Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Irreducible complexity

2008-06-28T15:07:14Z

JackSmith:

'''Irreducible Complexity''' was a concept created by Michael Behe, arguing that certain aspects of living organisms are irreducibly complex, meaning that all of the intermediate stages in the development of these parts would be useless, and would thus not occur through natural selection.

[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[William Dembski]]]]
[[William Dembski]] in book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following:

"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. <ref>William Dembski, ''No Free Lunch'',(2001), p. 285. ISBN 0742512975</ref>

Irreducible complexity has been used by astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] and biochemistry professor [[Michael Behe]] to argue against the idea of "[[evolution through natural selection]]". Hoyle compares the probability of all the parts of a [[cell]] coming together through natural forces to the probability of a cyclone in a [[hanger]] assembling all the parts of a [[Boeing 747]] aircraft.

William Dembski wrote the following in a essay:
{{Cquote|In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996). Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." <ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.kurzweil_reply.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|left|170px|thumb|[[Michael Behe]]]]
In addition, [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:
{{Cquote|Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>}}

[[Intelligent Design]] theorists agree with Charles Darwin that a biological system could not make a gradual transition via small successive steps, unless each step provided an advantage to the species.

Behe presents several examples of organs and cells which he argues could not have evolved through natural forces alone due to their irreducible complexity.

Behe introduced and defined this term on page 9 of his work, "Darwin's Black Box":

:Irreducible complexity is a "single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

It is therefore a state of interacting components that could not function without all its parts. In particular, the term is used by proponents of [[Intelligent Design]] to argue that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot evolve.

The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the [[blood clotting cascade]], and the bacterial [[flagellum]]. However, not all parts of the blood clotting cascade are necessary, as one Behe lists is missing in whales, and different animals have different numbers of clotting steps. The evolution of the compound eye is now well understood, and it has been found that the basal body of the flagellum
is similar to a needle-like structure some bacteria use to inject toxins into eukaryotic cells.

== Refutation ==

Many scientists have shown the entire concept of Irreducible Complexity to be false and unfounded, and have given examples of how the two most common examples of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU</ref> and the eye,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA</ref> could have gradually evolved.

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[Category:Intelligent Design]]

Irreducible complexity

2008-06-28T14:57:14Z

JackSmith:

'''Irreducible Complexity''' was a concept created by Michael Behe, arguing that certain aspects of living organisms are irreducibly complex, meaning that all of the intermediate stages in the development of these parts would be useless, and would thus not occur through natural selection.

[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[William Dembski]]]]
[[William Dembski]] in book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following:

"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. <ref>William Dembski, ''No Free Lunch'',(2001), p. 285. ISBN 0742512975</ref>

Irreducible complexity has been used by astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] and biochemistry professor [[Michael Behe]] to argue against the idea of "[[evolution through natural selection]]". Hoyle compares the probability of all the parts of a [[cell]] coming together through natural forces to the probability of a cyclone in a [[hanger]] assembling all the parts of a [[Boeing 747]] aircraft.

William Dembski wrote the following in a essay:
{{Cquote|In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996). Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." <ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.kurzweil_reply.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|left|170px|thumb|[[Michael Behe]]]]
In addition, [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:
{{Cquote|Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>}}

[[Intelligent Design]] theorists agree with Charles Darwin that a biological system could not make a gradual transition via small successive steps, unless each step provided an advantage to the species.

Behe presents several examples of organs and cells which he argues could not have evolved through natural forces alone due to their irreducible complexity.

Behe introduced and defined this term on page 9 of his work, "Darwin's Black Box":

:Irreducible complexity is a "single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

It is therefore a state of interacting components that could not function without all its parts. In particular, the term is used by proponents of [[Intelligent Design]] to argue that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot evolve.

The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the [[blood clotting cascade]], and the bacterial [[flagellum]]. However, not all parts of the blood clotting cascade are necessary, as one Behe lists is missing in whales, and different animals have different numbers of clotting steps. The evolution of the compound eye is now well understood, and it has been found that the basal body of the flagellum
is similar to a needle-like structure some bacteria use to inject toxins into eukaryotic cells.

Kenneth R. Miller describes hypothetical precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> However, Professor Behe counters that Miller's criticism of his work is flawed. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm</ref> Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> However, Professor Behe disputes the criticism of John McDonald. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm</ref>

== Refutation ==

Many scientists have shown the entire concept of Irreducible Complexity to be false and unfounded, and have given examples of how the two most common examples of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU</ref> and the eye,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA</ref> could have gradually evolved.

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[Category:Intelligent Design]]

Cambrian explosion

2008-06-27T14:55:53Z

JackSmith: Mentioned that the cambian explosion does not support young earth creationism or intelligent design.

In '''Cambrian explosion''' countless new forms of sea life appeared in the [[fossil record]]. Scientists and others have vigorously debated the meaning of this for over a hundred years.

For opponents of [[naturalistic evolution]], the Cambrian explosion casts doubt on the idea that significant new forms of life came into being without God having any involvement.

Peter Ward (not an [[intelligent design]] supporter) wrote:
{{quotebox|The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record. How is it that animals as complex as [[trilobites]] and [[brachiopods]] could spring forth so suddenly, completely formed, without a trace of their ancestors in the underlying [[strata]]? If ever there was evidence suggesting [[Divine Creation]], surely the [[Precambrian]] and [[Cambrian]] transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it. – ''On Methuselah's Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions'' (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1992), 29. <ref>cited by [[William Dembski]] [http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/quoting-misquoting-quote-mining/]</ref>}}

{{quotebox|Until almost 1950 the absence of metazoan fossils older than Cambrian age continued to puzzle evolutionists and earth historians alike. Other than the remains of single-celled creatures and the matlike stromatolites, it did indeed look as if larger creatures had arisen with a swiftness that made a mockery of Darwin’s theory of evolution. This notion was finally put to rest, however, by the discovery of the Ediacarian and Vendian fossil faunas of the latest Precambrian age. (35)}}
{{quotebox|The long accepted theory of the sudden appearance of skeletal metazoans at the base of the Cambrian was incorrect: the basal Cambrian boundary marked only the first appearance of relatively large skeleton-bearing forms, such as the trilobites and brachiopods, rather than the first appearance of skeletonized metazoans. Darwin would have been satisfied. The fossil record bore out his conviction that the trilobites and brachiopods appeared only after a long period of evolution of ancestral forms.(36-37)}}

However, if the cambrian explosion were to turn out to be proof against Evolution, it would still not support Young Earth Creationism, because the cambrian explosion occured about 530 million years ago, and was thus before the biblical account of creation, which was 6,000 years ago. Furthermore, there were already a few types of simple single-celled organisms before the cambrian explosion<ref>http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm</ref>, so were it to disprove Evolution, it would almost certainly disprove Intelligent Design as well.

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[category:archaeology]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2008-06-24T20:00:33Z

JackSmith: /* Examples? */

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Quote mining

2008-06-18T19:09:45Z

JackSmith: /* Fact: Defining Quote Mining */

'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a [[pejorative]] term, not recognized by dictionaries, used to describe the act of taking a quote out of context to argue a point that the original quoted person was not arguing. While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, quote mining is different because it doesn't catch contradictions in what one says, but rather makes it seem like the quoted person is against a belief they actually support.

==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"

Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered not to be quote mining.

The term is used to suggest that people have deliberately or negligently taken facts that are material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting for use against the quoted; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does. Generally, however, the term quote mining is used only to describe deliberate misrepresentations of the views of the person quoted.

The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who frequently argue that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists. This is not a sign that is is an invalid claim, as it could also mean that creationists are the most frequent users of the tactic in question.

==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
This section discusses merely whether quote mining is ''wrong'', not whether it ''exists'' or ''has been practiced'' by any individuals.

===Myth===
'''Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.'''

This is not true, as using somebody's own quote against them is different from quote mining. The fundamental difference is that while the former method is used in law to expose self-contradiction, the latter is used to misrepresent the views of prominent and respected people.

===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
While quoting relevant parts of judicial decisions is indeed widespread, and lawyers and politicians often quote one's own arguments against them to show a contradiction, "quote mining" as used is something else entirely. Quote mining implies selective quotation either that, either negligently or purposefully, omits relevant parts from an argument. For example, consider the following ''invented'' quotation from an imaginary legal case.

:''"In the State of Commonwealth, it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information." Smith v. Jones, 129 Commonwealth Reporter 332 (Commonwealth 2008).''

Now let us consider two quotations of the case.

A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''
This method, however, is not a good example of quote mining, as quote mining generally omits whole sentences, while keeping the used sentences intact, to conceal the fact that the quote is misrepresented. The use of elipses and omissions would make the nature of the quote obvious because of the skepticism of the legitimacy of the quote.

An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''

This should demonstrate that an accusation of quote mining is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, but rather of appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See also==
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
[[category:Law]]
[[category:Rhetoric]]
[[category:evolution]]

Quote mining

2008-06-18T19:08:55Z

JackSmith: Fixed some parts of the quote mining article to accurately portray what quote mining actually is.

'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a [[pejorative]] term, not recognized by dictionaries, used to describe the act of taking a quote out of context to argue a point that the original quoted person was not arguing. While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, quote mining is different because it doesn't catch contradictions in what one says, but rather makes it seem like the quoted person is against a belief they actually support.

==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"

Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered not to be quote mining.

The term is used to suggest that people have deliberately or negligently taken facts that are material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting for use against the quoted; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does. Generally, however, the term quote mining is used only to describe deliberate misrepresentations of the views of the person quoted.

The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who frequently argue that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists. This is not a sign that is is an invalid claim, as it could also mean that creationists are the most frequent users of the tactic in question.

==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
This section discusses merely whether quote mining is ''wrong'', not whether it ''exists'' or ''has been practiced'' by any individuals.

===Myth===
'''Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.'''

This is not true, as using somebody's own quote against them is different from quote mining. The fundamental difference is that while the former method is used in law to expose self-contradiction, the latter is used to misrepresent the views of prominent and respected people.

===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
While quoting relevant parts of judicial decisions is indeed widespread, and lawyers and politicians often quote one's own arguments against them to show a contradiction, "quote mining" as used is something else entirely. Quote mining implies selective quotation either that, either negligently or purposefully, omits relevant parts from an argument. For example, consider the following ''invented'' quotation from an imaginary legal case.

:''"In the State of Commonwealth, it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information." Smith v. Jones, 129 Commonwealth Reporter 332 (Commonwealth 2008).''

Now let us consider two quotations of the case.

A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''
This method, however, is not a good example of quote mining, as quote mining generally omits whole sentences, while keeping the used sentences intact, to conceal the fact that the quote is misrepresented. The use of elipses and omissions would make the nature of the quote obvious because of the skepticism of the legitimacy of the quote.

An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''

This should demonstrate that an accusation of "quote mining" is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, but rather of appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See also==
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
[[category:Law]]
[[category:Rhetoric]]
[[category:evolution]]

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-17T18:11:55Z

JackSmith: /* Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism. */

Re: If god did create the universe, then it would have to be '''physically possible''' for a sentient being to create universes, planets, living creatures, basically anything.

Physically possible? I think a far better explanation is that it was a supernatural event. Please go [[Atheism and Miracles|HERE.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Jack,

Your challenge echoes that of Kent Hovind, and is flawed for the same reasons. By the same logic, I could challenge you to prove that you're not a clever construct being controlled by hyper-intelligent slug aliens from a distant galaxy, and claim that if you can't prove it, the notion that you're a sentient being has no merit.

You're asking finite beings to explain the infinite. By definition, we cannot. If God exists, then we cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders. If God does not exist, then we obviously cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders.

Your challenge meets the same result regardless of whether God exists or does not exist; thus, it is not a useful challenge. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Actually... ==

My challenge is nothing like Hovind's.

Hovind's was invalid because it required one to prove things outside the scope of evolution, not just evolution. Hovind's challenge therefore wasn't to prove evolution, it was to disprove creationism, which is by nature unfalsifiable.

physical or supernatural, creationism requires the actions of god to be POSSIBLE in some way. Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Evidence, as they say. I could claim that there exists a being that defies all laws known to man, but it would be just that: a claim. Until I proved it could be done.

In other words, in something can't be DISproven, you must PROVE it.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Given that the universe exists, it is entirely logical and rational to say that it is possible for a universe to be created. Given that the universe demonstrates observed properties which fall outside the scope of human explanation, it is entirely logical and rational to say that the universe was created by methods beyond human understanding. Given that sentient beings are observably capable of creation on a limited scale, it is reasonable to assume that they are capable of creation on a larger scale than has yet been observed.

:Which aspect of "The universe could have been created by a sentient being" do you consider to be impossible? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Not much of a challenge ==

What kind of challenge is that? The challenger doesn't even understand the nature of [[God]].{{Bible quote|Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."|book=Mark|chap=10|verses=27}}

Now [[Jesus]] was talking about salvation, especially in the context of one who clings to "the good life" here on [[Earth]]. But it goes double and triple and tenfold and a thousandfold for an event as all-encompassing as [[creation]].

Here's the real challenge: if [[God]] ''did not'' create everything, then explain to me how it was physically possible for things to "just happen," and in a way that does not multiply guesses. It doesn't even have to be an odds-on favorite; odds less than nineteen to one against would be fine. The trouble is that the odds against things "just happening" are nothing short of [[astronomy|astronomical]], and somethings simply ''could not'' have "just happened" in any amount of time, and other things couldn't have happened because they ''did not have that much time''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Response: If god DID create everything, how did HE come to be? that's even LESS likely than this world developing on its own. And he couldn't have always been there. Time cannot extend infinitely backwards, because if it did, then an eternity would have passed by now, which defies the rule of "eternity".
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 10:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

P.S: did you just link the word Astronomical to the astronomy article? They mean completely different things.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 10:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Rebuttal: [[God]] needed no cause for Himself. He ''is'' the First Cause, and the Last.{{Bible quote|"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."|book=Revelation|chap=1|verses=8}}

God ''made'' time. So, according to His nature, He is outside of time.

And—funny that you should talk about time being incapable of flowing infinitely backwards. That's a relatively new concept, did you know that? Sir [[Charles Lyell]], the inventor of [[uniformitarianism]], held as one of his central precepts that the [[Earth]] has always been around, and forever. That premise became untenable when the radiometrists couldn't come up with any number higher than 4.6 billion years for the "ages" of the oldest rocks.

And I did not link to [[astronomy]] by accident. I meant to do that. Because modern astronomy is providing observations that, properly understood, are tearing uniformitarianism, and all the [[deep time]] baggage that goes with it, to tatters. Think about it—virtually every successful space mission, by [[NASA]], or the [[ESA]], or the old [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] space agency, has turned up observations that create serious problems for the whole deep time concept, the [[nebula hypothesis]], the [[Big Bang]], and everything else. Check out the articles on the [[planet]]s and on many of the [[moon]]s, and you'll see.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, God did not make time, otherwise the Bible line: "First there was nothing" would make absolutely no sense. First? Without time, chronological order would be renered meaningless. How could anything happen without time? If this concept you're arguing is self evident to you, I have no hope for you. This is precisely my point: This concept cannot be accepted as a given, it's too absurd to find obvious. Furthermore, all "refutations" on this page assume I'm already wrong, thus circular logic. And if God exists, he's not all powerful. Can he make a rock that he himself cannot lift?
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 11:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think you will find that "In the beginning" pretty much would equate to the start of time as we can know it. Also, the ability of humans to make nonsensical statements, and then place God in them, does not define God. "Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?" "Can God make 2+2 =4 and make 2+2 =5?" [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Logically invald ==

First, you get points for originality. I've not seen this particular challenge made before, that I can recall.

However, your challenge, or at least the "punchline", is logically invalid. That is, it is not valid to conclude that because something cannot be explained, it isn't true.

Further, you haven't explained why the onus is on creationists to show how this is possible rather than on you to show that it's not possible, or that a naturalistic alternative is possible or even more reasonable. The way I see it, it is more reasonable to accept that a being who is supposed to be capable of creating everything did so, than to suppose that everything came into being from nothing for no reason. The former is consistent with what we ''do'' know that for things to come into existence, there needs to be a cause, whereas the idea that everything began from nothing for no reason is ''in''consistent with this.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== A correct understanding of the Universe and Supernatural realm ==

I don't know if this will be helpful or not JackSmith, but I think what is needed to correctly understand how God could do this, is this...
# Universe: The way Christians define this is all material things (all matter and energy, and possibly time although there is debate). Basically though, that means all things outside of (independent of) the Universe are not matter and not energy, they are not made of physical material. They are not bound by scientific laws, because they are not within the realm of nature which has those laws. Scientific laws, by the way, don't equate to logic. You could have different laws in a different realm of existence and still have the same basic logical principles. Therefore just because God is supernatural does not make him illogical.
# Supernatural: The word "super" obviously means great, like ''[[Superman]]''. He isn't a regular man, he is a SUPER man. Similar to that but slightly different, when we say God is supernatural, we are saying that he exists independent of and logically prior to the Universe (I hesitate to say chronologically prior because of debate on whether God exists in time or not. However, he can certainly act within the realm of time.)
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:You asked how it was physically possible, my response is "It's not physically possible." It is, however, supernaturally possible as per the definitions I gave. The laws of science do not permit such a ''natural'' or ''material'' being to be able to create matter or energy, but they say nothing about whether a Being that is above natural things could create things that are natural. In more plain language, God created science (in the sense of the laws, and the physical matter and energy). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== "God made time." ==

That's a tricky statement, because you could rightly ask, "at what time did he make it?" Now we don't fully understand God obviously, and the bible doesn't tell us everything there is to know about an infinite being, but some have posited this. That God entered time at the point he created it. Personally, JackSmith, I don't think any of us here at Conservapedia have the brains to answer your questions fully. I would recommend the following articles and lectures by Dr. William Lane Craig, because he has studied the ideas of God and time in much more depth. Here at Conservapedia (and this isn't an insult), you will be pooling our ignorance :-).
* All his articles on "[http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html Divine Eternity]"
* [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/eternity.html God, Time, and Eternity] is probably the specific article you want.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism. ==

Here's a little story...

Three men walk up to a wise king, each believing to have found the origin of life.

One proposes that a large dragon formed the planets from cooled magma, formed the sun with his fire breath, and left parasitic creatures on its skin to inhabit the earth and develop into modern beings.

The second man proposes that a fairy formed the world and all living things with her magic.

The third proposes that the world was created by an almighty and loving god.

They ask the King to tell them which he thinks is true.

The wise king ponders, considering each of these possibilities.

"This is very difficult..." the king said, "As I cannot find any way to disprove any of your ideas."

The first man said with joy: "If I cannot be proven wrong, I must be right!"

The king stopped him: "It means nothing of the sort, young man," he said, "for although I cannot confidently say that any of your ideas are wrong, if each theory has a lone creator, clearly they cannot ALL be true."

The third inquires: "But your majesty! If none of them can be disproven, how do we know which one is right?"

The King smiled, and said: "Simple. If only one can be right, the only way to prove any of them to be false is to show that one is true. Until then, we have no way at all to decide which one is right."

So you see the point? No matter your opinion, until you find evidence of your claims, it's no more or less valid than the hundreds of other creation stories on earth.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 11:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:There is a fundamental flaw in your argument. The first two examples of a dragon or a fairy are not supernatural beings. God is a supernatural being. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 11:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't fully explain myself. What I mean is that the laws of science demand a being that is outside of nature to create nature (as said above, matter and energy cannot create themselves). For a proper example to be constructed, it must consist of all supernatural entities. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, fair enough, but outside of the story, where the significance of the story lies, there ARE hundreds of stories involving supernatural beings and ONLY those supernatural beings. The point is, since they're all unfalsifiable, they can't be proven false. But since none of the stories can accomodate the others, they can't all be true. So since unfalsifiability is a common trait with all creation stories, you need more. You need to PROVE it to be true. --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I assume that by falsifiable, you are referring to the five senses. In other words, unless one can taste, feel, smell, see, or otherwise observe with the five senses, then it cannot be true. Is that correct? If that is what you are saying, we cannot prove the concepts of truth, beauty, love, friendship, or even the concept of knowledge itself. Those concepts are not observable by the five sense, and therefore not falsifiable if I understand you correctly. And yet we recognize them to be real things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow. So much obfuscation. I want a straight answer to this question: "True or false? If none of the creation stories on earth can be disproven, and at most one can be true, you need evidence to SUPPORT the the truth of yours, otherwise yours is no more or less valid than the other creation stories."

:::::Here's one criteria that I look at for thinking through the religions. Since it's not possible for the universe to be caused by a natural being, (1) If the religion has any hope, it must be a supernatural being. That right there gets rid of a ton of "religions" where God is just an exalted man (like mormonism), or animistic religions where God is an animal or a tree, or pantheistic religions where God is one with all material things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Here's the practical thing to get out of this then. What I'm saying is that this criteria really lessens the amount of work you need to do. You now don't have to even investigate some religions simply on the basis that they don't have a supernatural deity. I realize I haven't made the case for Christianity, but I'm making the case for God. Don't worry, I'm tracking with you :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 13:17, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::True or false, which is it?
:::::# ''"If none of the creation stories on earth can be disproven"''. (1) You limited it to creation stories. We've got to take more into account than simply each particular story of creation. (2) If one religion can be proven, or at least shown most probable (perhaps telling the future and never getting it wrong), then that would at least send great doubt upon the others if not prove them wrong. So I disagree with the statement that says they cannot be disproven. You acknowledge yourself that "at most one can be true." Therefore, if only a max of one can be true, the others are false, and can be disproven or discredited. I've already disproven some simply by that "supernatural criteria" I gave above.
:::::# ''"you need evidence to SUPPORT the the truth of yours, otherwise yours is no more or less valid than the other creation stories."'' True! Ding, ding, ding!! You should win a prize :-). What qualifies as evidence though, in your mind? Would telling the future and never getting it wrong qualify as evidence for the bible? Even if you disagree with the bible, would you be able to at least admit, "If that were true, that is good evidence!" If that can at least come out of your lips, then we are going somewhere. :-)
:::::--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 13:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Furthermore, your comparison to truth and beauty etc. is a flawed analogy. These are constructs of the mind. Take for instance beauty. Even the most hideous of creatures are attracted to eachother. And it's interesting that you compare the existence of god to constructs of the human mind. :) --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::If there is a God who is by definition perfect, he is then perfectly beautiful. Taking that he is perfectly beautiful, and being the first cause, he is then the standard for what beauty should be. Anything that is not beautiful in his eyes does not have true beauty. So yes, there is a true and a false kind of beauty. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

No, that is NOT necessarily so. You just said at the beginning "if there is a god". This is NOT proven, so your conclusion is in no position to be stated as fact.

See, this is exactly why I don't believe in God. It's too contradictory that an all powerful and loving God would be such a pompous and arrogant jerk, telling people "you're irredeemably ugly. It's not my opinion, it's fact." You say god is perfect, that he decides what's right and what's wrong, but this just boils down to might makes right. You say he's the ultimate might, so therefore he's the ultimate right.

Christianity to me with the whole "be good or go to hell" thing looks like an elaborate scare tactic, like the boogeyman story that parents used to tell their children to keep them in line, while severely messing them up in the process. You tell people to belive in what's "right" and not to do what's "wrong", and convince the gullible that an all powerful and loving god will condemn you to hell for an eternity if you so much as set a toe out of line. It's deceitful. If God exists, and he truly hated Homosexuals, why does he condemn them instead of just getting rid of gay thoughts? If he can do anything, why did he have to DROWN the world to start over? Why couldn't he just purify them?

I on the other hand, am an Atheist. I have no god governing me. And somehow, even without this COMPLETELY NECESSARY threat hanging over my head, I do not rape children, or eat kittens, or even steal. I may not be perfect, but to suggest that Atheists are immoral because they have no god is the most cynical and insulting statement one can possibly say about the human race.

I understand this isn't quite what you said, but it eventually led to it, so while I do not necessarily direct this to you, Ymmtrojam, I certainly direct it at a few of the members of this site. Thanks, and Lightspeed.--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 14:11, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-17T16:38:32Z

JackSmith: /* Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism. */

Re: If god did create the universe, then it would have to be '''physically possible''' for a sentient being to create universes, planets, living creatures, basically anything.

Physically possible? I think a far better explanation is that it was a supernatural event. Please go [[Atheism and Miracles|HERE.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Jack,

Your challenge echoes that of Kent Hovind, and is flawed for the same reasons. By the same logic, I could challenge you to prove that you're not a clever construct being controlled by hyper-intelligent slug aliens from a distant galaxy, and claim that if you can't prove it, the notion that you're a sentient being has no merit.

You're asking finite beings to explain the infinite. By definition, we cannot. If God exists, then we cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders. If God does not exist, then we obviously cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders.

Your challenge meets the same result regardless of whether God exists or does not exist; thus, it is not a useful challenge. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Actually... ==

My challenge is nothing like Hovind's.

Hovind's was invalid because it required one to prove things outside the scope of evolution, not just evolution. Hovind's challenge therefore wasn't to prove evolution, it was to disprove creationism, which is by nature unfalsifiable.

physical or supernatural, creationism requires the actions of god to be POSSIBLE in some way. Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Evidence, as they say. I could claim that there exists a being that defies all laws known to man, but it would be just that: a claim. Until I proved it could be done.

In other words, in something can't be DISproven, you must PROVE it.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Given that the universe exists, it is entirely logical and rational to say that it is possible for a universe to be created. Given that the universe demonstrates observed properties which fall outside the scope of human explanation, it is entirely logical and rational to say that the universe was created by methods beyond human understanding. Given that sentient beings are observably capable of creation on a limited scale, it is reasonable to assume that they are capable of creation on a larger scale than has yet been observed.

:Which aspect of "The universe could have been created by a sentient being" do you consider to be impossible? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Not much of a challenge ==

What kind of challenge is that? The challenger doesn't even understand the nature of [[God]].{{Bible quote|Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."|book=Mark|chap=10|verses=27}}

Now [[Jesus]] was talking about salvation, especially in the context of one who clings to "the good life" here on [[Earth]]. But it goes double and triple and tenfold and a thousandfold for an event as all-encompassing as [[creation]].

Here's the real challenge: if [[God]] ''did not'' create everything, then explain to me how it was physically possible for things to "just happen," and in a way that does not multiply guesses. It doesn't even have to be an odds-on favorite; odds less than nineteen to one against would be fine. The trouble is that the odds against things "just happening" are nothing short of [[astronomy|astronomical]], and somethings simply ''could not'' have "just happened" in any amount of time, and other things couldn't have happened because they ''did not have that much time''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Response: If god DID create everything, how did HE come to be? that's even LESS likely than this world developing on its own. And he couldn't have always been there. Time cannot extend infinitely backwards, because if it did, then an eternity would have passed by now, which defies the rule of "eternity".
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 10:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

P.S: did you just link the word Astronomical to the astronomy article? They mean completely different things.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 10:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Rebuttal: [[God]] needed no cause for Himself. He ''is'' the First Cause, and the Last.{{Bible quote|"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."|book=Revelation|chap=1|verses=8}}

God ''made'' time. So, according to His nature, He is outside of time.

And—funny that you should talk about time being incapable of flowing infinitely backwards. That's a relatively new concept, did you know that? Sir [[Charles Lyell]], the inventor of [[uniformitarianism]], held as one of his central precepts that the [[Earth]] has always been around, and forever. That premise became untenable when the radiometrists couldn't come up with any number higher than 4.6 billion years for the "ages" of the oldest rocks.

And I did not link to [[astronomy]] by accident. I meant to do that. Because modern astronomy is providing observations that, properly understood, are tearing uniformitarianism, and all the [[deep time]] baggage that goes with it, to tatters. Think about it—virtually every successful space mission, by [[NASA]], or the [[ESA]], or the old [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] space agency, has turned up observations that create serious problems for the whole deep time concept, the [[nebula hypothesis]], the [[Big Bang]], and everything else. Check out the articles on the [[planet]]s and on many of the [[moon]]s, and you'll see.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, God did not make time, otherwise the Bible line: "First there was nothing" would make absolutely no sense. First? Without time, chronological order would be renered meaningless. How could anything happen without time? If this concept you're arguing is self evident to you, I have no hope for you. This is precisely my point: This concept cannot be accepted as a given, it's too absurd to find obvious. Furthermore, all "refutations" on this page assume I'm already wrong, thus circular logic. And if God exists, he's not all powerful. Can he make a rock that he himself cannot lift?
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 11:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think you will find that "In the beginning" pretty much would equate to the start of time as we can know it. Also, the ability of humans to make nonsensical statements, and then place God in them, does not define God. "Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?" "Can God make 2+2 =4 and make 2+2 =5?" [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Logically invald ==

First, you get points for originality. I've not seen this particular challenge made before, that I can recall.

However, your challenge, or at least the "punchline", is logically invalid. That is, it is not valid to conclude that because something cannot be explained, it isn't true.

Further, you haven't explained why the onus is on creationists to show how this is possible rather than on you to show that it's not possible, or that a naturalistic alternative is possible or even more reasonable. The way I see it, it is more reasonable to accept that a being who is supposed to be capable of creating everything did so, than to suppose that everything came into being from nothing for no reason. The former is consistent with what we ''do'' know that for things to come into existence, there needs to be a cause, whereas the idea that everything began from nothing for no reason is ''in''consistent with this.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== A correct understanding of the Universe and Supernatural realm ==

I don't know if this will be helpful or not JackSmith, but I think what is needed to correctly understand how God could do this, is this...
# Universe: The way Christians define this is all material things (all matter and energy, and possibly time although there is debate). Basically though, that means all things outside of (independent of) the Universe are not matter and not energy, they are not made of physical material. They are not bound by scientific laws, because they are not within the realm of nature which has those laws. Scientific laws, by the way, don't equate to logic. You could have different laws in a different realm of existence and still have the same basic logical principles. Therefore just because God is supernatural does not make him illogical.
# Supernatural: The word "super" obviously means great, like ''[[Superman]]''. He isn't a regular man, he is a SUPER man. Similar to that but slightly different, when we say God is supernatural, we are saying that he exists independent of and logically prior to the Universe (I hesitate to say chronologically prior because of debate on whether God exists in time or not. However, he can certainly act within the realm of time.)
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:You asked how it was physically possible, my response is "It's not physically possible." It is, however, supernaturally possible as per the definitions I gave. The laws of science do not permit such a ''natural'' or ''material'' being to be able to create matter or energy, but they say nothing about whether a Being that is above natural things could create things that are natural. In more plain language, God created science (in the sense of the laws, and the physical matter and energy). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== "God made time." ==

That's a tricky statement, because you could rightly ask, "at what time did he make it?" Now we don't fully understand God obviously, and the bible doesn't tell us everything there is to know about an infinite being, but some have posited this. That God entered time at the point he created it. Personally, JackSmith, I don't think any of us here at Conservapedia have the brains to answer your questions fully. I would recommend the following articles and lectures by Dr. William Lane Craig, because he has studied the ideas of God and time in much more depth. Here at Conservapedia (and this isn't an insult), you will be pooling our ignorance :-).
* All his articles on "[http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html Divine Eternity]"
* [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/eternity.html God, Time, and Eternity] is probably the specific article you want.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism. ==

Here's a little story...

Three men walk up to a wise king, each believing to have found the origin of life.

One proposes that a large dragon formed the planets from cooled magma, formed the sun with his fire breath, and left parasitic creatures on its skin to inhabit the earth and develop into modern beings.

The second man proposes that a fairy formed the world and all living things with her magic.

The third proposes that the world was created by an almighty and loving god.

They ask the King to tell them which he thinks is true.

The wise king ponders, considering each of these possibilities.

"This is very difficult..." the king said, "As I cannot find any way to disprove any of your ideas."

The first man said with joy: "If I cannot be proven wrong, I must be right!"

The king stopped him: "It means nothing of the sort, young man," he said, "for although I cannot confidently say that any of your ideas are wrong, if each theory has a lone creator, clearly they cannot ALL be true."

The third inquires: "But your majesty! If none of them can be disproven, how do we know which one is right?"

The King smiled, and said: "Simple. If only one can be right, the only way to prove any of them to be false is to show that one is true. Until then, we have no way at all to decide which one is right."

So you see the point? No matter your opinion, until you find evidence of your claims, it's no more or less valid than the hundreds of other creation stories on earth.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 11:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:There is a fundamental flaw in your argument. The first two examples of a dragon or a fairy are not supernatural beings. God is a supernatural being. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 11:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't fully explain myself. What I mean is that the laws of science demand a being that is outside of nature to create nature (as said above, matter and energy cannot create themselves). For a proper example to be constructed, it must consist of all supernatural entities. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, fair enough, but outside of the story, where the significance of the story lies, there ARE hundreds of stories involving supernatural beings and ONLY those supernatural beings. The point is, since they're all unfalsifiable, they can't be proven false. But since none of the stories can accomodate the others, they can't all be true. So since unfalsifiability is a common trait with all creation stories, you need more. You need to PROVE it to be true. --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I assume that by falsifiable, you are referring to the five senses. In other words, unless one can taste, feel, smell, see, or otherwise observe with the five senses, then it cannot be true. Is that correct? If that is what you are saying, we cannot prove the concepts of truth, beauty, love, friendship, or even the concept of knowledge itself. Those concepts are not observable by the five sense, and therefore not falsifiable if I understand you correctly. And yet we recognize them to be real things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow. So much obfuscation. I want a straight answer to this question: "True or false? If none of the creation stories on earth can be disproven, and at most one can be true, you need evidence to SUPPORT the the truth of yours, otherwise yours is no more or less valid than the other creation stories."

::::Furthermore, your comparison to truth and beauty etc. is a flawed analogy. These are constructs of the mind. Take for instance beauty. Even the most hideous of creatures are attracted to eachother. And it's interesting that you compare the existence of god to constructs of the human mind. :) --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-17T16:36:56Z

JackSmith: /* Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism. */

Re: If god did create the universe, then it would have to be '''physically possible''' for a sentient being to create universes, planets, living creatures, basically anything.

Physically possible? I think a far better explanation is that it was a supernatural event. Please go [[Atheism and Miracles|HERE.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Jack,

Your challenge echoes that of Kent Hovind, and is flawed for the same reasons. By the same logic, I could challenge you to prove that you're not a clever construct being controlled by hyper-intelligent slug aliens from a distant galaxy, and claim that if you can't prove it, the notion that you're a sentient being has no merit.

You're asking finite beings to explain the infinite. By definition, we cannot. If God exists, then we cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders. If God does not exist, then we obviously cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders.

Your challenge meets the same result regardless of whether God exists or does not exist; thus, it is not a useful challenge. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Actually... ==

My challenge is nothing like Hovind's.

Hovind's was invalid because it required one to prove things outside the scope of evolution, not just evolution. Hovind's challenge therefore wasn't to prove evolution, it was to disprove creationism, which is by nature unfalsifiable.

physical or supernatural, creationism requires the actions of god to be POSSIBLE in some way. Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Evidence, as they say. I could claim that there exists a being that defies all laws known to man, but it would be just that: a claim. Until I proved it could be done.

In other words, in something can't be DISproven, you must PROVE it.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Given that the universe exists, it is entirely logical and rational to say that it is possible for a universe to be created. Given that the universe demonstrates observed properties which fall outside the scope of human explanation, it is entirely logical and rational to say that the universe was created by methods beyond human understanding. Given that sentient beings are observably capable of creation on a limited scale, it is reasonable to assume that they are capable of creation on a larger scale than has yet been observed.

:Which aspect of "The universe could have been created by a sentient being" do you consider to be impossible? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Not much of a challenge ==

What kind of challenge is that? The challenger doesn't even understand the nature of [[God]].{{Bible quote|Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."|book=Mark|chap=10|verses=27}}

Now [[Jesus]] was talking about salvation, especially in the context of one who clings to "the good life" here on [[Earth]]. But it goes double and triple and tenfold and a thousandfold for an event as all-encompassing as [[creation]].

Here's the real challenge: if [[God]] ''did not'' create everything, then explain to me how it was physically possible for things to "just happen," and in a way that does not multiply guesses. It doesn't even have to be an odds-on favorite; odds less than nineteen to one against would be fine. The trouble is that the odds against things "just happening" are nothing short of [[astronomy|astronomical]], and somethings simply ''could not'' have "just happened" in any amount of time, and other things couldn't have happened because they ''did not have that much time''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Response: If god DID create everything, how did HE come to be? that's even LESS likely than this world developing on its own. And he couldn't have always been there. Time cannot extend infinitely backwards, because if it did, then an eternity would have passed by now, which defies the rule of "eternity".
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 10:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

P.S: did you just link the word Astronomical to the astronomy article? They mean completely different things.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 10:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Rebuttal: [[God]] needed no cause for Himself. He ''is'' the First Cause, and the Last.{{Bible quote|"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."|book=Revelation|chap=1|verses=8}}

God ''made'' time. So, according to His nature, He is outside of time.

And—funny that you should talk about time being incapable of flowing infinitely backwards. That's a relatively new concept, did you know that? Sir [[Charles Lyell]], the inventor of [[uniformitarianism]], held as one of his central precepts that the [[Earth]] has always been around, and forever. That premise became untenable when the radiometrists couldn't come up with any number higher than 4.6 billion years for the "ages" of the oldest rocks.

And I did not link to [[astronomy]] by accident. I meant to do that. Because modern astronomy is providing observations that, properly understood, are tearing uniformitarianism, and all the [[deep time]] baggage that goes with it, to tatters. Think about it—virtually every successful space mission, by [[NASA]], or the [[ESA]], or the old [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] space agency, has turned up observations that create serious problems for the whole deep time concept, the [[nebula hypothesis]], the [[Big Bang]], and everything else. Check out the articles on the [[planet]]s and on many of the [[moon]]s, and you'll see.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, God did not make time, otherwise the Bible line: "First there was nothing" would make absolutely no sense. First? Without time, chronological order would be renered meaningless. How could anything happen without time? If this concept you're arguing is self evident to you, I have no hope for you. This is precisely my point: This concept cannot be accepted as a given, it's too absurd to find obvious. Furthermore, all "refutations" on this page assume I'm already wrong, thus circular logic. And if God exists, he's not all powerful. Can he make a rock that he himself cannot lift?
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 11:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think you will find that "In the beginning" pretty much would equate to the start of time as we can know it. Also, the ability of humans to make nonsensical statements, and then place God in them, does not define God. "Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?" "Can God make 2+2 =4 and make 2+2 =5?" [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Logically invald ==

First, you get points for originality. I've not seen this particular challenge made before, that I can recall.

However, your challenge, or at least the "punchline", is logically invalid. That is, it is not valid to conclude that because something cannot be explained, it isn't true.

Further, you haven't explained why the onus is on creationists to show how this is possible rather than on you to show that it's not possible, or that a naturalistic alternative is possible or even more reasonable. The way I see it, it is more reasonable to accept that a being who is supposed to be capable of creating everything did so, than to suppose that everything came into being from nothing for no reason. The former is consistent with what we ''do'' know that for things to come into existence, there needs to be a cause, whereas the idea that everything began from nothing for no reason is ''in''consistent with this.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== A correct understanding of the Universe and Supernatural realm ==

I don't know if this will be helpful or not JackSmith, but I think what is needed to correctly understand how God could do this, is this...
# Universe: The way Christians define this is all material things (all matter and energy, and possibly time although there is debate). Basically though, that means all things outside of (independent of) the Universe are not matter and not energy, they are not made of physical material. They are not bound by scientific laws, because they are not within the realm of nature which has those laws. Scientific laws, by the way, don't equate to logic. You could have different laws in a different realm of existence and still have the same basic logical principles. Therefore just because God is supernatural does not make him illogical.
# Supernatural: The word "super" obviously means great, like ''[[Superman]]''. He isn't a regular man, he is a SUPER man. Similar to that but slightly different, when we say God is supernatural, we are saying that he exists independent of and logically prior to the Universe (I hesitate to say chronologically prior because of debate on whether God exists in time or not. However, he can certainly act within the realm of time.)
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:You asked how it was physically possible, my response is "It's not physically possible." It is, however, supernaturally possible as per the definitions I gave. The laws of science do not permit such a ''natural'' or ''material'' being to be able to create matter or energy, but they say nothing about whether a Being that is above natural things could create things that are natural. In more plain language, God created science (in the sense of the laws, and the physical matter and energy). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== "God made time." ==

That's a tricky statement, because you could rightly ask, "at what time did he make it?" Now we don't fully understand God obviously, and the bible doesn't tell us everything there is to know about an infinite being, but some have posited this. That God entered time at the point he created it. Personally, JackSmith, I don't think any of us here at Conservapedia have the brains to answer your questions fully. I would recommend the following articles and lectures by Dr. William Lane Craig, because he has studied the ideas of God and time in much more depth. Here at Conservapedia (and this isn't an insult), you will be pooling our ignorance :-).
* All his articles on "[http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html Divine Eternity]"
* [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/eternity.html God, Time, and Eternity] is probably the specific article you want.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism. ==

Here's a little story...

Three men walk up to a wise king, each believing to have found the origin of life.

One proposes that a large dragon formed the planets from cooled magma, formed the sun with his fire breath, and left parasitic creatures on its skin to inhabit the earth and develop into modern beings.

The second man proposes that a fairy formed the world and all living things with her magic.

The third proposes that the world was created by an almighty and loving god.

They ask the King to tell them which he thinks is true.

The wise king ponders, considering each of these possibilities.

"This is very difficult..." the king said, "As I cannot find any way to disprove any of your ideas."

The first man said with joy: "If I cannot be proven wrong, I must be right!"

The king stopped him: "It means nothing of the sort, young man," he said, "for although I cannot confidently say that any of your ideas are wrong, if each theory has a lone creator, clearly they cannot ALL be true."

The third inquires: "But your majesty! If none of them can be disproven, how do we know which one is right?"

The King smiled, and said: "Simple. If only one can be right, the only way to prove any of them to be false is to show that one is true. Until then, we have no way at all to decide which one is right."

So you see the point? No matter your opinion, until you find evidence of your claims, it's no more or less valid than the hundreds of other creation stories on earth.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 11:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:There is a fundamental flaw in your argument. The first two examples of a dragon or a fairy are not supernatural beings. God is a supernatural being. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 11:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't fully explain myself. What I mean is that the laws of science demand a being that is outside of nature to create nature (as said above, matter and energy cannot create themselves). For a proper example to be constructed, it must consist of all supernatural entities. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, fair enough, but outside of the story, where the significance of the story lies, there ARE hundreds of stories involving supernatural beings and ONLY those supernatural beings. The point is, since they're all unfalsifiable, they can't be proven false. But since none of the stories can accomodate the others, they can't all be true. So since unfalsifiability is a common trait with all creation stories, you need more. You need to PROVE it to be true. --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I assume that by falsifiable, you are referring to the five senses. In other words, unless one can taste, feel, smell, see, or otherwise observe with the five senses, then it cannot be true. Is that correct? If that is what you are saying, we cannot prove the concepts of truth, beauty, love, friendship, or even the concept of knowledge itself. Those concepts are not observable by the five sense, and therefore not falsifiable if I understand you correctly. And yet we recognize them to be real things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow. So much obfuscation. I want a straight answer to this question: "True or false? If none of the creation stories on earth can be disproven, and at most one can be true, you need evidence to SUPPORT the the truth of yours, otherwise yours is no more or less valid than the other creation stories."

::::Furthermore, your comparison to truth and beauty etc. is a flawed analogy. These are constructs of the mind. Take for instance beauty. Even the most hideous of creatures are attracted to eachother. Interesting that you compare the existence of god to constructs of the human mind. :) --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-17T16:10:08Z

JackSmith: /* Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism. */

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-17T15:39:21Z

JackSmith: /* Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism. */ new section

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-16T15:39:51Z

JackSmith: /* Not much of a challenge */

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-16T14:13:58Z

JackSmith: /* Not much of a challenge */

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-16T14:03:05Z

JackSmith: /* Not much of a challenge */

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-16T11:54:29Z

JackSmith: /* Actually... */

Conservapedia:Essays

2008-06-16T11:53:00Z

JackSmith:

'''''This is an Index of "Essays" written by Conservapedia Members.'''''

Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view. If you write an essay, please attribute it to yourself and link it to this top page. Essays are still subject to control for obscenities, etcetera.
==Politics==
# '''[[Essay:Gun control]]''' by [[User:StephenW|StephenW]]
#'''[[Essay: the 25 Worst Court Decisions]]'''
#'''[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
#'''[[Essay:End Gates' Tax Exemption]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods]]'''
#'''[[Cuban Dealings Essay]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Title IX]]''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Classical definition of republic]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Philosophy of mixed government]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Classical definition of republic/References]]'''
# '''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power]]'''

==Religion==
#'''[[Essay:Oath of Saint Luke]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power#What Is All This About?]]'''
# '''[[Essay: Noah's Ark Was Real]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Young Earth Cosmology]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:Allegiance]]''' by [[User:DanH|DanH]]

==Conservapedia==
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Why Conservapedia Should Stay the Way it Is]]''', by [[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]
==Wikipedia==
#'''[[Essay:Wikipedia's Ads-for-Charity]]
#'''[[Essay:Uses of Wikipedia]]'''
==Conservative popular culture==
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Music is not neutral]]'''

==Science==
#'''[[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine]]''' by [[User:RobS|RobS]]
# '''[[Essay: Out-of-place Artifacts, ET's, and the Great Flood]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:A Challenge to Creationists]] by [[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]]

==Other==
#'''[[Essay: Is File-sharing a Moral Action?]]''' by [[user:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
#'''[[Essay:Most Influential Persons]]
#'''[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
#'''[[Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Adultress Story]]''' by ([[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]])
# '''[[Bias - Original work]] by [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]]
==How To:==
'''Please add to all essays the following text:''' <nowiki>{{Essay by|Username of author (if more than one author, leave blank)}}</nowiki>

[[Category:Conservapedia Essay|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Conservapedia:Essays

2008-06-16T11:52:26Z

JackSmith: added my essay.

'''''This is an Index of "Essays" written by Conservapedia Members.'''''

Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view. If you write an essay, please attribute it to yourself and link it to this top page. Essays are still subject to control for obscenities, etcetera.
==Politics==
# '''[[Essay:Gun control]]''' by [[User:StephenW|StephenW]]
#'''[[Essay: the 25 Worst Court Decisions]]'''
#'''[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
#'''[[Essay:End Gates' Tax Exemption]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods]]'''
#'''[[Cuban Dealings Essay]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Title IX]]''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Classical definition of republic]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Philosophy of mixed government]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Classical definition of republic/References]]'''
# '''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power]]'''

==Religion==
#'''[[Essay:Oath of Saint Luke]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power#What Is All This About?]]'''
# '''[[Essay: Noah's Ark Was Real]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Young Earth Cosmology]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:Allegiance]]''' by [[User:DanH|DanH]]

==Conservapedia==
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]'''
# '''[[Essay:Why Conservapedia Should Stay the Way it Is]]''', by [[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]
==Wikipedia==
#'''[[Essay:Wikipedia's Ads-for-Charity]]
#'''[[Essay:Uses of Wikipedia]]'''
==Conservative popular culture==
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Music is not neutral]]'''

==Science==
#'''[[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine]]''' by [[User:RobS|RobS]]
# '''[[Essay: Out-of-place Artifacts, ET's, and the Great Flood]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:A Challenge to creationists]] by [[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]]

==Other==
#'''[[Essay: Is File-sharing a Moral Action?]]''' by [[user:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
#'''[[Essay:Most Influential Persons]]
#'''[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
#'''[[Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Adultress Story]]''' by ([[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]])
# '''[[Bias - Original work]] by [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]]
==How To:==
'''Please add to all essays the following text:''' <nowiki>{{Essay by|Username of author (if more than one author, leave blank)}}</nowiki>

[[Category:Conservapedia Essay|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists

2008-06-16T11:48:49Z

JackSmith: Actually...

Religion

2008-06-12T14:11:32Z

JackSmith: /* Non-theistic religions and philosophies */

[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|200px|Artist's depiction of our Lord [[Jesus Christ]]]]
"'''Religion'''" refers to a set of core beliefs upon which people base their lives. Morality is often based on religion. Beyond this general definition, the word "religion" is used in several ways:

* '''Formal definition''': "The service and worship of [[God]] or the [[supernatural]];"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> Under this definition, [[atheism]], [[agnosticism]], and [[secular humanism]] are not "religions." <ref>Religious Groups Participating in Religious Congregations & Membership Study 2000. [http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/alldenoms.asp]</ref>.
* '''Functional definition''': "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> By this definition, non-theistic belief systems such as [[atheism]], [[humanism]], and [[agnosticism]] could be considered religions. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the [[United States of America]] has acknowledged that "religion" does not need to include a belief in a god or gods, and included Secular Humanism as an example of a non-theistic religion.<ref>"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.". [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488#t11 Torcaso v. Watkins, (1961)]</ref><ref>"A federal court of appeals ruled ... Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat [[atheism]] as a religion." [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 Court rules [[atheism]] a religion] WorldNet Daily</ref>
* '''Organisational definition''': Under the definition, the term refers to a particular religious organisation or movement, such a [[Roman Catholic|Catholicism]], [[Methodist|Methodism]], or [[Lutheran]]ism. These groups generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, and a set of individual and communal practices. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I don't go to church—but I believe in God."
* '''Practical definition''': Under this definition, the term refers to a set of practices, rites, or rituals observed by followers. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I'm not into rituals. My relationship with God is enough."

== List of religions ==
Religions can be classified according to how many gods the religion recognises.
=== Monotheistic religions ===

Monotheistic ("one god") religions are followed by the vast majority of the world's population.

* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Messianic Judaism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

=== Polytheistic religions ===
Polytheistic ("many gods") religions believe in multiple gods or spirits or other supernatural beings needing to be worshipped. Polytheism has declined since the rise of Christianity, but has seen a recent resurgence among pagan cults in developed nations.

* [[Animism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[Paganism]]
* [[Scientology]] {{fact}}
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shinto]]
* [[Wicca]]
*[[Greek Paganism]]
*[[Irish Paganism]]

=== Pantheistic religions ===
Pantheistic ("all is god") religions believe that all of creation or nature is a god.

* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs

=== Non-theistic religions and philosophies===
Non-theistic religions do not have a belief in God or gods. Some consider the existence of God to be unknown or irrelevant, while (strong) [[Atheism]] is the belief that that there is no god or gods.
* [[Agnostic]]ism
* [[Buddhism]] (though with elements of [[Pantheism]])
* [[Secular Humanism]]

=== Parody and joke religions ===
Several "religions" have been invented in an effort to denigrate or parody traditional religions. As a rule, these religions do not have followers who actually believe the tenets of the religions.

* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Last Thursdayism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]

== Faith in organised religion ==

The percentage of respondents answering they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in organised religion has decreased in the [[United States]] according to a [[Gallup]] poll taken in 2007. Only 46% of respondents selected either of the choices above. The numbers peaked at 68% in May 1975.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg. 24</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[World Religions by Number of Followers]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/religion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Religion], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Religion]]

Religion

2008-06-12T14:11:20Z

JackSmith: /* Non-theistic religions and philosophies */ Removed Atheism. It's not a religion.

[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|200px|Artist's depiction of our Lord [[Jesus Christ]]]]
"'''Religion'''" refers to a set of core beliefs upon which people base their lives. Morality is often based on religion. Beyond this general definition, the word "religion" is used in several ways:

* '''Formal definition''': "The service and worship of [[God]] or the [[supernatural]];"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> Under this definition, [[atheism]], [[agnosticism]], and [[secular humanism]] are not "religions." <ref>Religious Groups Participating in Religious Congregations & Membership Study 2000. [http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/alldenoms.asp]</ref>.
* '''Functional definition''': "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> By this definition, non-theistic belief systems such as [[atheism]], [[humanism]], and [[agnosticism]] could be considered religions. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the [[United States of America]] has acknowledged that "religion" does not need to include a belief in a god or gods, and included Secular Humanism as an example of a non-theistic religion.<ref>"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.". [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488#t11 Torcaso v. Watkins, (1961)]</ref><ref>"A federal court of appeals ruled ... Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat [[atheism]] as a religion." [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 Court rules [[atheism]] a religion] WorldNet Daily</ref>
* '''Organisational definition''': Under the definition, the term refers to a particular religious organisation or movement, such a [[Roman Catholic|Catholicism]], [[Methodist|Methodism]], or [[Lutheran]]ism. These groups generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, and a set of individual and communal practices. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I don't go to church—but I believe in God."
* '''Practical definition''': Under this definition, the term refers to a set of practices, rites, or rituals observed by followers. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I'm not into rituals. My relationship with God is enough."

== List of religions ==
Religions can be classified according to how many gods the religion recognises.
=== Monotheistic religions ===

Monotheistic ("one god") religions are followed by the vast majority of the world's population.

* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Messianic Judaism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

=== Polytheistic religions ===
Polytheistic ("many gods") religions believe in multiple gods or spirits or other supernatural beings needing to be worshipped. Polytheism has declined since the rise of Christianity, but has seen a recent resurgence among pagan cults in developed nations.

* [[Animism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[Paganism]]
* [[Scientology]] {{fact}}
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shinto]]
* [[Wicca]]
*[[Greek Paganism]]
*[[Irish Paganism]]

=== Pantheistic religions ===
Pantheistic ("all is god") religions believe that all of creation or nature is a god.

* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs

=== Non-theistic religions and philosophies===
Non-theistic religions do not have a belief in God or gods. Some consider the existence of God to be unknown or irrelevant, while (strong) [[Atheism]] is the belief that that there is no god or gods.
* [[Agnostic]]ism
** [[Strong atheism]]
** [[Weak atheism]]
* [[Buddhism]] (though with elements of [[Pantheism]])
* [[Secular Humanism]]

=== Parody and joke religions ===
Several "religions" have been invented in an effort to denigrate or parody traditional religions. As a rule, these religions do not have followers who actually believe the tenets of the religions.

* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Last Thursdayism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]

== Faith in organised religion ==

The percentage of respondents answering they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in organised religion has decreased in the [[United States]] according to a [[Gallup]] poll taken in 2007. Only 46% of respondents selected either of the choices above. The numbers peaked at 68% in May 1975.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg. 24</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[World Religions by Number of Followers]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/religion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Religion], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Pseudoscience

2008-06-10T13:34:38Z

JackSmith: /* Evolution */

{{protected|Conservative}}
[[Eugenics]] is a classic example of a pseudoscience. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Graphology too. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This page is all locked up, and contains loads of duplicated nonsense. Someone fix it.

= Consistent formatting and content. =

Please use consistent formatting for the various lists and spaces between the refs. As it stands, the Theory of Evolution link has no bullet item and a space between two refs. Additionally, if the Theory of Evolution is to have external references, please provide external references for all of the other items on the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are there external references for Theory of Evolution when there are none for any of the other links? What purpose do these external references serve that cannot be found by looking at the article mentioned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

= Failing removal of the linked resources for evolution, links for the others... =
Can a sysop look over these changes and make the edit? As of yet, Conservative has not responded to either the request to look here, or that of the one made on his talk page. The concern I have is the lack of consistency between the external resources for the page. I honestly believe that non external links should needed for this page (and instead address the issues on the pages they link to), but if they are to be there, they should be there for all of them. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My request to have Conservative on his talk page has been ignored. No one has responded here. The page is locked. Can someone please say "yea" or "nay" to the proposed changes and links on this page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a sysop, and I favor deleting the page. It is just opinion. Why should it even be here? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a person, and I don't favor deleting the page. It is just an opinion, but I think there could be something very important said on the topic. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] you mean not your opinion. You don't seem to be averse to pushing [[Exotheology|blustering opinion]]s of your own. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences==
*[[Astrology]]<ref>http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html</ref>
*[[Dianetics]]<ref>http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html</ref>
*[[Exotheology]]{{fact}}
*[[Graphology]]<ref>http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm</ref>
*[[Iridology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/iridol.html</ref>
*[[Orgone therapy]]{{fact}}
*[[Parapsychology]]<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm</ref>
*[[Phrenology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/phren.html</ref>
*[[Psychoanalysis]]{{fact}}
*[[Ufology]]{{fact}}

== Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives ==
*[[Theory of evolution]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals==
*[[Intelligent Design]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html</ref>
*[[Creation Science]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/creation.html</ref>
*[[Cryptozoology]]{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

== Proposed revision ==
The term ''pseudoscience'' is really just an epithet for expressing disapproval of some ideas. There is no good definition that allows objective listing of just what is or is not a pseudoscience. Even the Uri Geller example is unconvincing. Does he pretend to be scientific? If not, then it is not pseudoscience. Geller has done all sorts of public demonstrations, so the fact that he has refused to bend spoons in some situations is not conclusive.

Generating lists of what is or is not pseudoscience is a silly exercise that just reflects the prejudices of the editors. It is just the sort of thing that Wikipedia would do that Conservapedia should avoid. I propose that a short definition be given, and the lists be omitted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Disagree, if this is supposed to be different form Wikipedia we should show how lists of this sort might be created with a liberal bent. Ergo, a list with conservative bias, per CP guidelines and commandments. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't even see how to create a list with conservative bias. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, leaving 'evolution' on the list might be a good start. (If you don't mind looking silly to both liberals AND conservatives who happen not to treat the Old Testament as a science textbook, that is.) And you can add "global warming", seeing how at least some conservatives seem to think it's a Communist plot to destroy the American economy. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Okay, let's suppose I think that global warming is a commie plot. Then it might be unscientific, political, fraudulent, destructive, socialist, and I don't know what else, but not necessarily pseudo-scientific. How would I show that it is pseudo-scientific and why would anyone care?
::: If you really think that pseudo-science is a useful term, then why not introduce pseudo-conservative, pseudo-democracy, pseudo-truth, and pseudo-religion? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you show examples of where those terms have been used and in contexts that address the comment by Gulik? "pseudo-science" is a term that is used ''regularly'' as opposed to pseudo-religion which is tautological, and pseudo-truth which is an oxymoron, for starters. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

Why isn't [[Theory of Evolution]] mentioned here? Although I agree it's not as flimsy as, for example, [[phrenology]], it's important to mention it since it's still aggressively promoted by some scientists, without standing on any firm scientific grounds. Although not a '''good''' example of pseudoscience, it's an '''important''' example of pseudoscience. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Calling the theory of evolution a pseudoscience because an EXTREME minority of scientists disaggree is like calling all medical science and knowledge a pseudoscience because some people think new age medicine is more valid. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution, people can dissaggree with it, but it is supported by testing, and follows the scientific method, unlike intelligent design, which only follows the first two steps. You can choose to not call ID a pseudoscience, but there is no concievable way you could justify calling evolution one.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 09:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-06-09T14:10:59Z

JackSmith: /* Negative Reception */ Mentioned how Caroline Crocker's ID material had been disproven long before she taught it.

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> Largely leaving the theaters shortly thereafter, it finished with $7.6 million on a $3.5 million budget.

== Viewer Reception==
Because of the blackballing of the film, it is sometimes hard to tell what viewers thought. Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings that detractors of the film give even if they haven't seen it, 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box OFfice Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

However, it has been pointed out that Caroline Crocker's Intelligent Design material had been disproven years prior.<ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

It has also been (unfairly) poorly received by the general public, with a user rating of 3.8 out of 10 on the Internet Movie Database website, only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-06-08T20:55:45Z

JackSmith: /* Negative Reception */ Elaborated on rotten tomatoes ranking.

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> Largely leaving the theaters shortly thereafter, it finished with $7.6 million on a $3.5 million budget.

== Viewer Reception==
Because of the blackballing of the film, it is sometimes hard to tell what viewers thought. Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings that detractors of the film give even if they haven't seen it, 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box OFfice Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

It has also been (unfairly) poorly received by the general public, with a user rating of 3.8 out of 10 on the Internet Movie Database website, only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, (which makes it lower-rated than Catwoman the Movie, which won 3 golden razzies, one for worst actress, one for worst movie, and one for worst director) and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Great Flood

2008-06-07T19:33:33Z

JackSmith: Why don't we have an article on the word "flood" in general?

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Pando ==
''(Continuation of previous section)''
::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself ''is'' eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--[[User:M|M]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just Curious - how many were killed? ==

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood? {{unsigned|Trajsmith}}

:Please, learn to use a spell-check function.--[[User:M|M]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:The population prior to the flood was not recorded. We have all rejected God (although some have repented of that and accepted Him), so we ''all'' deserve the death sentence. Even Noah and his family. But God chose to not give Noah and his family what they deserved (choosing them because Noah was, humanly speaking, "righteous"), and didn't impose the deserved death penalty on Noah and his family. He even had Noah preach to the people, in order to save them from their destruction, but to no avail. So instead of (implicitly) criticising God for giving the people what they deserved, we should be thanking Him for saving the ones willing to be saved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::WAIT a minute - the penalty for rejecting God, something that we apparently do by virtue of being born, is death? That seems a little screwed up. Most of the world doesn't even ''have'' the death penalty anymore.--[[User:M|M]] 23:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God gave us life, so if we reject Him, we are rejecting the life that he gave us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::That just doesn't parse...parents give their children life, but no civilised society gives parents the right of life or death over their offspring. Parents are responsible ''to'' and ''for'' their children. (Unless you really believe that it would be a good idea to let parents kill disobedient kids?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Parents are the instruments by which God gives the children life. They have the responsibility of raising those children for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm sorry to say this, but...that just doesn't sound sane. I respect my parents for raising me; I share their genes, and many of their personality traits. If I had to choose between God and my parents, it would be an easy decision in favor of the ones who actually participated in my life. --[[User:M|M]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That's because you don't appreciate how much involvement God has/had "behind the scenes". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Racial" differences since the flood ==

The Article states "One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family". One would then assume only the descendents of Noah and his family would be able to pass on the story of the flood.

The flood legends in the folklore of people from around the world can only be referring to the same event if all these people are related no Noah and his family? According to [[Flood Geology]] the flood occured around 2350 B.C some 4357 years ago. When and how did Hawains and Australian Aboriginies, for example, become ''racially'' different to Noah and his family? I think the article should explain how various human poupulations descended from Noah and his family came to look so different to one another.

{{unsigned|Auld Nick}}

:That is something that should be explained, but not in this article, I think. This is about the historical records of the Flood, and just like Flood Geology is in a separate article, this aspect should be too, although I'm not sure at the moment which article it should be in. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps in the article [[Homo sapiens]]. I'm not too hot on science, you seem to know a lot about these things. Perhaps you could add the stuff to the appropriate article. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:41, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, Homo sapiens might be appropriate. Now to find the time, after all the other things on my to-do list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution and a Worldwide Flood: Not mutually exclusive? ==

So, I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think that the idea of a worldwide flood would be invalid without accepting evolution in a way similar to how it is presented in schools and books and the internet today.

Here's the deal. Fish live in many different habitats, their survival dependent on several factors including water pH, temperature, and the most important to my idea, salinity. While there are some fish with astoundingly large salt tolerancies, there are others who cannot live except for in a very stable, specific environment, including two well known staples of many American's diets, the catfish and the tuna. These fish would die if they were in an environment with a salinity that was very much different than they are used to, so my point is this. During a worldwide flood, water salinity would be decreased from what it normally is in various parts of the oceans, and it would be increased from that of any freshwater environment. Assuming that what I just said is true, and that evolution is false, we should not have freshwater fish, saltwater fish with low tolerncy for the salinity of their environment being changed.

This clearly isn't true, though, as none of the fish from this particular site (http://fins.actwin.com/species/index.php?t=3&f=1) would exist if not for evolutionary mechanics, presuming, that is, that you should find the idea of a worldwide flood indisputable. Basically, if you believe in the worldwide flood, evolution would kind of go hand in hand.
--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the problem is that what you call "evolution" is not what creationists object to. That is, creationists disagree with claims that there are mechanisms to add new genetic information to creatures, which is required for [[types of evolution|goo-to-you evolution]]. Some adaptations that you call "evolution" are not such mechanisms. With that brief explanation in mind, have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

When do we get to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 15:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Not before you explain how that is relevant to this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:18, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't the flood caused by the melting of the polar icecap, similar to what is happening now? Soon we'll all be under water.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:No. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==Ubiquity of the flood story==
"Cultures around the world record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories." Really? I'd like to see some sources on that. Normally I'd just add a cite on the article, but that's sure to be reverted. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: It would have been reverted in this case, because that is an introductory and general statement. The support for it is provided, with references, in the body of the article. The article does not say that the stories are "ubiquitous". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Why don't we have an article on the word "flood" in general? ==

I got to this article when I put in the word "flood", and expected an article about floods in general. Why is it that we don't have an article like that?

This is exactly the kind of thing that liberals make fun of us for. We claim to be a viable alternative to wikipedia, yet we are missing articles on so many different things.

Who here is in favor of making an article on floods in general?

We are an educational website, after all.

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-06-07T19:29:25Z

JackSmith: About the viewer reception

Page has become a vandalism magnet - which, by the way, proves the thesis of the movie: people want to shut Stein up instead of answering his points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Categories==
There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Regarding your last question, what is there to explain? Why does several similar but different flagella speak against design? Rather, it's for the evolutionists to explain why similar items have arisen separately. "Convergent evolution" is code for "we can't attribute it to common descent", yet common descent is what evolution is mainly about! Most "explanations" of gradual evolution are merely "just so" stories, which assume evolution to be true and then explain, usually in very general and untestable terms, how something might have come about. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
: ID is a ''positive'' argument, that there is ''evidence of design''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: After I was blocked the section about alleged copyright infringement was removed (again). Why doesn't this belong in an article about the movie, when it was more than adequately sourced (from the producers own countersuit, no less)? Also, Able806 still hasn't been answered on why the Wall Street Journal isn't a credible source for documenting that the producers are accused of using ''Imagine'' without permission. While they responded quickly to the accusations of infringement by XVIVO, the producers have been completely silent on that allegation. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

{{unsigned|TrevorAlan}}

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Your name looks like a pseudonym, so the burden of proof is on you. Try to be more polite, too.

:::::As to whether ''V[[ariety]]'' is liberal, if you can show that it is neutral or conservative, I'd love to see evidence for it in our article about it, whenever someone gets around to writing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Don't want to overstep my bounds here, but let's review Aschlafly's argument

1 Claims "Variety" is liberal backed by the fact that it does not have a pro-life article in it. Lack of support for one argument does not imply support for the other side. Also insinuates that the readers of "Variety" are liberal and that the magazine would offer appeal to those readers, both statements not supported by an ounce of evidence in this forum.

2 Proceeds to invoke an ad hominem attack on DaBoss3, claiming that he is "clueless" or "in liberal denial," an issue that has yet to be proven by Aschlafly.

3 DaBoss3 takes a ridiculous detour (this I'll acknowledge), which Aschlafly quickly jumps on to circumvent the issue, and combines 2 logical fallacies into one, an ad hominem attack of calling DaBoss3 ignorant and then begging the question, using that claim of ignorance to then assume that he is wrong on the issue of Variety's bias, which is an example of his ignorance.

:::One final note, addressed to the much more reasonable Ed Poor, shouldn't the default status of a publication be apolitical, with the burden of proof (and no, I am not referring to your comment on the burden of proof, I am aware that is a different issue) lying on the person claiming it has bias? --[[User:SeanF|SeanF]] 01:15, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:I just wanted to mention that I deleted the part about Variety having less subscribers than Conservapedia's daily page views. It has no relevance to any sort of argument being presented. --[[User:GeorgeF|GeorgeF]] 18:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Excuse me? Assuming you were serious, isn't that an example of "guilty until proven innocent"? Not to mention a (sadly) somewhat typical double standard.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Since when is a conservapedia account a civil right? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good point, although I'm thinking more of Conservapedia's image.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for that clarification. ;) I happen to agree that it is usually better for conservapedia not to block people until they have directly broken the commandmnts, but I can't feel that we've wronged anyone who's been blocked for lesser reasons (though I don't do so myself). Nor can we harm anyone (except perhaps ourselves) by having a double standard. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:28, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

I don't think Expelled was meant to be a Christian movie. I just saw it on saturday and I got the impression that the movie was not trying to support the Christian six-day creation, nor did it put forward Christianity in any way-- it merely exposes the intolerant attitude atheist evolutionists have towards intelligent design. In fact labeling the ID movement as "Christian" and "Extremist" is one of the ways that evoltionists try to discredit the science behind intelligent design. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I have seen the movie, and though I am a Christian I thought it was an exellent movie that did stand up for truth. I have trouble being sceptical about anyone's faith just because they liked a movie that wasn't explicitly Christian. There is a fine line between prudence and legalism. {{unsigned|BenjaminS}}

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, don't you mean adverb? The word unconvincingly, in this context, is an adverb; if we are to nitpick about grammar, then maybe you should be more careful in your own editing process.--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 13:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy what you said into the body of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: I am just speeding out the door and will have to wait until tonight to respond to the -- reasonably stated -- comments by Everwill above, but I must just come back to the, by now, very overworked, debate on my use of the word "hysterical". This may involve a distinction between British (or in my case, Irish) English and American English, but when I see the word "hysterical" my first instinct is that the writer is using it in its formal sense. In this case I was suggesting that Stein, despite his sang froid, was panicking unduly about a supposed threat to free speech. He was, in my view, being "hysterical". I never intended to make a comment on whether the film was funny or not and I am really amazed that everyone seems to have taken "hysterical" to mean "hysterically funny". I am even more amazed that so much attention has been focussed on one stray word. Is Bill Clinton editing this page? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:07, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

::::::It's really not important what you want to parse [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical hysterical] into meaning. It means what it means. But I can accept your rephrasing at face-value and still find your statements do not jive with my understanding of reality.

::::::If by "hysterical" you meant "very", well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the reason I found Mr. Stein's arguments so ... er ... ''hysterically'' convincing, is because I have witnessed that Wall of Oppression first hand. I know that it exists because I have encountered those people who want to crush the idea of Intelligent Design. They have a blood-thirsty religious fanaticism propelling their point of view and they stand upon opinion as if it were fact.

::::::As an aside, I am no Young Earth Creationist. At times, in my life I'm not even sure I believed in a god, as I am forever repulsed by single-minded irrational attachment to dogma. As I learn more, I adjust my world view to accommodate additional facts. I see the YEC crowd as unbending and as unrealistic as the anti-ID atheists. I for one am in favor of letting the facts stand as they are, whether they support the Bible, Anton Levay or the atheist's manifesto. Facts are facts. I think that Stein has done a public service by uncovering the damaging effects of money and bias upon Big Science. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

And on it goes. The phrase I used was "unconvincingly hysterical" not "hysterically unconvincing". So it hardly seems likely that I meant it to mean "very". If you are going to pull my words apart then please pull apart the correct words. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:09, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

I watched the movie last night. It was a well-made movie; anyone who thinks otherwise is letting their world view and prejudice get in the way of their thinking. Ben Stein made the movie interesting and inspiring. I think the best argument put forth in the movie was not that ID is undeniable fact, but rather that we should have the freedom to express both sides of the argument. If the best Darwinists have is the idea that life came in on the backs of crystals or aliens made us, is this really too much to ask? And they're the ones calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales XD. It just seems that they'll take anything BUT the Bible. I don't know what you think, but I think that's bad science and a little disturbing. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I have been following this movie's development and was very excited to see that it was given such a widespread release being a documentary. This movie was a much needed work to expose the widespread censorship by evolutionist of any notion of intelligent design. I've found a lot of people have no idea of the level that evolutionist will go to keep their theory "safe" from competing ideas and ultimately reality. In the interviews this movie did a good job of exposing the heart of the issue for those on the persecuting side. While some such as Dawkins are willing to accept the possibility of completely unfounded ideas such as aliens being responsible for creating life, they are unwilling to accept the most obvious of answers that we were created by God. The true issues is not about science, it's about their unwillingness to allow God into their atheistic world view. To quote Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." The irrationality of the atheistic can be clearly seen even by those who have hardened their hearts against any notion of God. This is why they are so adamant against any idea of God as the creator. Once that idea is allowed, they fear their greatest mental stronghold will be demolished. It's no wonder they hold so strongly to their position of power within the scientific and academic community. One thing I have observed in the public arena is that once you question evolution atheistic evolutionist rush to the defense through everything from argument to ridicule. Just look at the films ratings on [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB's Expelled Page] It's interesting to note how many have rated this film 1 without even seeing it, offended by the very premise of the movie. The first day there was an initial rush of 1 votes by those that gave this movie a poor rating as soon as they were given the chance. One of issues Stein brought to light in this film was media censorship and ridicule of the intelligent design by the media. Liberal movie critics jumped at the chance to misrepresent this film, and lambasting it's very premise with comments such as [http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/radio/cl-et-expelled18apr18,0,1163561.story an attempt to deceive audiences ] and [http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-intelligence-allowed/review/293361 (an) obvious propaganda piece ] It's apparent one needn't go far to prove that point. I strongly feel this film is a must see for anyone. To comment on the quality of the production, Ben Stein did an excellent job of producing a documentary that is both entertaining and informative. [[User:DanCon|DanCon]] 01:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh my gosh Nathan! I've grown up my whole life in a Christian missionary home... and I don't mind decent secular music! Besides, the film wasn't a Christian film. It existed to point out a wrong in the scientific community, not to evangalize! My goodness your kids are over sheltered if this movie offended you! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 
I watched the movie at its premiere, but was blocked and haven't had a chance to add my comments here (per the request above) until now. I was even interviewed for television about it, although because it was a Christian media company, I doubt they will air my comments.

It was a pretty bizarre film. Literally five seconds into it, they begin interspersing scenes with old film clips of Stalin's USSR, the Berlin Wall, and Nazi Germany, without any explanation. It isn't until much later that you find out the actual "meaning" behind these scenes.

The film also adopted a strange tactic... it spent the first hour arguing for freedom and how no idea could be dangerous, but that academic inquiry demanded all possibilities be open. And then it spent the second hour insinuating that evolution by means of natural selection was a dangerous idea because it "led" to Nazi ideals. This would seem to be contradictory, at least on its face.

The three or four examples provided by Stein were not very conclusive, especially after one becomes familiar with them. Richard Sternberg martyrs himself in the movie, implying that he was fired from his position and he lost his office because of intelligent design, but even ID advocates admit that neither fact is true. He was already scheduled to leave the journal in which he published the ID paper, and it was his last issue to edit. And the office change at the Smithsonian just moved him to a different office, which he then relocated voluntarily. The rest of the examples are about of the same calibre, and no statistics or other data is provided to suggest that there are others (aside from shadowy anonymous people, but the movie lacks the credibility to believe that).

I couldn't help but notice that they made a number of propaganda-style moves in the film. For example, they only refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection as "Darwinism," perhaps to imply it is some sort of cult of personality. But it would be absurd to suggest that modern evolutionary theory relies primarily on Darwin's works. The basic premise he suggested holds true and has been found to be accurate inasmuch as we can tell in science, but that is a very different thing. No one calls relativity "Einsteinism" for the same reason. Another ideological move was to cherry-pick interviewees, selecting only rabidly atheist or terminally-ill insane Texans to represent the evolution side of the debate. Without balancing out this presentation, it just makes it hilariously biased. A comparable move would be a pro-science (evolution) movie which only interviewed Kevin Hovind and his ilk through prison bars. Interestingly and on a side note, the movie equated ID with creationism throughout. I guess the Discovery Institute forgot to remind them to pretend there was a distinction.

Most particularly, the movie used the Holocaust to try to make their ideological point, and didn't even do so well. Berlinski and Stein discuss in the movie how "Darwinism" was a "necessary but not sufficient" cause for Nazism and the Holocaust, yet the movie proceeds to dwell on that tragedy overlong nonetheless. Even if you believe evolution was "necessary but not sufficient," why would you then use that incredible emotional manipulation on the audience to suggest that evolution was the cause? By traveling to the camp (Dachau, I think?) and then discussing at length what went on there, it implies that evolution is at fault, even after they just had to admit that it was not. It's rather insulting.

Stylistically, it borrowed a lot of Michael Moore's techniques, as others have pointed out. Having Dawkins sit in darkness on a stage and Stein travel in a taxicab to "confront" him paints the same sort of (absurd) hero shot that Moore uses (such as in Moore's ''Roger and Me'', when he "confronts" the CEO of Ford Motors). Things like that were fairly common, and the movie actually got pretty boring about two-thirds of the way through. The "shucks I'm just here finding out the truth" schtick got old very quickly... I don't see how anyone couldn't see that the whole approach was staged, and that he had this agenda from the beginning.

So overall, not a very good movie in general, and ludicrously ineffective in establishing its point. Two thumbs way down.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 14:22, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Science is ''supposed to'' limit itself to things that are falsifiable, but so often [[Falsifiability of evolution|doesn't]]. The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?". Forensic science, archaeology, the SETI program, etc., all ask that question, so why can't ID ask it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Interiot deserves credit for raising the question of the [[limits of science]], which needs to be covered better in [[Philosophy of science]]. The idea that God may choose to act in predictable ways is a hypothesis (or assumption), just as viable as our age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant. For example, things that feel heavy always fall when dropped. The stars go around the sky every night, but some of those little lights move with respect to the others (these wanderers are called [[planet]]s).

:::It's up to us to figure out what the rules are - of physical phenomena and anything else we can study.

:::What are the laws governing the human mind? Thought, emotion, will - are these purely manifestations of biochemistry in our brains, or what? I don't think [[Physical science]] has a monopoly on the study of [[Psychology]] and [[Sociology]], but these are still [[science]]s, aren't they?
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

::::Those "age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant" are not age-old, but are specifically Christian-based assumptions. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for some details. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::*(Interjecting) Your comment is off-topic. This article is not about ID as much as it as about attempts to silence people who talk about it in academia. Science has nothing to fear from false ideas; rather, it is the antidote to falsehood, error and superstition. If you are saying that one of the excuses the anti-ID camp use to silence their critics is simply to brand it as having "no validity", then *that* can go in the article. Do you have any info about that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:03, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

ID is a scientific approach that finds fault with evolution and says that a creator must be present because nature has signs of design in it. What's un-Christian about that? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:34, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Long timescales and common descent is theistic evolution, not ID. ID does not take a stance on whether the earth is young or old... stop putting words in it's mouth! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:36, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:Who are you talking to? If you want to debate, we should have several [[Debate Topics]] related to this issue - and you are free to create another page. But this "talk page" is only for discussion of ways to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:40, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm new here, but I find this a moat interesting question. Could you tell me which debate pages specifically address the question of timescale within ID? Thanks. [[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 16:58, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::The film mentions the connection between Darwinism and eugenics - IIRC it says how many people the U.S. sterilized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:24, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

"Racial Hygiene" is, and was, no more an evolutionary concept than genocide has ever been a christian concept. Both have been tagged as such in specific circumstances and neither of the broader terms deserved to be associated with the narrower. {{unsigned|Scholl}}

: Your comment is absurd. [[Evolution]] teaches "survival of the fittest," and that the fittest races will survive. [[Christianity]] rejects that nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Imposing your view point ==

Walton One, you are the one actually trying to impose your view point. This is a conservative encyclopedia and we cannot treat it like your personal propoganda. Please do not impose a liberal point of view. It is conservapedia not liberalpedia. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:While you may not agree with Walton One's changes, work with him constructively. Our goal is truth. We happen to believe it is found in Conservative ideals, but it is not our intention to cut off the dialogue of a user who has been around for some time and contributed articles to our site in the past that were thorough and educational. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:(To Heffalump) I am a conservative not a liberal, and I don't have a strong personal opinion about the film or about ID. I am trying to ensure the article is neutral and factual, by removing personal opinion and speculation, as per point 5 of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.'' I am not imposing any viewpoint on the article. I realise it is difficult to strike the right balance on such a controversial topic, but we can at least try to be even-handed. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:06, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Theistic evolution]]==

This is mentioned in the film, but very briefly. I wish I had a transcript as my notes are incomplete.

One of the men they interviewed said that evolution is incompatible with creationism, despite attempts by Darwinists to enlist liberal Christians. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Full rewrite needed==

Now that I've seen the film, I'm entirely dissatisfied with the article (except the intro and some of the external links).

Basically, the existing version of this article is centered on the POV of ID opponents, rather than being based on the film. While it is okay to voice criticism of the film, first the article should summarize the film and then go into detail about the narrative, composition, look and feel, and especially the points it makes.

If there are any rebuttals to its points, that should come next.

Peripheral points, such as general evolution vs. ID debate, should be minimal. Like a brief summary and then a link to one of our [[Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Make your voice heard==

If your contribution or comment has been reverted, and you think this is just as bad as what the Darwinists have been doing to their opponents, come to [[Conservapedia:Censorship]] and voice your opinion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Eugenics]] and the [[Holocaust]]==

A major complaint about the film is its exposure of the ideological linkage between Darwinism's "[[survival of the fittest]]" idea, and the [[Social Darwinism]] based on it. Critics insinuate (or state outright?) that the film unfairly blames the theory of evolution for what demagogues and despots did with it.

However, the film mentions at least twice that no one is blaming all evolutionists for sterilizations and mass murder. But it does point out the precise way in which Hitler used Darwin's ideas to support Nazi ideology.

This needs to be explained better in the article. We should not print a unsubstantiated accusations here; critics can make their false accusations on their own websites - even if that is an abuse of the freedom of speech - because there should be no censorship in academic debate.

But a trustworthy encyclopedia is not a newspaper; there is no rush to be first to "break a story". Contributors should watch the movie and write about what the remember seeing and hearing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

* I suspected before watching the film that critics were misrepresenting it, in terms of its presentation of the links between Darwinism, Eugenics and the Holocaust. The typical screed went, "How dare they say evolution is responsible for Nazi genocide?"
* As I watched the film, I made notes of the places where the film makers took pains to make precisely the opposite point of what those critics had said. So I think I was justified in removing their "reviews" on the grounds of simply not being trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::I am of the belief that most of our 'reviews' and viewpoints of individuals detracts from the article, which should be about the movie itself. The article comes across as a back and forth pull of reviews. It doesn't flow. In other words it's sounding a bit like WP. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, it's sounding precisely like Associated Press, the cream of liberal news media.

:::Here's a nice review or summary:

:::*“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Makers of the documentary said the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered. [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080421/32048_%5C'Expelled%5C'_Explodes_into_Top_10_Box_Office.htm]
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

== They keep having to lock the WP article ==

It's just a regular comedy of errors over there. Sometimes it's a full lock and sometimes it's a block of anonymous users. Is it any wonder WP is garbage? Exactly how people think it's a reliable source for anything but the most basic, non-controversial things is beyond me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:13, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Jinxmchue. I find [[Wikipedia]] to be worthless for anything of real interest. How [[Wikipedia]] is handling [[Expelled]] is just one of over 100 [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::I finally took at a look at their version, and now I see where all the changes are coming from to our version, which I have been reverting. They are simply plagiarizing WP - ironic, in view of the media flap over the animation [[Premise Media]] allegedly plagiarized from Harvard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not trying to be rude... but why is it that when Wikipedia locks an article, it's liberal bias. But one of our own admins he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=433467&oldid=433465 consdered locking it] because he assumed there would be vandalsim, which is fine. Also, Jinxmchue mocks the blocking of anon. users, but doesn't acknowledge that this site doesn't even allow anon. edits (not that I don't understand why) and for some time, it was common practice to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandals. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Wikipedia tends to lock articles which liberals on the site have deemed to "own." If you look at the edit history of the WP article, it is obvious which group controls it (and with such concrete reasoning such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=208627352&oldid=208624149 "So what?"] for removing relevant material that doesn't trash the movie). And WP prides itself on being open to edits by anyone and everyone, anonymous or not. CP makes no such claim. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::In all fairness there are [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&limit=500&action=history several] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality&limit=500&action=history articles] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Evolution&limit=500&action=history here] which seem to be "owned" not by a group of editors but by a single person. In the case of Wikipedia there has been clear edit warring which would, by the rules, require a degree of protection (I would personally favour a blanket protection for a few days and no edits to see if some of the issues can be settled on the talk page). Here the articles have received less edit warring or vandalism, and appear to be presently locked for the sake of it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]]!~

:Normally, I'm not one to give much credence to the "bias in Wikipedia" charge, but I have to admit, in this case, it is appropriate. A lot of a quotations are inappropriate for the sections they're in, and it's obvious that parts of it are meant to steer the reader towards a certain opinion. The article is coming down on one side of the issue, and a good encyclopedia shouldn't do that.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:35, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::The WP article is now over 100KB in length (and has a warning about that), with well over half of it devoted to criticisms notable or not. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Definition of criticism==

Saying that they quoted Darwin is not a '''criticism'''. Complaining that they took Darwin out of context would be a criticism, but the section I deleted does not do that. Is there anyone who feels that the points the film made about Darwinism and Eugenics were incorrect? Okay, but first quote the film accurately.

What did the film say about the connection between the writings of Charles Darwin and the beginnings of Eugenics? Or what did Eugenics advocates, such as Hitler, say which sounds reminiscent of Darwin? And who in the movie blames Darwin?

In one or two places in the movie Stein (and maybe someone else) specifically says they are not blaming Darwin for the social implications of his theory - nor are they saying that modern evolutionists are justifying the Holocaust. So what's the criticism?

Sounds like the usual silliness, like:
#The film has Wells in it
#He's a creationist
#Therefore the film endorses creationism
#Believing in creationism makes you untrustworthy
#Therefore the film should not be trusted

That's silly because it also has an atheist in it. Does that mean the film endorses atheism? No, it explores the intersection between atheism and other ideas, and the way academia censors any opposing POV and vilifies its critics.

If anyone vilifies the movie, we can name them and even describe their arguments. Like, "Mr. A said the movie is dishonest because the trailer showed Ben Stein in short pants while in the movie he always wore long pants." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scientific American==

The SciAm rebuttal makes six points. Most are irrelevant or nonsensical. Take for example their admission that science '''does''' reject design out of hand. They reason they give is identical to one of the [[arguments for atheism]]. This comes right after claiming that mainstream science's rejection of design is unrelated to atheism.

I'd rather not quote SciAm uncritically. If they want to make an argument, fine. But we needn't give it credence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whoa, isn't the point of Expelled about the unfairness if people finding a 'scientific' viewpoint lacking in credibility suppressing its open discussion? If you want ID to be treated credibly, then why not give Scientific American's rebuttal a place in the article and let it stand or fall on it's merit? Otherwise, you wind up using the same tactics you criticize as unfair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|JC]] 20:59, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::Not exactly. The film points out the unfairness of suppressing a viewpoint - period. Don't be obtuse: no one suppresses viewpoints which lack credibility; no one has to suppress the flat earth theory, the very act of considering it makes it obvious to you that it's false.

::The trouble with ID is that considering '''gives it''' credibility. The idea that design comes from a designer usually makes sense to people, and so does the idea that life shows signs of having been designed. Only someone who has a '''non-scientific motive''' for suppressing [[design theory]] would be scared of letting it be described in a science journal or university class. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Science doesn't reject design out of hand as much as it asserts that saying something has a supernatural cause is not valid science, because it can't be proved or disproved by the scientific method. The proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind reality belongs should be studied as philosophy and/or religion, and if it can ever be tested under the scientific method, then as science. By the way, your first comment mentioned that "''Most'' are irrelevant or nonsensical." Which ones do you consider to be be the valid points, and why weren't they left in the article? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:55, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: ID does not claim that the designer is supernatural. It leaves that question open, probably specifically on the grounds that you mention. However, that's not the same thing as saying that science is unable to detect evidence of design. Science frequently does that, so you are incorrect to claim that the proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind ''life'' (which is all that ID claims, I think) should not be studied by science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: You're right about the nature of the designer - I've heard ID proponents claim that it could be mystical, extraterrestrial or something completely different in nature - the unifying idea being that there's a designer, period. I don't have a problem at all with science exploring the origins of life or the universe. When you see the arrangement of rocks in Stonehenge you can assume they're the result of chance, but it doesn't take much scientific investigation to conclude that there was design involved, and therefore a designer. Where life is concerned it gets trickier, though. You can recreate in a lab the conditions that cause chemicals to combine and form amino acids on their own, and you can examine single-celled creatures to how amino acids compose part of a living thing. You can also study viruses, which are not alive in their own sense, but contain the RNA components to affect living things to reproduce themselves, and sit somewhere on a complexity scale between amino acids and a living amoeba. ID looks at the middle and end-points (viruses and amoeba), and states that these are too complex to exist without a designer, but that seems to fall short to me. There are many things we don't understand yet (and maybe never will), but ID is more like taking a shortcut to a simple answer instead of taking the time (maybe lifetimes) to probe further through the scientific method. (The paradox of "Who designed the Designer, then?" tells me that it's a shortcut) When you look at man's understanding of science and the universe in 1908 and compare it to 2008 the progress is greater than in all of recorded history. I'd have to believe that there will be progress between now and 2108 that will resolve may of ID's questions without a designer needing to be involved. Maybe not, but it sure seems more likely.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:14, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::: One problem with your argument is that it's basically expressing ''faith'' that naturalism will one day account for life. Okay, you can have that faith if you choose, but that faith is not grounds for saying that ID is not science. The ''evidence'' at this stage is that naturalism ''cannot'' account for life. Hence ID is science.
:::::: Your argument about amino acids, viruses, and amoeba seems to be saying that there is a sequence there, rather than a clear break. But that "sequence" is not really a sequence at all. Rather it is (a) three points with clear breaks between them, and (b) not even three points on a line. Some scientists have proposed, because of their relative simplicity, that viruses came before the first living cell. The problem with that is that viruses can only exist by hijacking the reproductive equipment of living cells, so could not have preceded them. So the "sequence" if there is one, is amino acids, living cells, viruses.
:::::: Further, reproducing the "natural" process of creating amino acids actually works ''against'' your argument. This is because life requires that all the amino acids be of a single chirality, whereas the "natural" processes creating them produce a mixture of left and right-handed forms, which will ''not'' work for life. So now your sequence is amino-acids-that-can't-produce-life, living cell, virus. The idea that they were intelligently designed is looking better all the time!
:::::: By the way, the reason that I put "natural" in quotes above is because the Urey-Miller experiments did not actually replicate natural conditions. Apart from using an oxygen-free "atmosphere" which is now known to be wrong, they had a very non-natural trap to remove the created amino acids from their "environment" before they could be broken down again.
:::::: I don't think it's fair to describe ID as stating that living things "are too complex to exist without a designer". Rather, I think it would be fairer to state that ID says that various aspects of living things could not have occurred naturally. Enormous complexity is a major reason ''why'' they could not have occurred naturally, but the ability to occur naturally (i.e. without design) is the pertinent point. To compare with Stonehenge, Stonehenge is not especially complex, but clearly would not have occurred naturally.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal reception ==

I am going to remove the 'Liberal reception' bit. What is the relevance? I am sure some conservatives dont like the movie either while I am sure some liberals are ID supporters. Unless someone can show why this needs to stay I will think of another way to phrase it
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:28, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== WP versus the Good Guys ==

I made the mistake of glancing at Wikipedia's horrendous article about this movie. It's not so much an article about the movie as a point-by-point counter argument against the movie together with a long list of links to bad reviews of the movie. There are some devastating comments about the fairness of the article as compared to how other films were treated. The best part is that they have clearly revealed themselves as what they are: incredibly, wildly biased and totalitarian.

That said, I want to make sure that we safeguard against being Wikipedia's mirror image. I urge other editors to stay within bounds and maintain fairness rather than stepping over into advocacy. This article should not become a "proof" for ID. This article should remain an accurate representation of the movie's theme and ideas.

All that aside, I augmented and edited. Criticism and improvements are welcomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
: You speak as though Wikipedia has only just revealed their bias! Yet you and I both know that this is nothing new for them. Thanks for your edits. Although I had a few minor quibbles (and have made changes accordingly), your edits have improved the article. I only wish I could see the movie for myself to better judge the accuracy of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:49, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:I would think eliminating advocacy could be served by removing the following things:
:*The "Find a Theatre Near You" box, which is outright advocacy.
:*The politicized reception sections, which classify all negative criticism as liberal.
:*The Roebuck quote, which is unencyclopedic and does not touch on the actual movie at all.
:*Large sections of the intro, which abandon the movie and simply argue ID.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:54, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:: I've made some changes following your comments.
:: The "Find a theatre" box is not advocacy, except ''perhaps'' to advocates ''seeing'' the movie. I had previously removed it from the main body of the text on the grounds of being unencyclopedic, which I think is a reasonable compromise.
:: I've changed the headings of the reception/review sections, but not removed the sections as you suggest: I couldn't see the point in removing them. This change actually solved a problem that I'd previously noticed, that Carl Wieland's comments were, as far as I know, not actually a ''review'', he having not seen the movie, I would think.
:: I've removed the Roebuck quote on the grounds that it is about ID, not about the movie.
:: From a quick look, I can't see "large sections of the intro" arguing ID.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:19, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I think this is some improvement. I still think that having the theatre box is clear advocacy to see the movie, which implies partisanship and high bias, considering how there is no such box for any other movie (to the best of my knowledge). But perhaps my view of the intro to the article (or rather, I see that I really mean the summary, sorry) is askew, but it still seems to me to be arguing the point rather than summarizing the movie. Thank you for the changes, though.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:52, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: How many other movies do we have articles on, and how many of them are currently in theatres?
:::: Well, it was the introduction that I checked, not the summary! But looking at ''the Summary'' now, I still can't see that it is arguing ID rather than simply describing what the movie is about.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Who here also edits expelled article at WP? ==

I spend ten times as much time their, but check in over here every once in a while. I have the same user name there if anyone wants to contact me. Who else edits both places? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I would edit, but I'd probably be "banned" from it because it relates to ID - and I'm on probation there. They think that 'neutrality' and 'balance' are tendentious. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I tried editing it, but it's more stress than it's worth. I think it may be impossible to build a truly neutral and balanced article about this topic, at least through the conventional wiki process. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I've learned that to try to edit anything over there that has to do with evolution, Creationism or Intelligent Design, you usually run afoul of the system-gaming pro-evolution groupies. You can find most of their names on the list of WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Participants WikiProject: Intelligent Design], ironically enough. Any pro-Creationism, pro-ID or anti-evolution edits with references will be reverted or twisted by them and you will be hypocritically smeared as a "POV warrior." Wikipedia officially claims [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_of_wisdom#On_Wikipedia_and_the_Cabal "there really is no cabal,"] but the truth is much different. Edit any article that has to do with evolution, Creationism or ID and at least one person from the above WikiProject will show up. Usually more so they can undermine WP's three revert rule. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Sadly, their admins will also try to lead you over a cliff. Knowing the three revert rule themselves, they will run right up to the edge, and then block you when you follow and fall over. In other words rather than attempt to be helpful, they attempt to take advantage of people who don't know as much as they do so they can have them removed or push them out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, and not only that, but at least two of the pro-evolutionist participants in the WikiProject: Intelligent Design are admins who, unsurprisingly, watch and defend each others' admin actions. If you try to complain about one's admin actions, the other quickly jumps in to handle the complaint. You'd think Wikipedia would prevent that from occurring. Or maybe you wouldn't think that, I guess. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::: These are good criticisms of Wikipedia. Does any of this happen here? Sysops using reverting questions and then banning users trying to work out what the proper content should be on a talk page? Or complaints being handled only by sympathetic sysops who defend the actions of the other or have the complaints ignored altogether? It would seem that these types of behaviors are common to all wikis - and maybe even could be applied to groups of people and wikis are just one instance of it being shown. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:04, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

List under here (add comments above this line)
----
[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I found that article at wikipedia to be too biased, which is what brought me here. I'm glad to see some place is giving it a fair shake. [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 20:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== moving find a theater box to the end ==

I'm going to move to the end as a link, we don't need to advocate a movie.[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:52, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Controversy==

The article needs a controversy section, if we're going to tag it as "controversial" in the first sentence. What is the controversy? Is anyone saying the opposite of what the movie asserts?

Please list the 3 top sources who claim that ID is given equal time in the classroom.

Name any editor or college president who says that scientists are given complete academic freedom regarding ID throughout the English-speaking world.

It's not a controversy if the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials. It's a controversy if there are two sides, presenting arguments. NCSE at least makes a case - even though their arguments are self-contradictory and focus on word games. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
: Are you saying that the film is ''not'' controversial? Simply on the grounds that its opponents aren't making a case? If the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials, why doesn't this constitute there being two sides? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, okay. Let's summarize the two sides then.

By the way, you said that someone ''confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]''. I don't think that linkage was made out of actual confusion. The NCSE (among others) has specifically and repeatedly '''claimed''' that ID is an an aspect of creationism - although I'm not sure whether they meant [[YEC]] or [[OEC]]. If it's the former, than their claim is nonsense because YEC entails the faith-based proposition that God created every living thing less than 10,000 years ago. ID is neutral on "who the intelligent designer is" and "when it all began". But stop me if I'm veering off topic.

On the other hand, maybe this is one of the key points of the topic. ID opponents see the claims of [[Intelligent Design]] as contradicting the claims of Evolution. And the only alternative to evolution the opponents can think of is Creationism. We might summarize their argument as follows:
#Either evolution is true, or Creationism is true.
#If ID is true, evolution is false.
#Therefore, ID implies Creationism.

It's a pretty impressive theological argument, but it betrays their pretense of not having any religious preconceptions of their own. In fact, I think their chief objection to ID is that it undermines support for atheism.

Of course, they're "not supposed to admit that" so the only other thing they can do is expel ID and its proponents from the academy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually, I'm pretty sure one of the cheif objection here is that Inteligent Design turns the scientific method on its head by starting with a conclusion (God created us) and digging for evidence (Or, rather, a lack of evidence, as shown by the frequent objections on this wiki by creationists which go something like "Unless you have a perfect evolutionary path for every animal where every single step was fossilized, you're clearly wrong.") to support the conclusion. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 01:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But the Scientific Method starts with the presupposition that there is no God, or at least not a God that interfere with the world. It assumes that everything can be explained through naturalistic causes, which by definition precludes God from the start. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Apples and oranges. The goal of science is to figure out how the world works and why it work the way it does. The goal of ID's research, if it can be called that (Really, can sifting through other research then throwing your hands up and saying "I dunno, God did it" be called research?) is to prove that life was designed by God. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not apples and oranges. You can't say ID starts off with one assumption and criticize it, then shrug it off when it's pointed out that the scientific method also starts out with an assumption. And ID is not "giving up". It's seeing what appears to be order and design and concluding that it was designed. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Alright, I guess you're right. I shouldn't just shrug that off. However, if we're going through a list of things science does not assume exists, should you not logically criticise it for not accounting for the existence of Eris, Asherah, Loki, Enki, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Odin, Eostre, Mithras, Wiskedejak, Spiderman, or other such figures? Furthermore, wouldn't assuming God exists be, well, an assumption?
:Yeah, like I said. Seeing what appears to be order and saying "Well, I guess God made it like that." instead of figuring out a plausible explanation for /why/ it's like that. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But then your saying that God is not a plausible explanation. Why not? In the ID movie, Richard Dawkins admitted to what appeared to be intelligent design, but claimed it might have been aliens who put the life there long ago. So, in all honesty, are aliens more plausible that God? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Is a form of extra-terrestrial life form seeding the planet with lifeforms many millions of years ago more plausible than a supernatural entity creating the entire universe six thousand years ago and not allowing mutations to stack and change the species?
:In all honesty, yeah. They're both rather unlikely, yes, but I'll put my chips on the aliens explanation over the supernatural one. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed, perhaps I should have said "''conflated'' intelligent design with creationism". Also, it depends on how one defines the terms. ID is creationism only in the broadest sense of the word, not in how it is normally used. Creationism doesn't for example, normally include the idea that we were created by aliens, whereas ID doesn't say who the designer is, so doesn't exclude the possibility of aliens.
:: IndianaJ, ID is a argument that the ''scientific evidence'' points to a designer. Now the ''proponents'' of ID might (or might not) have a religious motive, just like proponents of evolution might have a religious (atheistic) motive, but the latter keep telling us that their motive and their science are distinct, so why the double-standard with ID?
:: UltimateHero, it's not the scientific method that starts with the presupposition that there is no god, but naturalistic science.
:: IndianaJ, nobody is seriously proposing the existence of those characters you mentioned, but many people, including many scientists, do propose that the God of the Bible exists. Simply ruling that claim out on the grounds that it's an assumption is just as illogical as ruling it in on the grounds that it's possible.
:: Also, you grossly misrepresent the arguments that ID proponents and creationists make. Perhaps that's because (a) you can't criticise the argument that they actually do make, or (b) you have no idea ''what'' arguments they actually make.
:: Further, the problem with the aliens explanation is that it simply removes the question one step: who created the aliens? Claiming that God is the creator doesn't have this problem, because there's no need to ask who created an uncreated Being.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: You're honestly telling me that no [[Native Americans]] believe in Wiskadejak?
::: Furthermore, perhaps you should inform me about what these arguments are, instead of simply telling me that I don't understand them.
::: You're right, PJR, there's no need to ask who created something that doesn't exist.
::: And finally, re: Motive. The goal of science is not to prove atheism right, but the goal of ID proponents is to prove ID right by circumventing the scientific method by starting with a conclusion. If you seriously don't think that's how it's happening, you're clueless. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 12:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

No, it's opposite of how you stated it. ID looks at the evidence then concludes God. There is no basic assumption. It's secular science that starts out by assuming that everything can be explained by naturalistic principles, and thereby define God out of the equation from the start. It's secular science that assumes, not ID. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:A common misunderstanding, and likely a deliberate misreading!

:ID looks at the evidence then concludes [[design]]. Opponents see "design" and get upset because design implies a "designer", which (for [[atheists]]) certainly can't be [[God]]. They then attack ID using the following reasoning:

:#ID replaces unguided evolution with design (all sides agree)
:#If there is design, there must be a designer (going beyond physical science into philosophy or religion)
:#The designer must be advanced space aliens (like the Spaghetti Monster?), or else [[God]]

:But all ID is saying is #1. Physical science has no business going beyond that.

:We need to write an article about the campaign to suppress ID. This article needs to expose the faulty arguments being used. It needs to distinguish between what ID actually does say, and what ID opponents claim it says (or implies). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:28, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::By definition, ID has to also be asserting #2 as well though - there can't be design without a designer. I agree that ID doesn't try to ''directly'' address the nature of the designer, but by definition it tends to be supernatural. That's because as a "science", ID needs to follow a consistent logic: so if there is design within the physical universe, there is an implied physical designer. Being physical, that designer must have a designer, and so on, until you either have a scientific impossibility or a ''supernatural'' designer at some point.

::I may have gotten this wrong, but that's why ID is questioned as valid science - it relies on the impossible (an unending recursion of designers), or the supernatural. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Your analysis is shrewd, but mistaken. It reveals the extra things that ID opponents tack on, but tying a carrot onto a woman's face or placing a conical black hat on her head does not turn her into a witch (with apologies to Monty Python); it doesn't even mean she ''thinks'' she's a witch. It's a dishonest way of getting her in trouble.

:::Opponents (and we should name them) insist that #1 implies #2. But is it really true that ID *is* asserting the existence of a designer? No more true, I'm sure than Evolution is *denying* the existence of a designer.

:::The unending recursion issue is metaphysics, not physical science. Likewise, the appearance of life (out of the primordial "soup") - with no explanation for how it has the appearance of design - is also metaphysics. Perhaps our [[Origin of life]] article can list the various physical means proposed; see [[The Miller/Urey Experiment]].

:::A famous philosopher recently said what you assert above about a physical designer. Perhaps we should quote him, i.e., [[Richard Dawkins]] and the "space aliens" theory he told Ben Stein in the movie. But this goes outside the realm of physical science. It ventures into the area of [[Philosophy of science]], where there are disagreements about things such as [[Methodological naturalism]].

:::Your last point is, I take it, your own opinion? Or perhaps you had in mind a particular scholar in the field of [[philosophy of science]]. Is there a [[physical scientist]] who thinks that ID relies on the supernatural, or is that a legal opinion, or what? I thought ID merely said (1) unguided evolution couldn't be true, and (2) life shows signs of having been designed. Where do you get [[supernatural causation]]? (And who agrees with you whom we can quote?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:25, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is the designer supernatural "by definition?" The only people I ever see applying such a definition are critics of ID. By their definition of what does or does not constitute the supernatural, then theories of how the universe came to be also involve the supernatural (i.e. beyond the natural universe, which didn't exist before the theorized Big Bang) and are thus invalid in the scientific realm. Additionally, many of the theories about the universe also rely upon an unending recursion of universes that conversely expand from and contract to and a singularity in a process with no beginning or end. Yet these things are wholeheartedly accepted as perfectly good science. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm no expert on ID (and I don't play one on TV, either), which is why I admit I may be wrong. I just don't see how a scientific conclusion that there is an inherent design behind things would not by logic require a designer - how is that "tacking on"?. If designed things can exist without a designer then "design" is the wrong word to be using in the first place.

:::: To Ed Poor's statements about what ID "merely states": if life shows signs of having been designed, then it is either from the actions of a designer, or the observation itself is an error of interpretation. If I pour bowl after bowl of alphabet soup and find words in the arrangement of the letters, was there a designer at work or am I just interpreting reality from the perspective of someone who understands a certain written language?

:::: Ray Comfort talks about looking at a Coke can or a house and reaching the obvious conclusion that there was a designer. So we deduce the designer, man, and then find that he's so complex biologically that design is the only plausible explanation for his existence. Living in the physical world, then, man has to have a physical designer (even one we can't detect/define yet), or the designer exists beyond the natural existence our senses are limited to perceiving (which is why I used the word "supernatural").

:::: To Jinxmchue, I agree that theories like the big bang hit the same wall in term of being unable to answer where the energy came from before the event - it just describes what happened after it started. I'm not out to bash ID, but I do question its treatment as science until it can hold up to fair and reasonable using the scientific method. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:24, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To Dinsdale:
* ''I just don't see how a scientific conclusion that there is an inherent design behind things would not by logic require a designer''
*:You might have overlooked what I said about this above, so I'll repeat it: Is it really true that ID *is* asserting the existence of a designer? No more true, I'm sure than Evolution is *denying* the existence of a designer.
* ''If I pour bowl after bowl of alphabet soup and find words in the arrangement of the letters, was there a designer at work or am I just interpreting reality from the perspective of someone who understands a certain written language?''
*:If the letters are all in the Roman alphabet (as opposed to, say, Japanese [[kana]]), it might tell you something about the designer. But it certainly shows that the cereal was designed. The shapes of the cereal particles have too much correlation with letters to have occured without design.
* ''if life shows signs of having been designed, then it is either from the actions of a designer, or the observation itself is an error of interpretation''
*:What does this have to do with Evolution and naturalism? Your conclusions are in the field of the [[philosophy of science]], as I said before. We might just as well argue that if unguided evolution is true, it is possible for human beings to have come into being without [[God]]. Is this what evolution is arguing? If so, it has departed from the realm of [[physical science]] and entered the field of metaphysics and philosophy.
* ''Living in the physical world, then, man has to have a physical designer (even one we can't detect/define yet), or the designer exists beyond the natural existence our senses are limited to perceiving (which is why I used the word "supernatural").''
*:Thank you for clarifying the metaphysical issues here. As we leave the realm of physical science, we are free to speculate philosophically or religiously. Atheists will assume that the big bang had a physical cause, that life had a physical cause, and that unguided evolution can account for the appearance of phyla and human beings without [[God]]. None of these assumptions are part of "science" as confined by [[methodological naturalism]]. Equally, none of the questions about the identity or character of life's designer are within the province of physical science.
*:However, just as archaeologists seeing ancient ruins will hypothesize a designer, biologists seeing a the "appearance of design" in the structure and function of a bacterium or a human cell may hypothesize that random causes are insufficient. This points to design. However, it would be an additional step (beyond physical science) to attempt any description about the designer.

:All of this really boils down to a question about the [[Philosophy of science]]. Should science study '''only''' physical causes? Adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] (and atheists) say yes. Let's stop debating here and get back to the discussion of the movie article - or at least start planning the improvement of articles related to the movie. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Hey, I want to add my two bob's worth!
:: I liked Ed's first recent post (14:28, 21 May), but disagree with his three points. Here's my version:
::# Scientists observe what ''appears to be'' design.
::# Atheistic scientists try and explain this ''apparent'' design as not actual design. ID proponent claim that it ''is'' actual design.
::# Quoting Ed, "If there is [actual] design, there must be a designer". If the design is ''actual'', not merely ''apparent'', then design ''necessarily'' requires a designer. Both sides agree on this, and it is not philosophy, but science, as in archaeology, forensic science, and the SETI program.
::# Quoting Ed again (but with my numbering), "The designer must be (i) advanced space aliens (like the Spaghetti Monster?), or else (ii) God". But ''this'' is the point where we say (quoting again), "(going beyond physical science into philosophy or religion)"
:: ID goes as far as point 3, but its critics accuse it of going to point 4 (ii). It does not do this.
:: As for writing an article about suppressing ID, we already have one ([[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]), although it has an approach perhaps a bit different to Ed's suggestion.
:: I partly disagree with PDinsdale's point that accepting a designer ''necessarily'' means that the designer must have a designer which must have a designer and so forth until the ultimate designer was supernatural. Actually, I agree with that argument, but not with the idea that this is only true if one accepts the first designer. If one is prepared to accept that evolution can produce life, then, in principle, one could accept that terrestrial life was designed by an alien, which itself evolved. Yes, it would be special pleading, but my point is that ID claims the apparent design ''in terrestrial life'' (the only life available to examine) to be actual design, and that design indicates a designer, but not that the designer, if an alien, was also designed. So the reason that ID is rejected is not because it ''necessarily'' requires a supernatural designer, but simply because it makes the case for a supernatural designer so much stronger. And thus the objection is philosophical/religious, not scientific.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I think Philip clarified the point Ed was trying to get across, so let me try to recap. ID's premise is that there is evidence of underlying design in our physical world, and while design requires a designer, it does not seek to research the nature of the designer(s). That much I had already gotten, and what I'm seeing now is that ID has a "hard stop" at that point, and does not seek to explain whether the designer(s) of what was being observed in nature were designed themselves. Did I get this right? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, that's correct (I believe), because there is no way of explaining whether or not the designer was designed itself without explaining something about that designer, which it doesn't do. To reinforce that point, ID is about a ''scientific'' investigation, and whilst it is perfectly reasonable to scientifically conclude (i.e. from the evidence) that there is design (and therefore a designer), it is not reasonable (scientifically) to say whether the designer was designed without having some evidence to investigate.
:::: Creationism, by contrast (and this is one reason ID and creationism are not the same thing), ''will'' identify the designer, although not from scientific evidence, but from literary evidence (the Bible).
:::: It's also important to distinguish the ''scientific argument'' of ID from the opinions of ID promoters and supports, many of whom would readily identify the designer as God, and therefore would be creationists. In this regard it's also instructive to realise that creationists have been using arguments from design before there was an ID movement as such.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks, that helps because it clarifies why ID proponents believe that its critics are attaching premises to ID and attacking them, when they're not really part of "core" ID. This still leaves me questioning whether ID can be considered a valid scientific theory, though. The reason is that it requires a constrained scope - it shows evidence for design, but stops at asking about the nature of the designer, the source of the components used in the design, and a set of rules or theories to define what may (organisms) or may not (basic elements and molecules) have been designed. It also doesn't have any predictive properties (i.e. there's no set of rules to say which of the following three things were designed or not - a human, a rock found in nature, a rock reshaped by a man, the sun). Other areas of science are open to investigation as to how they interact with each other (chemistry, physics, & astronomy for example), but I don't see this with ID (although I'm open to learning more about it). In the end, it just seems like ID takes a shortcut to a conclusion (this looks like it was designed) instead of letting science find other explanations over time that fit in better with the scientific method. We have many gaps in our understanding, and each discovery raises as many questions as it answers, but when you look at the progress of the last 200 years how can we not assume that our understanding of the universe and our origins will be many times greater than today in 2058, let alone 2208? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:23, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree that there is a requirement for a constrained scope, but I'm not so sure that it is ID opponents alone who advocate this requirement. I thought rather that it was adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] who insist that only physical causes should be considered.

By the way, not all scientists are willing to stay within their self-imposed bounds. I recently read Carl Sagan's definition of evolution, which specifically states that God had nothing to do with it. This is not the same as ignoring the supernatural (as in, "if miracles have taken place it's no business of ours") but rather denying that it has any power, desire (or even existence). This kind of denial is metaphysical or religious and therefore goes outside of the realm of physical science.

ID wants to be allowed to play by the same rules as Evolution. Either both sides can talk about the metaphysical implications of physical science, or neither side can. Getting back to the movie (which I frankly thought impossible at this point ;-) the producers are arguing that Big Science employs a double standard when it expels ID from the academy. Sagan is allowed to mention God, Dawkins is allowed to promote his brand of atheism, but anything that implies (or supports) Creationism is banned.

All of this is a big distraction from the issue which ID raises: i.e., that life shows signs of having been designed. Indeed, biologists speak of body plans and designs (at least as a kind of verbal convenience). The question at hand is whether random events, tempered by a purely physical principle ([[natural selection]]), can create new phyla and novel organs. ID is an argument that the last couple decades of research show that there are too many missing links and too much "information" for that.

ID wants biologists to concede that "life might have been designed" and to stop insisting that "it could only have evolved naturally". But the [[elephant in the room]] is the philosophical assumption nearly all evolution advocates make: that there is no God and no supernatural forces. So they '''begin''' with the assumption that there is no Designer; then they conclude (quite rationally) that the appearance of design is spurious. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:09, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

DinsdaleP, Ed Poor is correct in pointing out that naturalism imposes a constraint, and I would reject that ID does, in any sense that really matters. That is, naturalism imposes a constraint in rejecting a possible explanation from consideration, whereas ID's "constraint" is not to reject a possible explanation from consideration, but to limit the area of investigation. It's not really any different to saying that an archaeologist is going to limit his scope to archaeology and not get into astronomy.

When I wrote previously that ID couldn't determine whether the designer was designed, implying that ID can't tell anything about the designer, I did actually wonder whether I should mention that it ''is'' possible, in principle, to determine ''some'' things about the designer. For example, one could deduce that the designer is himself orderly, judging by the amount of order he has in his designs. One could also deduce (if there was evidence of this, I'm being hypothetical now) that the designer had a preference for green over red. So it is true that ID ''could'' draw ''some'' conclusions about the designer. But given the flak that they cop for supposedly identifying the designer as God when they don't, it is quite understandable that they'd want to stay totally away from drawing ''any'' conclusions about the designer.

It's not true that ID has no criteria to determine the existence of design. Although I don't understand the finer details of it, that's what "[[specified complexity]]" and [[information theory]] is all about.

Also, keep in mind that ID as a field of research is very young, and is struggling to be accepted ''at all'', let alone actually have research funds granted to it, so criticising it for not having a wider scope is rather unfair.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::Those are interesting insights - thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:29, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Use of full versus edited quotes==

I'm not looking to start an edit war, so I want to explain why I restored the full quote in the Negative Comments section. The quote was originally cut down and edited because it was considered to be "wrong", and I restored it because it was a quote and should have been left in its full, original context because the edits were so sever it was no longer representative of the original statement - if someone considers the statement to be wrong but it's captured accurately asa quote, then a counter-example should be presented instead of pulling the quote through excessive editing.

The quote was then re-edited down, based on the premise that quotes can be edited down and still be considered quotes. I restored it again, because when you compare the before-and-after, there's a significant difference between the versions. The cut-down "quote" removes the mention of the Kitzmiller trial and the ruling that the compulsory teaching of ID was unconstitutional. That's not a minor edit - it was removing a key fact (that was the ruling, whether one considers it right or wrong). That section of the quote is also key to the supposed motivation of people looking to get ID into schools - when a court says you can't do it one way, people sought to find other ways.

I'm not weighing in on the movie or the trial, only that if this is going to be a Trustworthy Encyclopedia, we need to present cited quotes as close to the original as possible when they support a point, and not edit them surgically so they represent something different because editors don't agree with the original content. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess I wasted my time on the comments above because the entire paragraph got removed. Considering that the entry was in a section called "Negative Reception", it was not going to be supportive of the film. Since it was a review, in other words ''an opinion'', it seems like an overreaction to pull it from the article on the basis of being inaccurate. Are all references to reviews or the quotes of people going to be removed from Conservapedia because the are "wrong" or "inaccurate" in accordance with the conservative viewpoint? What happened to not being afraid of giving dissenting views a fair presentation, and letting the strength of the conservative perspective speak for itself? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::I reverted the original quote because it would have required pointing out that the court case mentioned only had local jurisdiction, and was therefore misleading. In that form recording the quote, and the needed explanation to follow, would only stray from the article itself. We want to stay focused on the movie. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:17, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I see that I may have caused a problem here when I included the full quote. I am not sure, however, that I understand Learn together's objection to the full quote. Why must the court's jurisdiction be explained? --[[User:HHCrippen|HHCrippen]] 18:25, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Reviews quoted should be about the movie. If they put words into the narrator's mouth, then they are not about the movie ''per se'', but are volleys being lobbed at parties to the issue being examined. They would be relevant to an article about the production company, perhaps:
*angered by a hard-hitting documentary which exposed them, the establishment retaliated in the following ways ...

Other comments about merits of ID itself should go in the [[Intelligent design controversy]] article. Any reviews which ignore what the movie said but make tangential points about ID can go there.

Ironic, isn't it, that nearly every review which our liberal friends have inserted on this page fall into the same category that the movie speaks of. It's life imitating art, I guess. And it's only going to hurt the [[scientific materialism]]'s attempt to ride the Evolution issue. Truth will out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Charles Darwin Quote ==

The movie contains a "quote" from Charles Darwin, which is supposedly to have inspired Nazism. But, they did not state the whole quote in the movie. Here is what Ben Stein read:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

However, here is the whole quote (stuff in ''italics'' was ommitted in the previous statement), as is stated in Charles Darwin's '''The Decent Of Man''':

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; ''and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.'' We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; ''we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.'' Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. ''It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,'' hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

''The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.''

{{unsigned|Rocky}}

:While I personally would not have made the same choice to voice the quote the way the movie did, Darwin's writings do not necessarily cause one to agree with his conclusions after reading the points he makes. In other words he swings around almost 180 degrees from where it appears he is going, but others reading it may have taken his statements and applied their own logical conclusions that didn't include the need for human sentimentality. Even before World War II, the eugenics programs in both Nazi Germany and the United States to sterilize those considered to be unfit were alive and well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:37, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== IMDB rating ==
"Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings that detractors of the film give even if they haven't seen it, 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10."

What about ratings of 1 given by those who have seen it, or ratings higher than 1 that have been given by those who haven't seen it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:46, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Documentaries have a tendency to be well received as it is the audience that has an interest that shows up. Likewise if someone has a strong desire to see a film, then they do so. It's the negative end of the scale that gets the most 'phony play'. Unfortunately that is a part of life and we have to accept it, but we certainly don't have to report it. If you look at films generally on the IMDB website, you'll see that 1 ratings are generally reported less than 5% of the time, unless of course the movie is religious or not PC. I guess I could have just included 5% 1 ratings, but I didn't. For those of us on this site, we also have another advantage. Most of the sysops have seen the movie, and we were able to see the audience response first hand. We also know a number of people who have seen the movie and talked with them. The response is very positive, with a few disappointments, about in line with the 8.5 that is calculated. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:12, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
:: So if your personal observations are more important than the IDMB observations, why not just simply not remove the latter instead of cooking the numbers? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:23, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
::: We use the IMDB numbers. Personal observation of multiple people in multiple theaters across the country merely confirms it. Give yourself a little test. Go to the IMDB site and look up some bad movies that are rated low, but not the type that people would get riled about and purposely dog. See the distribution of values for 2 through 10? Does it look anything like Expelled? The distribution curve for Expelled removing the 1 values is for a movie that was well received; the 1 values are an attempt to purposely dog it. We prefer reality. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:13, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

::I would just like to say about the comment about PC films, not all of the time are PC films given 1's. For instance, the film "Triumph of the Wills", often considered to be the best propoganda film ever made (in fact, a lot of people consider Expelled to be propoganda) has only 5.1% of the people rating the film a 1 (although, and I know this will get brought up, 5.1 is bigger than 5, I know). This film is very un-PC because of it's glorification of the Nazi party.
::Also, what is funny (although I really should not put it in this section), is how much this reminds me of "Ferenheight 9/11". This is because, both films are done from one person's point of view, not showing both sides. Both films are, in their own way, propoganda films (although not as bad as "Triumph" was) because they both premote their own point of views and do not mention (at least from what I have heard), the other point of view in a positive light. Therefore, they promote only one point of view and try to get people to surrender to those points of views. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== About the viewer reception ==

I would like to raise some questions about the entry on the page about the Internet movie database in the viewer reception section.

I understand that it's a good idea to omit the reviews given without seeing the movie. I, being an online musician on a music rating site, happen to know that not all votes are submitted by peoplewho have witnessed the actual subject.

However, it says that removing the 1 ratings given without seeing the movie raises the score to 8.5.

It also says there were 1600 such reviews.

Did somebody actually check all of the reviews on that site and look for evidence that they didn't see the movie, or did the person who wrote that just assume that every single 1 rating given to the movie was because they didn't see it?

If it's the former, I salute that person. If it's the latter, we should probably remove it, since it's highly possible to greatly dislike ANY movie after seeing it.

We should get our facts straight about this.--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 15:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Quote mining

2008-06-07T19:21:04Z

JackSmith: Explained exactly what gets called a quote mine

'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a [[pejorative]] term, not recognized by dictionaries, which expresses objection to using someone's quotes against him. While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, [[evolutionist]] do not feel their quotes should be used against them and have invented the term '''quote mining''' to criticize that practice.

==How "Quote Mining" works==

A quote is generally called a "mined" quote when various parts of the quote have been removed or shortened, to convey the opposite point originally intended by the original person who said the quote.

As an example, take this fictional quote:

"I personally find homosexuality disgusting, and I understand why so many people object to it. However, I also believe that we have no right to prohibit such a practice simply because of our disgust, as it poses no real threat to the country,"

If this quote were presented as follows:

"I personally find homosexuality disgusting, and I understand why so many people object to it,"

It would likely be called a quote mine, because it omits the fictional speaker's intended point.

==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"

Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered, by the inventors of the term, to be quote mining.

The term seems to be used to suggest or claim that people have ''deliberately'' or ''negligently'' taken facts material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting out of context; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does.

The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who claim that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists.

==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
This section discusses merely whether quote mining is ''wrong'', not whether it ''exists'' or ''has been practiced'' by any individuals.

===Myth===
Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.

===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
While quoting relevant parts of judicial decisions is indeed widespread, and lawyers and politicians often quote one's own arguments against them to show a contradiction, "quote mining" as used is something else entirely. Quote mining implies selective quotation either that, either negligently or purposefully, omits relevant parts from an argument. For example, consider the following ''invented'' quotation from an imaginary legal case.

:''"In the State of Commonwealth, it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information." Smith v. Jones, 129 Commonwealth Reporter 332 (Commonwealth 2008).''

Now let us consider two quotations of the case.

A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''

An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''

This should demonstrate that an accusation of "quote mining" is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, a well-settled tactic indeed - the accusation is of ''appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

===Fact: The Law on an Attorney's Quote Mining===
Attorneys are under a well-settled duty not to misrepresent authority to a court of law. In essence, they may not "quote mine." By way of example, a Federal Circuit Court in 2003 disciplined an attorney for selectively quoting elements of a [[court]] [[Opinion (Law)|opinion]]. The attorney, faced with a charge of contempt of court for delaying filing a motion by ''twelve days'' when the court ordered her to do so "forthwith," explained that, by settled law,<ref>The attorney cited City of New York v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 278 F.2d 708, 710.</ref> "Forthwith means immediately, without delay, or as soon may be accomplished by reasonable exertion."<ref>''Id.''</ref> She neglected to cite the following sentence, which explained that "forthwith" generally means, "within twenty-four hours,"<ref>''Id.''</ref> apparently hoping that, without this qualification, the court would read "forthwith" as implying ''no time constraint other than necessity.''

The court which received the attorney's brief was not amused. In censuring the attorney, they wrote,
{{cquote|The effect of Walser's editing of this material and ignoring the Supreme Court decision that dealt with the issue - a decision that seriously weakened her argument - was to give the Court a misleading impression of the state of the law on the point. She eliminated material that indicated that her delay in filing the motion for reconsideration had not met the court's requirement that she file "forthwith," and presented the remaining material in a way that overstated the basis for her claim that a "forthwith" filing requirement meant she could take whatever time would be reasonable in the circumstances. This distortion of the law was inconsistent with and violated the standards of Rule 11.<ref>Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 315 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003).</ref>}}

Rule 11 forbids attorneys from arguing in a misleading manner. Clearly, this federal circuit thinks that "quote mining" is a reprehensible act contrary to intellectual and academic rigor. There is ''indeed'' something objectionable about the practice, and the term "quote mining" ought not "apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign."

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See also==
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
[[category:Law]]
[[category:Rhetoric]]
[[category:evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-06-07T19:10:25Z

JackSmith: /* Negative Reception */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> Largely leaving the theaters shortly thereafter, it finished with $7.6 million on a $3.5 million budget.

== Viewer Reception==
Because of the blackballing of the film, it is sometimes hard to tell what viewers thought. Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings that detractors of the film give even if they haven't seen it, 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box OFfice Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

It has also been (unfairly) poorly recieved by the general public, with a user rating of 3.8 out of 10 on the Internet Movie Database website, only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-06-07T19:10:01Z

JackSmith: /* Negative Reception */ Mentioned some other sites that poorly recieved Expelled.

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> Largely leaving the theaters shortly thereafter, it finished with $7.6 million on a $3.5 million budget.

== Viewer Reception==
Because of the blackballing of the film, it is sometimes hard to tell what viewers thought. Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings that detractors of the film give even if they haven't seen it, 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box OFfice Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

It has also been (unfairly) poorly recieved by the general public, with a user rating of 3.8 out of 10 On the Internet Movie Database website, only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website metacritic.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]