I ran a blog about this a while ago.  So the secularist zealots can save time and simply refer people to their comments here.

http://people.bakersfield.c...

Cranks? Under credentialed? Perhaps Moore failed to check his sources, or maybe his standards are simply higher than mine, but I’d hardly call men who hold doctorates or professorships from universities like Yale, Princeton, Oxford and the UCLA School of Medicine under-credentialed.

Moore realizes the very same thing that myself and millions of other educated men and women realize: Those who hold doctorates are vulnerable to emotion just like anyone else. How many times have you seen or heard of a normally intelligent man or woman falling in love, and suddenly begin doing things totally out of character, like spending money as though there were no tomorrow, and letting their careers and other obligations suffer because they were thinking with their heart instead of their head in an attempt to make the one they love happy. It happens every second, every minute, every hour, and every day. They have a very good brain, but they take it out and put it on the shelf - figuratively speaking.

The same thing happens when normally intelligent men and women have faith in God. They think with their hearts instead of their heads, because faith in God is merely an emotion, and one no more significant than any other emotion. They may have doctorates, but the same brain that earned that degree is totally useless when it sits on a shelf and allows the heart to temporarily become a weak and irrational substitute.

I would highly recommend that anyone who thinks this movie is an honest examination of the Creationist-v-Evolution debate look at ExpelledExposed.com.  Most of the claims made by the people who were, allegedly, "fired" are completely fabricated.  One such person published NO peer reviewed articles, journals, or papers, in the entire time he was working toward tenure.  Another was asked to leave after they engaged in plagiarism.

The producers were disingenuous and have lied at every turn regarding the methods they used to make this movie.  Even hardcore, ID proponents are backing away from this movie because it's so far off the mark.  I have a friend who is *in* the movie and the lengths to which the producers went to edit and manipulate his interview are nothing short of jaw dropping.  Even more interesting, Matthis has been stepping all over himself to get out of the constant stream of lies he's told.  He claims that people like PZ and Richard Dawkins were told "exactly" what the movie was about (a discussion of the intersection of religion and science called "Crossroads")  and that he didn't think of calling the movie "Expelled" or positing the position he does until shortly before the movie was finished.  If that's the case, why was the Expelled website registered to Mathis, with the tagline of the movie, purchased and developed a year before the interviews?  And, why were whole portions of the film taken from a Harvard lecture on cell growth, but re-dubbed with a different voice over to claim the clip was about how the cell was evidence of creation?   This film is only about freedom if you support the freedom to lie or abandon copyright laws.  Despite being a film that proposes ID is scientific, they never, ever provide a scientific case...the whole movie is spent defending a philosophical position and crying foul for people who were fired for legitimate, unbiased reasons. 

I've seen the film.  Have you?  It strikes me as odd that anyone would right a gung ho review of the film before they've even seen it.  It's kind of hard to take you seriously. 

And, for the record: the Holocaust was carried out by a man who claimed, in his book "Mein Kampf", to be committing genocide because he had been tapped by God to do so.  Hitler was not an atheist.  And, evolution would never support genocide because genocide is ARTIFICIAL SELECTION, not NATURAL selection.  There's nothing natural about crematoriums and the systematic removal of people who didn't measure up to the deeply theistic and racist beliefs of a tyrant. 

Many critics find it's "documockmentary" style quite laudable for a list of how not to make a film. Moving either science nor belief forward by lies,or divisive tactics will work.

Actually Mr. Sucks, Orthodox Christianity as opposed to most western sects and emotional content as the sole basis of faith and has always realized that emotions are just a part of us.  That means they should not rule the whole.  The same with the intellect; it is a part and should not rule the whole.  Orthodox Christianity goes further and says that we should not worship a image of God ,but come to know God as he is.  I am sorry that you have had bad experiences with so called Christianity.  But with the grace of God, you can overcome your past biases and enter into a real relationship with God"the Ultimate Reality"  But you must first empty your tea cup to receive more tea.  There is no fooling you.  It involves a life time of struggle and dedication to seek the Truth, "The way is broad that leads to distruction, but narrow the path to salvition."

Hey Sage, I was wondering where you had disappeared too:)

Thank God it's not a film about science.

"There’s no doubt the film gets heavy-handed at times. The suggestion that Darwin’s theory set the stage for the Holocaust — driven home by disturbing images of Nazi death camps and a droning, funereal soundtrack — goes on too long. But the film’s crowning moment is worth the price of admission."

What does the Holocaust have to do with the freedom to discuss Intelligent Design in academia again?  I think I might have missed that part.

"The film isn’t so much about ID, as it is about the freedom to debate ID in academic and scientific circles. It’s about the exchange of ideas and the freedom to question anything and everything, which is what science is supposed to be about."

I agree.  In fact, I think that we should treat the Intelligent Design movement with the same respect that those involved in making Expelled have given legitimate science.  Or is ID "more equal" than science?

As someone who has seen this film, I can't believe that anyone is advocating that people go see it.  It's a piece of trash, rife with logical fallacies and outright lies.  If you really want to see some legitimate discussion of academic freedom regarding Intelligent Design, this is an awful place to start.

It seems those wanting to knock the film would never think of going to the Creation Research Society web site to view what some scientists with impeccable academic credentials have to say about ID. I support Intelligent Design because it's the intelligent position, not the "heart" position.

I haven't seen the movie but I think I'll wait for the DVD in the $1 kiosk. Think I'd feel less ripped off if I spend my loot on Ironman, which is more in line with Hollywood's business of fantasy and entertainment.

I will rent it through netflix~ but my views on this matter,stay the same.Science in science class,philosophy in philosophy class. Check out this for many reviews.While most critics are giving it a whopping 9% rotten rating,regular folks give it about a 50/50...

I support Intelligent Design because it's the intelligent position

It is, however, non-scientific and is not based on any intelligent methods.

The Dover case made it clear ID was nothing more than re-packaged Creationism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...

Or Re-created Packageism

How intelligent is a design that makes a broken leg as fatal to a horse as rabies, despite infinite amounts of medical attention?  That's not intelligent design, it's a beyond stupid cruel design.

Horses were not meant to be ridden fast and hard around a track of tightly packed dirt.

It's not a design issue, it's a man-made vanity problem.

A thousand pound animal with relatively skinny legs.

But then most four legged critters are thataway.

But most four legged critters aren't saddled up with some little dude whippin the crap outa em ta get them to go faster than they normally would and for a longer period of time.

This guy was talkin about the in breeding last night causing a lot of the problems. Actually its line breeding and those of us that breed critters do it all the time (to brig out certain characteristics in the line). Its not inherently bad, but just like purebred dogs (some breeds) if taken to the extreme you can emphasize faults as well as the good characteristics you are shooting for.

Irish and Mexican heritage -- you know I've been brought up to be into horse racing. But I do think that feller had a point with some of the current breeding practices.

Of coors God didn't figger on line breeding and a jockey with a quirt forcin em ta go beyond what is natcheral.

Maybe you all should just clean out Union Ave and North Chester and have whoes racing instead. Might solve two problems?

can line breeding obviate the  "compulsive blogger under many sockmonkey's syndrome"??

Just thought I'd axe.....................

There *HAVE* been people fired over the issue of "Intelligent Design."
.

Unfortunately for the makers of this film, they were fired or punished for refusing to go along with the creationist scam.

.

And, of course, there's John Scopes--who was *CONVICTED* in the famous trial.

The movie has been losing a huge percentage of its earnings each weekend.  Obviously not intelligently designed...at this rate, they won't have enough money to pay off Yoko.

.

Anyone who gets fired for simply questioning Darwin's theory is wrongly fired.

Somehow, I doubt that was the only reason. Not to say that some of these damn 'educated' liberals might not have their own agenda. It's funny how people wanting to purport intelligent design as science, crack on the scientists for being liberal. What is this, the dark ages where people who can actually read are villified??? Now being a mainstream academic means you are a liberal religion hater? Hey, I don't want my kid learning math from a philosopher either, that doesn't mean philosophy doesn't have a place in the curriculum. It's just not math.

Religion only qualifies as science subject matter under the heading of anthropology, not biology.

And Marilee....is creationism supposed to be affirmed by this exchange...

That moment comes near the end of the documentary, when Stein confronts noted atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins with the question “How did life begin?”

“I don’t know,” Dawkins replies.

That's pretty weak evidence dontcha think?  I mean, I could ask you how nuclear fission occurs, and if you can't answer it does that mean there must be some guy in the sky with a gray beard who makes it happen????? Does that mean there is no scientific explanation because you know it happens, just not how?

It is fitting that a propagandizing film promoting religious dogma takes its place alongside Hollywood's latest comic book fantasy releases like Ironman, etc., and not in our schools as Intelligent Design proponents would have.

But the demonization of Darwinian theory and juxtaposition of Atheism against Hitler, Nazi ism and the Holocaust should play well in Catechism Classes and Sunday Schools where the children of Evangelical extremists are normally programmed with the religious dogma of the day.

A remarkable thing about the persistent movement to elevate Intelligent Design theory to a science, is the invocation of the flawed opinions a few rogue religioacademics as proof of the deistic creation of mankind.

Apparently, ID proponents believe that just about anyone with a PHD or Doctor of Divinity behind their name is automatically considered a credible voice for the nebulous concept of Creationism.

Some of these guys they present as Creationist experts are more like the doctors that pill peddlers pay to help sell their snake-oil claims of cures for everything from obesity to erectile dysfunction.

Like any well programmed extremist religious adherent, you know in your heart of hearts that the stuff they re selling is too good to be true, but you must either buy the pie in the sky on blind, faith despite the "god-given" wisdom of your best instincts or be a blasphemer.

Besides, if you don't buy the illogical argument, there's always the very compelling fear of the big sickle of vengeful righteousness hanging ominously over your heretic head.

"Science is all wrong." is the religious tenet you're expected to unequivocally accept.

Otherwise, you're going to hell, dude. And no one wants to fry forever.

And even if it isn't true, you don't wanna take a chance on eternal simmering for your sin, do you?

So, for the ID proponent, the matter is settled.

A big, angry, bearded, gray haired guy in the sky, along with an assortment of angelic assistants worked the whole thing out in his heavenly lab in a tumultuous week about 6,000 or so years ago.

Then, this deadly deity didn't like the way it worked out, so when some of the folks didn't cotton to the idea of sacrificing their kids on altars along with the sheep, and he found them having fun orgying and such in Sodom, he got really pissed off and viciously slew most everyone on the planet with floods, fire, famine, pestilence, personally smoted a few of the worst, turned some into salt pillars and started over.

Since then, every once in while he appears out in the woods somewhere in a burning bush or something before some selected prophet or another to advise us of more horrific things to come lest we shape up and fly right.

If that's not enough to scare the crap out of you, there's Satan.

And everybody knows what happens if you sell your soul to the bad guy.

So, it's either roll over and believe or you're totally screwed.

For the rest of us who prefer a more logical basis for belief and don't wish to brainwash our kids with BS?

Well, I guess we're just doomed to burn in the hereafter.

At least Dawkins didn't lie about it.  He'd have had a better answer on a question related to evolution rather than abiogenesis.

.

Ask a creationist how life began and they'll tell yout his fairy tale about a garden and a snake...

Artintel, if the other side will stop trying to push that fairy tale into the classrooms, it's fine with us if they don't wanna talk to us anymore.  It's not like we haven't heard all the arguments before.  By the way, which side of the debate are *YOU* on.  It's difficult to tell...

<added>  Oh, I see.  Buffoo, you broke the blog.   Please take this comment out and re-do it. 

Well, unless its disbanded or relocated, there is a flat-earth society in Lancaster. Their arguments for a flat earth are from the Bible. Should they conduct a public debate, I'll be sure to give their views the benefit of the doubt. Afterall, they could be right.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsiman... 

Hiya Pax~ gee that changed my mind....teach what you like at home and at church,but we need critical thinking skills: i.e. see the blogs about the tragic death at the beer fest this weekend. Folks are unable to reason or spell,unless you count text messaging. Critical thinking will not hurt one bit...beyond all the posturing belief can mesh with science~you just have to have faith.

The intuition of human experience for centuries told us that the sun revolved around the earth. The intuition of human experience told Aristotle that heavy things fell faster than light things.   The intuition of human experience suggested that there must be a Supreme Being. 

So much for the intuition of human experience. 

The problem with the origin of the universe is that nobody living now was there then.  So all we can have are theories, no facts.  It takes more faith to believe that the world came together without a creator, than it does to believe it came together with the impetus of a creator. 

I was, BLT.  Ask away.  If you truly believe in an all-powerful Creator, why make it *EASY* for him by giving him actual existence?  How much more impressive to create a universe and not exist at all!

.

The other problem with the origin of the universe is that it has damn-all to do with evolution. 

Gee, Pax, my policy of *NEVER* following any links you post is saving me much time.  Almost as much as if you yourself had nothing to say and let someone else say it.

I was in a church Sunday (don't ask) and the pastor was doing a sermon on how a woman touched the hem of Jesus' robe and it cured her when doctors couldn't. Jesus then says, or words to this effect, "Who touched me?"

I though he was omniscient? Wouldn't he know who touched him?

And hey, BLT, if everything has to have a creator, who created the creator? He's always been, or so the story goes...so why couldn't the universe have just always, you know, been?

Darn I was hopin' for an image of the Virgin Mary in a sheep's coat - Yeah i clicked PAX's link - One question, why did it take the RCC so loooong to recognize this apparition?

The Creation Research Society is selling its own version of snake oil. What WOULD those people do if they couldn't play on peoples' ignorance and fear?

Woof, remember the quotation from Upton Sinclair : "It is difficult for a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it."

That's a mortal question, that arose from a mortal mind, noonei.  In our limited understanding of things, a creator must also have a creator, and Jesus cannot use a question with any other motive or purpose in mind but that of ignorance.  

With mortal hearts, we instruct our mortal minds to look for ways of discounting the idea of a God and of a savior. 

A humble heart opens the mind to the possibility of a creator and the possibility of a savior.  Without a humble heart, the mind will find reasons not to believe.  I'm not saying that my heart is always humbled.  I am a mortal man.  My heart has to continuously be humbled in order for me to receive any wisdom whatsoever from God.  I do not volunteer to humble my own heart.  Usually, circumstance beyond my control force me to humble myself, against my own stubborn will. 

My heart doesn't want to accept the possibility that there could be any other ruler of me other than me.  I want to master my own world.  I want to rule my own heart.  How dare someone greater than me try to take that pride away from me?!

Sounds more like a mortal error, to me, BLT. According to you, God made my mortal mind, which apparently wasn't so intelligently designed. Are you saying we're built by God with an inherent flaw?

I acknowledge your faith and I'm glad it works for you. Seems pretty dumb to me, but hey, if it works for you, good on you.

Personally, I like Arianna Huffington's take on this: "You know, sometimes there aren't two sides to the story. Evolution is a fact."

Sounds more like a mortal error, to me, BLT. According to you, God made my mortal mind, which apparently wasn't so intelligently designed. Are you saying we're built by God with an inherent flaw?

No, that's not what I'm suggesting.  What I'm suggesting is that God made our minds and our hearts to work better as a harmonious team, built upon the solid foundation of humility. 

I acknowledge your faith and I'm glad it works for you. Seems pretty dumb to me, but hey, if it works for you, good on you.

For me, it's not about whether or not it works.  It's about whether or not it's true, and if it's true for me, then it is universally true, though it's applicability may be uinque to the individual. 

possummomma: "I've seen the film.  Have you?  It strikes me as odd that anyone would right a gung ho review of the film before they've even seen it.  It's kind of hard to take you seriously. "
 

Why not? She routinely writes about legal decisions or news reports without reading them, or actually doing any research into the back stories. I think she's keeping her perfect record of not actually doing any of the "right wing" things she writes about.

That was my first thought--that Marilee had gotten the "memo" that it was time to support this film she personally had never seen and wouldn't have been able to follow...

.

Now, I haven't seen it either--waiting until it hits the remainder bin at BigLots. 

I'm amazed that the makers of this movie undercut their own message by referring to this mythical "Holocaust" as if it were fact  As I'm sure you must be aware, the "Holocaust Theory" has been soundly proven false by serious Aryan scholars and by folks working tirelessly in their parents' basements.  Just ask the members of the formerly-local singing duo "Prussian Blue" what happens when they challenge accepted dogma.

That this thoroughly-disproven "Holocaust" is still in every major encyclopedia and history book is clearly evidence that a pattern of discrimination exists against Intelligent History proponents who have lost jobs in history departments and been fired for standing up to the "big History" machine.

Since Marilee favors producing balance and opening new areas of inquiry in science, I'm sure she'll support the same concept of "teaching the controversy" in providing equal time for Holocaust denial on the biased "History Channel." Then we can work on rewriting the encyclopedias to propound the "there was no Holocaust" theory right alongside accepted teaching. 

No?  What, isn't she in favor of intellectual curiousity?  Doesn't she support freedom?  A level playing field, that's all basement historians want.  The Iranians held a conference last year to provide a forum for Holocaust denial, and the folks behind the Intelligent Design scam would feel right at home in that crowd.  They all hate the same people.  They use the same tactics.

The producers missed a bet, though, by having Ben Stein up there on screen addressing the phony class in California.  Given the  assertion that the more people talk about a subject the more successful it is, think of the success that could've been achieved by having noted biology scholar Britney Spears deliver the lecture instead.  Stein couldn't match that even by going "commando" himself.

By the way, I do hope that Yoko Ono and the others who are pressing copyright infringement suits against the makers of this piece of "creationist porn" consider donating their winnings in court to the National Center for Science Education or Americans United, where it can be used to score more legal victories like last year's Kitzmiller decision.  That would be poetic justice.  That would make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a "documentary."

Still...there's another possibility to consider.

Consider the wildly successful tale penned by Mel Brooks in "The Producers," in which a pair of con artists set off to make a production so *BAD* that the show's backers will never realize they've been conned out of their investments.  Maybe Brooks has cause for a lawsuit alongside the others.  It sure seems like "Expelled" is "Springtime For Hitler" brought to the silver screen.  Right down to the musical production numbers stolen from others.  Could the film's backers actually be fifth-column biologists seeking to drive a stake into the heart of the mortally-wounded ID-Creationism scam?  They certainly couldn't have done more damage to the creationists if they *HAD* been trying to.  Getting the nutcases to fund their own self-satire would be a stroke of genius.

(By the way, the title is the cherry on top:  How many folks have you ever heard of getting "expelled" from school for having *TOO MUCH* initelligence?)

Maybe people who knock skeptics of religion for criticizing the Bible without understanding it, should themselves avoid knocking science without understanding it.