you like it if one of my kids said, "Hey.  Let's appeal to reason because there is no God."  They wouldn't do that, because they have respect for the beliefs of others, but...would you proclaim it was their right to do such a thing?  Religion was NOT a vita component of American Public Schools.  In fact, it was SO not a component that the Catholic Church created its own school system in response.  I have a collection of elementary school primers from the late 19th century.  There are passages from the Bible (mostly proverbs) that they used to learn writing, but there is no religious undertone.  Our ancestors were leaving places where the state controlled religion and you can bet that they didn't leave a tyrant six thousand miles away to create a whole bunch of tyrants in their backyard. ID is not taught because it's not science.  And, by your own admission, ID supports God - not science.  ID presumes a creator and works backwards.  That's not science.  I covered this above and, to save myself another hand cramp, I'll ask you to read what I've said above about the scientific method.

Schools are for academics.  Churches are for worship.  Homes are for teaching morals and beliefs systems.  It's always struck me as odd when parents flip out over sex ed in schools and argue that it should be taught at home (which, I actually agree with to a large extent) because it's person and values differ.  But, these same people would not blanch at all if religion was taught in schools.  Isn't religion and belief just as personal as sex?  Shouldn't it be the right of the parent to teach religion?  And, for the record,  I would be completely in favor of spending class time, probably as a high school elective, dealing with comparative religion and creationism and intelligent design and abiogenesis and the controversies/viewpoints.   There's nothing wrong with learning about the beliefs of others. But, my daughter plans to be a doctor.  She's just been accepted into a science and math academy.  My son wants to work in engineering/architecture.  What would ID give them?  Would it tell them how to fight a disease?  Would it teach one how to build a sturdy building?  What does it give students?