Expelled: Upcoming documentary raises controversy in the blogosphere over its anti-evolution stance
Everybody's favorite dead-pan teacher and game show host, Ben Stein, is the face of a new documentary to be released April 18th called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It's ostensibly a movie about attacks on freedom of speech in today's hostile climate among scientists in academia, but some suggest that on closer inspection it really seems to be a thinly veiled screed for Intelligent Design. A quick search of the web provides the background: the production company for the film is the same that produced The Passion of the Christ ; its CEO and one of the film's producers recently questioned the Godliness of the administration at Baylor University over an ID-related incident; and the producers used Stein as the narrator specifically because he wasn't "overtly religious."Professor Paul Zachary Myers at the University of Minnesota is one of the scientists interviewed for the film. He's recently been caught up in a blog exchange with the film's producers regarding this and other topics to do with the movie. Read the arguments and decide for yourself whether you'll see the film. You can find the producer's first post here followed by Myer's response, followed by the producer's response. Even Bill O'Reilly interviewed Stein.
So, what do you think? What are your thoughts of the controversies?
Is there really an attack on the freedom of speech in today's academia and does a hostile climate exist for scientists who are conservative?
Will you watch "Expelled" when it hits theaters?
Click here to find out where Expelled is playing at a theater near you.
Comments
In fact Jonah Goldberg was commenting on this very thing this morning. When the Liberals are arguing with the Conservatives, if they start losing the debate, they revert to attacking the character of the messenger. This way they don't have to stand or fall with the credibility of their facts, because they undermine the credibility of their detractors. This is from the Liberal play book written way back in the 80's. After twenty years, the Conservatives have learned how to respond. "Never mind me, answer the facts."
The ID people could make a valid case for teaching first cause in schools. They could argue the merits of philosophical and religious literacy, and make a strong case for making a western philosophy or world religions curriculum available to students.
But they don't do that. Instead, they try to force a philosophical idea into the science classrooms, and in the process make it abundantly clear that their only real goal is to engage in religious proselytizing on the taxpayer dime. The judge in PA didn't fall for it, and neither has most of the American populace.
The movie does not present the proof of ID, all it is doing is calling for an open and honest discussion. Presently scientists cannot get funding or grants to do the research on ID. Researchers and teachers are fired for presenting any other idea than ENS. Many of those interviewed wanted to have their identities protected for fear of losing their jobs or credibility within their departments.
The supporters of ENS are so adamant about this (theory) that they will not allow any discussion because this is literally a religion to them. It is the religion of non-culpability. They don't want to believe they might come under the judgment of a righteous God, so they cling to any explanation for life that negates a Creator. It is a form of faith.
The other day I got up and went into the kitchen and I noticed an open box of Alpha Bets laying on its side on the table. Under the mouth of the box was a napkin and on the napkin were some of the cereal and low and behold the cereal was aligned and in an order that formed a sentence. It read, "Bob take the garbage out Love Molly"
Whoa, there must have been an earth quake last night and it knocked the box of cereal over onto the napkin and spilled this cereal out onto it and it happened to fall into this arrangement!!
NO!!!, there was obviously a designer. I've heard from Dawkins the DNA code for a simple amoeba strung out would fill a thousand full sets of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Its like saying, "There was an explosion in the printing factory and that's how we got the Library of Congress"
Folks that's faith, a lot more faith than I have.
The movie does not present the proof of ID, all it is doing is calling for an open and honest discussion. Presently scientists cannot get funding or grants to do the research on ID. Researchers and teachers are fired for presenting any other idea than ENS. Many of those interviewed wanted to have their identities protected for fear of losing their jobs or credibility within their departments.
The supporters of ENS are so adamant about this (theory) that they will not allow any discussion because this is literally a religion to them. It is the religion of non-culpability. They don't want to believe they might come under the judgment of a righteous God, so they cling to any explanation for life that negates a Creator. It is a form of faith.
The other day I got up and went into the kitchen and I noticed an open box of Alpha Bets laying on its side on the table. Under the mouth of the box was a napkin and on the napkin were some of the cereal and low and behold the cereal was aligned and in an order that formed a sentence. It read, "Bob take the garbage out Love Molly"
Whoa, there must have been an earth quake last night and it knocked the box of cereal over onto the napkin and spilled this cereal out onto it and it happened to fall into this arrangement!!
NO!!!, there was obviously a designer. I've heard from Dawkins the DNA code for a simple amoeba strung out would fill a thousand full sets of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Its like saying, "There was an explosion in the printing factory and that's how we got the Library of Congress"
Folks that's faith, a lot more faith than I have.
I personally think this video is a joke and hurts the creationist more than the evolutionist. I think a hostile environment exists for scientists who claim that ID is a scientific argument. By definition, there is no way ID could pass as a scientific argument. It deals with faith, belief, and the supernatural, all of which are outside the realm of science.
I suggest we need to define science. There is true science and there is bogus science. The science taught in most liberal settings is fabricated falsehoods.
Many people don't understand how science really works.
My whole post didn't seem to make it for some reason. Excuse me while I try again.
Many people don't understand how science really works. Theories are at the top of the hierarchy in science. A theory is an explanation for physical phemomena that ties a bunch of individual facts together and explains them. A scientific theory is in no way some sort of "wishy-washy" construct, but something that must be very rigorously arrived at and defended continuously within the scientific community, or else it is discarded. Gravitation is still a "theory". How music works is a "theory", hence the term "music theory". The term "theory" is a synonym to "explanation", but in science explanations can always be refined or discarded. But if discarded, the new explanation that takes its place must explain everything that was understood by the old explanation. This is precisely what happened with Einstein's Special Relativity replaced Newton's laws of motion as our understanding of how the universe really works.