Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2008-11-18T20:46:10Z

Tolerance: /* NormanS's View */

==See Also==
* [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
* [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
==Arguments that Obama is a Muslim==
''The following list of claims was originally from the [[Barack Obama]] page, but additional claims may be added.''

(guidelines: a "CLAIM" argues ''for'' the premise, a "RESPONSE" argues against; use "COUNTER" to argue against a RESPONSE, i.e. favoring the premise.)

* '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE''': This is actually two claims:
*** '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Based on what evidence? There is a rumor that he was educated in a [[Madrassa]] in Indonesia, but this is patently false; Obama did attend a local public school (not a madrassa) in Jakarta between the ages of 6 and 8, where he received some Muslim education as is standard in the Indonesian public school system; after that he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. He did not appear to take his religious studies seriously in either school, according to his own accounts (and possibly witnesses).
*** '''CLAIM''': Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Possibly true, but this is only relevant if Obama was at some point a Muslim. He was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': Never was a Muslim, hmmmmmm. If his father was a Muslim, that would make Obama a Muslim at birth.
****** '''RESPONSE''': This depends on several things: (1) whose laws you recognize (Muslim? Christian? US?); (2) even if you choose to favor Islam's laws over the others, there is some vagueness which requires further research. (3) If he's claimed as a Muslim by the Muslims (or some group of them), would this prevent him from also being a Christian, as he clearly has shown far more interest and activity within that faith than within Islam?
**** '''RESPONSE''': his father was an ex-muslim atheist. We have no proof to counter that. Obama was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': no proof exists that Senoir was an Atheist.
****** '''RESPONSE''': His family says he was. They are more authoritative than anything except proof as to someone's personal beliefs.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Most Christians also wouldn't run for president of the United States; does this prove that Obama also didn't do that?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': What evidence do you have that most Christians would not retain the middle name they were given at birth just because it references a mythological figure from another religion?
** '''RESPONSE 3''': Even if most Christians would decide to change their birth name as you claim, how does this prove that Obama is not a Christian because he did not? "Most" is not "all". Are you implying that any Christian who would ''not'' do such a thing isn't a "real Christian"?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."
** '''RESPONSE''': The description for the YouTube video linked to as support for that claim says " It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around "my Muslim faith" since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith."
* '''CLAIM''': Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: "Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
** '''RESPONSE 1''': How does this prove he's a Muslim? Probably many professors of Islamic studies would also be able to do these things, but that doesn't make them all Muslims. What it makes them (and Obama) is educated (and possibly gifted in the area of language) -- both excellent qualities in a world leader.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': The only source for this allegation is apparently NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof (''NYT'', 2007-03-06, "[http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html Obama: Man of the World]"), who (as I understand it) is generally rather positive about Obama. Perhaps this is being taken out of context?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Many black people were influenced by Malcolm X. You'll have to show a high degree of correlation between "being influenced by Malcom X" and "converting to Islam while denying it publicly".
** '''RESPONSE 2''': "Nation of Islam" is not part of the Islamic religion but was founded in the US, presumably based loosely on Islamic ideals. Do you have any evidence that Obama is a NoI member? Wouldn't NoI be very interested in publicizing Obama's membership if he had joined, as a way of promoting themselves?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Where is the evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': While this might demonstrate that Obama was friendly to Islam, this does not prove that he is Muslim. The Eisenhower administration arranged a coup-d'etat in Iran in 1952, replacing the democratically-elected president with a monarchy. Does that make Eisenhower an anti-democratic royalist? Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein; does that make him a Muslim terrorist?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Has anyone bothered to ask his church (or his office) to see if they have a record of this?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': Many people do not keep track of these dates.
* '''CLAIM''': On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.
** '''RESPONSE''': So... everyone who reads that book is a Muslim?
* '''CLAIM''': Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': Ah-HA! So every time he denies he's a Muslim, that PROVES he really IS! ...Hey, maybe you're a Muslim too! Go on, prove me wrong.
* '''CLAIM''' Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
** '''RESPONSE''': Right, and I bet he uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." in his dates, and maybe even the Metric System. He also pronounces "divisive" with a short "i" in the second syllable. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
*** '''COUNTER''': If educated, you pronounce what you have learned. Where did he learn the Muslim use of Pokistan? Occidental teach this? University of Chicago teach this? Does Harvard teach this? Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''' fallacious argument. This still does not demonstrate any evidence for Muslimhood. For one thing, many non-muslims pronounce Pakistan this way (and probably many Muslims give it the more American pronunciation).
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': I don't know, but the obvious answer would be in the Indonesian public school he attended early in life. There are certainly many places a well-educated person might pick up an odd (or perhaps more correct) pronunciation.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': "Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims." - and yet you clearly are claiming to know the muslim way to pronounce it (otherwise you would not know whether or not his pronunciation is the correct muslim form) by your own logic therefore, YOU are a muslim.
* '''CLAIM''': Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."
** '''RESPONSE''': Christianity has a wide range of views on a lot of different subjects, and any one person's views are bound to be "un-Christian" by someone's lights. When I have time, I will review the linked videos and respond in more detail. ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8 Reason #1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #2], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #3])
* '''CLAIM''': Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"
** '''RESPONSE''': Perhaps he is simply not very enthusiastic about Christianity. Many people who aren't Muslims feel the same way.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': ...and therefore...? (This is basically the Malcolm X argument in a weaker form.)
*** '''COUNTER''' (I think): if Obama organized a rally for Hitler, then we can clearly say he was a Nazi supporter. But Obama organized a rally for Jew bigot Farrakhan, he can't possibly be a Muslim supporter. (yeah right)
**** '''RESPONSE''' That's not proof, and only circumstantial evidence, that he was NOI. And aside from the NOI is not Islam.
***** '''COUNTER''' The correlation is more than justified. What cause did Obama support? a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 1''': Read up on the million man march. It wasn't a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 2''': Since when does supporting "a Muslim cause" automatically make one a Muslim?
****** '''RESPONSE 3''': What do you mean by "a Muslim cause"? Muslims favor male dominance in marriage and firm suppression of homosexuality -- does that mean Conservapedia is Muslim, just because Conservapedia also supports these causes?

This is a rubbish way to pursue a debate. I can see why the original arguments were laid out like this, but adding more & more unsigned comments to the middle of this is just making a mess. Much better to put any new suggestions or criticisms below. Just offering my opinion. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:04, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I really like this way of doing it, although I think a shorthand signing with a key at the bottom would be better, if no one objects I'll look at the page history and do that tomorrow.

While I agree, do you think it will actually make a difference? They're not going to change the Obama article unless Obama gets denounced by every mosque from here to mecca, and even then they'd probably just call it [[deceit]]. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==NormanS's View==

I agree with the above, there is little to no evidence that Obama is a Muslim. In fact the whole myth seems to have been started by Andy Martin, a colourful "lawyer" (he was rejected from the bar) who is known for his racist rants against Jews and other groups and his frivolous lawsuits. As an Australian based McCain supporter and a pretty Conservative Christian I was upset when Obama won. However, the reason I oppose him is because of his policies, not because of some misguided claim about his religion. If you really were interested in making personal attacks against him you'd be better off accepting his claim that he's a Christian and then pointing out how hypocritical he is. That said, there is no integrity in attacking a person's character over their policies, regardless of their political ideology.

As one of the articles posted in the news section stated, the repeated claims that Obama was a Muslim made people vote for him, not against him. The article in its present state reads as a parody and does nothing to help the conservative cause. If this project is to have any credibility it must be rewritten to a balanced viewpoint which discusses his policies, rather than making ridiculous strawman arguments and personal attacks. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:A couple of things to add to the above. 1. Andy Martin started this rumour (in 2004), claiming he had "evidence" that Obama was a Muslim & had lied to the America people about his faith, though Martin did not make any of this alleged evidence available to the public or even make it clear what kind of evidence it was. 2. A week before the election, Andy Martin appeared on CNN, ''retracting'' his claim that Obama is a Muslim, and replacing it with an even crazier theory - that Obama is the long lost son of the journalist and left-wing activitist Frank Marshall Davis. Again he claimed to have uncoverded proof of this, but offered no evidence whatsoever. See this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrDlugBj4o film]. Since Martin now states that Obama is not a Muslim, this clearly proves him to have been lying about having any real evidence that Obama was.

:As Norman says, Andy Martin has a history of spurious and vicious lawsuits and paranoid racist statements, and this is the guy you are giving credence to if you believe the myth that Obama is a Muslim. This is who started it. Clearly this was intended as a tactic to stop people voting for Obama. It hasn't succeeded & it's too late now. We should just let it go & get on with our lives. Clinging to this silly racist rumour can only damage Conservapedia's credibility. And it is a racist rumour - if we were talking about a white politician, this rumour wouldn't exist at all.

:That said, I don't expect this to make any difference at all. This subject has been debated over & over, but Andrew Schlafly is determined to cling on to this story, even in opposition to most of the editors here & some of the prominent administrators. I hope he is willing to engage in this debate, but I really don't think he will. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 07:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The constitution says that there should be no religous test for office.... Just a thought.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
: I've totally avoided getting into the question of "why is it so terrible if Obama actually were Muslim?" because the article never actually says "...and therefore he shouldn't be President." Colin Powell did an excellent job of addressing that issue in his endorsement (which I won't link for fear of accidentally promoting evil liberal concepts like diversity and religious tolerance). --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 14:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::I must admit that I am confused about this point. Why should we care if he were a Muslim? Are all Muslims evil? Are all Muslims terrorists? Do all Muslims want to damage the USA? What point is being made here?--[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==What's the Point?==

I don't see what good it does to say that Obama is a muslim. Why can't we just take him at his word and let God judge his heart? Conservapedia's dwindling credibility is at stake; we will only look foolish if we make such unproven claims. I say we spend more time talking about how Obama is a baby-killer and a socialist-- both established facts (though the term "baby-killer" isn't widely used). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 14:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I second this suggestion, though probably for different reasons. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Retitle Request==
This page should be renamed "Why Obama is not a Muslim." Just for the sheer number of excuses given here. It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, disputed. That he took Muslim classes, disputed. That his stepfather was Muslim, disputed. Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, disputed. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, disputed. Friends with known Muslims, disputed. Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, disputed. Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, disputed. Get my drift? Just can't possibly be a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I think this argument was brought forth in an earlier discussion on this topic and was easily defeated. Think of all the "disputed" things as individual pieces of evidence in a bigger puzzle. Lets say you are a detective trying to solve a crime. You may find 10 different things in your investigation which point to a certain suspect. Each thing individually may be disputed, and no individual one may be the "smoking gun", but from the sheer amount of them one can deduce that the suspect is most likely the perpetrator. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 00:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:: So, the volume of accusations is proof they are true? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:05, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::: The volume is just a pattern. The only way we will know for sure is if Obama says, yes, all along my heart belongs to Muhammed. Even then, I am sure the left would discount it all as "ahh, he really didn't take it all seriously." --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::: So... you can't actually know, but you're just going to say you're right anyway because it works better for you politically? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:12, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Clever, but no. Likely Muslim- yes. I want him to succeed, believe me my family is counting on him. There are over 1 billion Muslims, being a Muslim isn't a bad thing. Secret Muslim is something much different, much. Did you ever here of prophesy? The anti-Christ comes impersonating Christ. I want to believe these are not the end times. One way we will know for sure is how Obama governs as leader.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Personally, I don't buy into hocuspocus future-sight jibberjabber. So yes, I've heard of prophecy, but no, I don't give it any heed. But I can see how you'd get "impersonating Christ" from someone accused of being a socialist. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:24, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::You be best to educate yourself on Revelation. It seems Barry is called many things, and such a short life so far, Commie Messiah.--Jpatt 00:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Every Pope, Peter the Great, and most U.S. Presidents have been called antichrist. It's a bit premature to suggest he'll be more powerful than all of those when he hasn't been sworn in yet; he could turn out to be another Buchanan. --Interiot 09:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Right, I don't believe in futuresight, therefore I should take its claims seriously. Aside from that, both sides insult the other frequently. How does that prove anything? You're slinging mud just to see if any sticks. HDCase 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim discussion is Obama's fault==
It's the Obama mandate not to answer questions. It is his fault these possibly rumor, possibly truth exists. He says that he is not a Muslim. Hello, not good enough. Specific questions to answers needed (which he fails to provide). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:: He shouldn't have to repeat his awnser. Once is enough. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 00:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::So specific questions to answers are not needed because...... he said he is Christian? It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, "No, I am Christian." That he took Muslim classes, "No, I am Christian." That his stepfather was Muslim, "No, I am Christian." Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, "No, I am Christian." Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, "No, I am Christian." Friends with known Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, "No, I am Christian." Get my drift? No need to ask him anything because we have the answer already.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Ignoring his answers doesn't mean he did not give them. Obama born a Muslim? No, he said pretty plainly that his father was an atheist, and besides, you don't get religion until you are old enough, Islamic law may say that he inherited the religion, but 'only if you follow Islamic law, which he does not, because he is not a Muslim. That he took Muslim classes?Yes, he did go to a public school in Indonesia, where he doubtlessly received a minor amount of Muslim instruction between the ages of 6 and 8, he then went on to a catholic school where he received doubtlessly received Catholic instruction from 8-10, I don't see people running around spouting how Obama is a Catholic even though the Catholic is more likely to have stuck since he got it when he was older and there for likely remembers more, in either case he left for his grand parents place after that and from that point on there is no connection until he becomes involved with the black liberation movement (which I'm sure he became involved in because of the Draw to Islam, because it had nothing else to offer him, its not as if he is a black man... oh right, he is black, silly me) Later in life he extensively reads about Muslims leaders We are involved in a nuber of conflicts and trade situations with a part of the world that is primarily Muslim, he would have to be an Idiot not to, you know who else reads extensively about Muslims? Bush 43. You know who reads extensively about Christians? Richard Dawkins, Does that make him a christian? No it does not. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam I'll admit I don't know anything about any march that he organized exclusively, I do know that he was involved in getting people organized for marches and the like, and that the Black issue that NOI dealt with was Obama's main issue at the tie, so it seems likely that that is the reason. Friends with known Muslims Heck yes he is, he is open and up front about this and there is no problem with that. People of different faiths can be friends so long as they aren't bigoted idiots, can you be friends with a Muslim? Would a Muslim be friends with you? Pastor of 20 years an outspoken defender of Muslims So was my Catholic Priest, that doesn't make him or me or my old priest a Muslim, there is nothing wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with a whole lot of other religions, there is no reason to attack it (exclusively) so there is a great deal of reason to stand up for it, even if you aren't a member your self. Helps in election of Muslims in Kenya Both Barrack Obama and the Kenyan Govt. have come out and said there is no truth to that story. The Story is based on a fax of unknown origin and unknown destination (i.e. someone could have made it and faxed it from one end of the office to the other) and cites the PAC Firends of Senator BO, but no such PAC exists. Obamas finances have been well looked at, and there is no missing million dollars, and there is no record of him dealing with this. Just like the birth in Kenya story the only evidence to support it is that there is no evidence around it because it's not even remotely plausible. You are clutching at straws, but Obama actually answered the questions, hes not a Muslim, and there is nothing he can do about that (well he could convert) the problem you have isn't that he hasn't been forthcoming, its that you are wrong and unhappy about it. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::Thanks for the insight. It is still 100% Obama's fault this controversey exists. It is like pulling teeth without meds. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2008-11-18T16:58:32Z

Tolerance: see also

==See Also==
* [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
* [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
==Arguments that Obama is a Muslim==
''The following list of claims was originally from the [[Barack Obama]] page, but additional claims may be added.''

(guidelines: a "CLAIM" argues ''for'' the premise, a "RESPONSE" argues against; use "COUNTER" to argue against a RESPONSE, i.e. favoring the premise.)

* '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE''': This is actually two claims:
*** '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Based on what evidence? There is a rumor that he was educated in a [[Madrassa]] in Indonesia, but this is patently false; Obama did attend a local public school (not a madrassa) in Jakarta between the ages of 6 and 8, where he received some Muslim education as is standard in the Indonesian public school system; after that he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. He did not appear to take his religious studies seriously in either school, according to his own accounts (and possibly witnesses).
*** '''CLAIM''': Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Possibly true, but this is only relevant if Obama was at some point a Muslim. He was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': Never was a Muslim, hmmmmmm. If his father was a Muslim, that would make Obama a Muslim at birth.
****** '''RESPONSE''': This depends on several things: (1) whose laws you recognize (Muslim? Christian? US?); (2) even if you choose to favor Islam's laws over the others, there is some vagueness which requires further research. (3) If he's claimed as a Muslim by the Muslims (or some group of them), would this prevent him from also being a Christian, as he clearly has shown far more interest and activity within that faith than within Islam?
**** '''RESPONSE''': his father was an ex-muslim atheist. We have no proof to counter that. Obama was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': no proof exists that Senoir was an Atheist.
****** '''RESPONSE''': His family says he was. They are more authoritative than anything except proof as to someone's personal beliefs.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Most Christians also wouldn't run for president of the United States; does this prove that Obama also didn't do that?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': What evidence do you have that most Christians would not retain the middle name they were given at birth just because it references a mythological figure from another religion?
** '''RESPONSE 3''': Even if most Christians would decide to change their birth name as you claim, how does this prove that Obama is not a Christian because he did not? "Most" is not "all". Are you implying that any Christian who would ''not'' do such a thing isn't a "real Christian"?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."
** '''RESPONSE''': The description for the YouTube video linked to as support for that claim says " It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around "my Muslim faith" since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith."
* '''CLAIM''': Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: "Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
** '''RESPONSE 1''': How does this prove he's a Muslim? Probably many professors of Islamic studies would also be able to do these things, but that doesn't make them all Muslims. What it makes them (and Obama) is educated (and possibly gifted in the area of language) -- both excellent qualities in a world leader.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': The only source for this allegation is apparently NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof (''NYT'', 2007-03-06, "[http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html Obama: Man of the World]"), who (as I understand it) is generally rather positive about Obama. Perhaps this is being taken out of context?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Many black people were influenced by Malcolm X. You'll have to show a high degree of correlation between "being influenced by Malcom X" and "converting to Islam while denying it publicly".
** '''RESPONSE 2''': "Nation of Islam" is not part of the Islamic religion but was founded in the US, presumably based loosely on Islamic ideals. Do you have any evidence that Obama is a NoI member? Wouldn't NoI be very interested in publicizing Obama's membership if he had joined, as a way of promoting themselves?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Where is the evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': While this might demonstrate that Obama was friendly to Islam, this does not prove that he is Muslim. The Eisenhower administration arranged a coup-d'etat in Iran in 1952, replacing the democratically-elected president with a monarchy. Does that make Eisenhower an anti-democratic royalist? Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein; does that make him a Muslim terrorist?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Has anyone bothered to ask his church (or his office) to see if they have a record of this?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': Many people do not keep track of these dates.
* '''CLAIM''': On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.
** '''RESPONSE''': So... everyone who reads that book is a Muslim?
* '''CLAIM''': Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': Ah-HA! So every time he denies he's a Muslim, that PROVES he really IS! ...Hey, maybe you're a Muslim too! Go on, prove me wrong.
* '''CLAIM''' Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
** '''RESPONSE''': Right, and I bet he uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." in his dates, and maybe even the Metric System. He also pronounces "divisive" with a short "i" in the second syllable. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
*** '''COUNTER''': If educated, you pronounce what you have learned. Where did he learn the Muslim use of Pokistan? Occidental teach this? University of Chicago teach this? Does Harvard teach this? Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''' fallacious argument. This still does not demonstrate any evidence for Muslimhood. For one thing, many non-muslims pronounce Pakistan this way (and probably many Muslims give it the more American pronunciation).
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': I don't know, but the obvious answer would be in the Indonesian public school he attended early in life. There are certainly many places a well-educated person might pick up an odd (or perhaps more correct) pronunciation.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': "Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims." - and yet you clearly are claiming to know the muslim way to pronounce it (otherwise you would not know whether or not his pronunciation is the correct muslim form) by your own logic therefore, YOU are a muslim.
* '''CLAIM''': Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."
** '''RESPONSE''': Christianity has a wide range of views on a lot of different subjects, and any one person's views are bound to be "un-Christian" by someone's lights. When I have time, I will review the linked videos and respond in more detail. ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8 Reason #1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #2], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #3])
* '''CLAIM''': Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"
** '''RESPONSE''': Perhaps he is simply not very enthusiastic about Christianity. Many people who aren't Muslims feel the same way.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': ...and therefore...? (This is basically the Malcolm X argument in a weaker form.)
*** '''COUNTER''' (I think): if Obama organized a rally for Hitler, then we can clearly say he was a Nazi supporter. But Obama organized a rally for Jew bigot Farrakhan, he can't possibly be a Muslim supporter. (yeah right)
**** '''RESPONSE''' That's not proof, and only circumstantial evidence, that he was NOI. And aside from the NOI is not Islam.
***** '''COUNTER''' The correlation is more than justified. What cause did Obama support? a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 1''': Read up on the million man march. It wasn't a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 2''': Since when does supporting "a Muslim cause" automatically make one a Muslim?
****** '''RESPONSE 3''': What do you mean by "a Muslim cause"? Muslims favor male dominance in marriage and firm suppression of homosexuality -- does that mean Conservapedia is Muslim, just because Conservapedia also supports these causes?

This is a rubbish way to pursue a debate. I can see why the original arguments were laid out like this, but adding more & more unsigned comments to the middle of this is just making a mess. Much better to put any new suggestions or criticisms below. Just offering my opinion. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:04, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I really like this way of doing it, although I think a shorthand signing with a key at the bottom would be better, if no one objects I'll look at the page history and do that tomorrow.

While I agree, do you think it will actually make a difference? They're not going to change the Obama article unless Obama gets denounced by every mosque from here to mecca, and even then they'd probably just call it [[deceit]]. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==NormanS's View==

I agree with the above, there is little to no evidence that Obama is a Muslim. In fact the whole myth seems to have been started by Andy Martin, a colourful "lawyer" (he was rejected from the bar) who is known for his racist rants against Jews and other groups and his frivolous lawsuits. As an Australian based McCain supporter and a pretty Conservative Christian I was upset when Obama won. However, the reason I oppose him is because of his policies, not because of some misguided claim about his religion. If you really were interested in making personal attacks against him you'd be better off accepting his claim that he's a Christian and then pointing out how hypocritical he is. That said, there is no integrity in attacking a person's character over their policies, regardless of their political ideology.

As one of the articles posted in the news section stated, the repeated claims that Obama was a Muslim made people vote for him, not against him. The article in its present state reads as a parody and does nothing to help the conservative cause. If this project is to have any credibility it must be rewritten to a balanced viewpoint which discusses his policies, rather than making ridiculous strawman arguments and personal attacks. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:A couple of things to add to the above. 1. Andy Martin started this rumour (in 2004), claiming he had "evidence" that Obama was a Muslim & had lied to the America people about his faith, though Martin did not make any of this alleged evidence available to the public or even make it clear what kind of evidence it was. 2. A week before the election, Andy Martin appeared on CNN, ''retracting'' his claim that Obama is a Muslim, and replacing it with an even crazier theory - that Obama is the long lost son of the journalist and left-wing activitist Frank Marshall Davis. Again he claimed to have uncoverded proof of this, but offered no evidence whatsoever. See this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrDlugBj4o film]. Since Martin now states that Obama is not a Muslim, this clearly proves him to have been lying about having any real evidence that Obama was.

:As Norman says, Andy Martin has a history of spurious and vicious lawsuits and paranoid racist statements, and this is the guy you are giving credence to if you believe the myth that Obama is a Muslim. This is who started it. Clearly this was intended as a tactic to stop people voting for Obama. It hasn't succeeded & it's too late now. We should just let it go & get on with our lives. Clinging to this silly racist rumour can only damage Conservapedia's credibility. And it is a racist rumour - if we were talking about a white politician, this rumour wouldn't exist at all.

:That said, I don't expect this to make any difference at all. This subject has been debated over & over, but Andrew Schlafly is determined to cling on to this story, even in opposition to most of the editors here & some of the prominent administrators. I hope he is willing to engage in this debate, but I really don't think he will. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 07:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The constitution says that there should be no religous test for office.... Just a thought.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
: I've totally avoided getting into the question of "why is it so terrible if Obama actually were Muslim?" because the article never actually says "...and therefore he shouldn't be President." Colin Powell did an excellent job of addressing that issue in his endorsement (which I won't link for fear of accidentally promoting evil liberal concepts like diversity and religious tolerance). --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 14:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==What's the Point?==

I don't see what good it does to say that Obama is a muslim. Why can't we just take him at his word and let God judge his heart? Conservapedia's dwindling credibility is at stake; we will only look foolish if we make such unproven claims. I say we spend more time talking about how Obama is a baby-killer and a socialist-- both established facts (though the term "baby-killer" isn't widely used). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 14:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I second this suggestion, though probably for different reasons. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Retitle Request==
This page should be renamed "Why Obama is not a Muslim." Just for the sheer number of excuses given here. It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, disputed. That he took Muslim classes, disputed. That his stepfather was Muslim, disputed. Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, disputed. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, disputed. Friends with known Muslims, disputed. Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, disputed. Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, disputed. Get my drift? Just can't possibly be a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I think this argument was brought forth in an earlier discussion on this topic and was easily defeated. Think of all the "disputed" things as individual pieces of evidence in a bigger puzzle. Lets say you are a detective trying to solve a crime. You may find 10 different things in your investigation which point to a certain suspect. Each thing individually may be disputed, and no individual one may be the "smoking gun", but from the sheer amount of them one can deduce that the suspect is most likely the perpetrator. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 00:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:: So, the volume of accusations is proof they are true? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:05, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::: The volume is just a pattern. The only way we will know for sure is if Obama says, yes, all along my heart belongs to Muhammed. Even then, I am sure the left would discount it all as "ahh, he really didn't take it all seriously." --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::: So... you can't actually know, but you're just going to say you're right anyway because it works better for you politically? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:12, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Clever, but no. Likely Muslim- yes. I want him to succeed, believe me my family is counting on him. There are over 1 billion Muslims, being a Muslim isn't a bad thing. Secret Muslim is something much different, much. Did you ever here of prophesy? The anti-Christ comes impersonating Christ. I want to believe these are not the end times. One way we will know for sure is how Obama governs as leader.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Personally, I don't buy into hocuspocus future-sight jibberjabber. So yes, I've heard of prophecy, but no, I don't give it any heed. But I can see how you'd get "impersonating Christ" from someone accused of being a socialist. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:24, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::You be best to educate yourself on Revelation. It seems Barry is called many things, and such a short life so far, Commie Messiah.--Jpatt 00:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Every Pope, Peter the Great, and most U.S. Presidents have been called antichrist. It's a bit premature to suggest he'll be more powerful than all of those when he hasn't been sworn in yet; he could turn out to be another Buchanan. --Interiot 09:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Right, I don't believe in futuresight, therefore I should take its claims seriously. Aside from that, both sides insult the other frequently. How does that prove anything? You're slinging mud just to see if any sticks. HDCase 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim discussion is Obama's fault==
It's the Obama mandate not to answer questions. It is his fault these possibly rumor, possibly truth exists. He says that he is not a Muslim. Hello, not good enough. Specific questions to answers needed (which he fails to provide). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:: He shouldn't have to repeat his awnser. Once is enough. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 00:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::So specific questions to answers are not needed because...... he said he is Christian? It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, "No, I am Christian." That he took Muslim classes, "No, I am Christian." That his stepfather was Muslim, "No, I am Christian." Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, "No, I am Christian." Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, "No, I am Christian." Friends with known Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, "No, I am Christian." Get my drift? No need to ask him anything because we have the answer already.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Debate:Obama's preacher.

2008-11-16T20:44:26Z

Tolerance:

{{debate}}

The front page mentions Barack Obama's support of the Reverend Wright even though he said "God damn America for killing innocent people." Does this mean that whoever edits the front page thinks that it is okay for America to kill innocent people. I think god would probably agree with the reverend. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:32, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The vast majority of Americans have never killed a person. I don't know what you're talking about. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:12, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Imagine if they conducted job interviews like they did elections: "You seem the right man for the job, but something your minister said two years ago troubles me. Let me quote it out of content..." (Stolen from the 'Non Sequitor' comic). [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 20:31, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
:As the [[Barack Obama]] article states that Mr Obama is not a Christian, is the question relevant?--[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-05T18:17:44Z

Tolerance: /* Freedom of Information act */ no answer?

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.

Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either:
1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or
2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will:
1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia.
2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await:
1) Your hypothesis
2) The data that would test it
3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards
Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

: Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify [[Talk:Main_Page#Lenski.27s_data | nature of the data requested and who would examine it]], and explain if you accept the [[Talk:Main_Page#Legal_means_to_get_Lenski.27s_data_2 | data are represented by the organisms]] (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: [http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html No Latitude]. He cites and links to the following data:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

: The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' Well, yes. The experiment has been running for two decades, has it not? Of course most of the related data is going to be years old.--[[User:Jimbb2004|Jimbb2004]] 22:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

: The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that [[Lenski]] will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 {{unsigned|MarieB}}

::: To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [http://www.pnas.org/feedback]--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.

::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:

::::"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."

::::So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: The statement says "once something is published it should be freely shared '''by everyone'''." Do you really think a clarification is necessary about what "by everyone" means?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Your the lawyer, everything needs to be clear. It says "by everyone" not "for everyone". Considering the preceding sentences it clearly means that everyone should have to share with some people or groups, not every person or group. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 20:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Andy in his letter Lenski did make it clear how his data would share '''by everyone'''. So long as '''everyone''' has a freezer capable of -80 degree temperatures, a contract of disposal of medical watse, the labratory to study the bacteria and are willing to sign the nessary paper work, then you can have it. This is because he is not going to go around handing out bacteria to people because it is not safe.

:::::: All the papers listed above have the data you need. You seem to forget this was not one publication but many going back several years. The data for the early parts of the experiment are in the earlier papers, you just need to read them. The big problem of this saga is you don't know what data you actually want. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]]. We do not permit the repetition of falsehoods here, and unless you can fill in those boxes then you will not be allowed to continue to state here that these identified data have been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Recall that I filled in one of those 'boxes' previously. It was removed with the description: "removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones". Here was that entry:

::::::::Under ''"'''Study Omissions'''" ''
::::::::''Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium...''

::::::::''DATA ON SPECIFIC CONCENTRATIONS USED?''
::::::::''A Lenski defender says: From the first page of the paper in question (Blount, Z. D., C. Z. Borland, and R. E. Lenski. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 105:7899-7906):''

::::::::''"To address the repeatability of evolutionary trajectories and outcomes, the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) with Escherichia coli was started in 1988 with the founding of 12 populations from the same clone (2). These populations were initially identical except for a neutral marker that distinguished six lines from six others. They have since been propagated by daily 1:100 serial transfer in DM25, a minimal medium containing 25 mg/liter glucose as the limiting resource (2, 22)."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)''

::::::::''WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?''
::::::::''A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment.''
::::::::--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== What missing data? ==

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I havent really been following this so much so am unsure what data is missing (I'll look around this site though and find out) however I am interested in the outcome. Not being a US citizen I have little legal recourse as I am sure is wasn't my tax dollars footing the bill!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, I saw that but how much of that missing data is provided in the five links posted above? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You can let us know, DenningMR. Citing a pile of meaningless links on the internet is the oldest trick in the book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: That rather indicates to me that you are not even sure whether there is any data missing at all. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 22:08, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the link, and yes, I see what you mean about this data. I will leave it to the legal/science team however as its outside my realm of knowledge. I am interested though.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Just comment/ask the Editor, or the corresponding affilliation. ==

1) First look at cited publications. Publishing data does not necessarily mean that he sends you the datafiles.

2) If you doubt a scientific publications content on a scientific basis, just write a comment in an appropriate form (title, abstract, length depending on the journal). Send it to the address of the editor of the original article. He will screen it for form, content, and style (if you dont write it in a more calm mood that you write your rants here, it will not be accepted). A comment is a standard way of forcing somebody to reply, because the editor will ask the authors to respond and both, comment and reponse are published together. Be specific (you arent). A request like: "In Fig.x the error bars are missing and we believe these are necessary" has much more chances of beeing followd than "which data? where how certain?". Make in the following paragraph explicitly clear what you problem is. e.g.: The region (x) inf Fig.(y) is not displayed in a resolution high enough to exclude (z). Make it clear that you are not the only one who believes that this is necessary by citing other works, where the author do capture a certain point in higher resolution. Don ask for unreasonable things (which would essentially require screening a colletion of 10000 Photos taken over twenty years....).

3) If you suspect scientific misbehaviour (like: falsifying data, faking results etc), report it to the responsible person in the research organization the other person works for. For such things you can loose your job and your phd title. Refrain from blaming the referees for not hunting scientific misbehaviour. The function of a referee is NOT to search for scientific misbehaviuor, but to check the conciseness, consitency and completeness of the things presented in the paper. (if somebody really fakes data it will be impossible withpout spending a long time in the lab, some people really fake data in a very tricky way)

If you suspect both, do both. Howver if you have nothing more than your scientifically worthless comments about articles, which are, as far as i read and understood them, written to the highest scientific standards (i have seldom read a more clear and concise paper than Lenskis one), spare your readers from your whining. Sadly the highly statistically nature of the experiment makes it in principle difficult to reproduce (which in the past hast tempted more scientists into faking data, look for "Schön Affair"). But the befault in scientific publications is to believe that the author did at least not fake data, so i trust the authors in this point fully because all of them seem to have a clean scientific record.

Legal Note: Lenski does not own all that data. His university owns the material. The way it works is, you file an MTA with the university for whatever it is you want, and you are generally expected to bear the standard costs of providing it to you. This is accepted practice in science. If you want the data, do this, and then if they turn you down you could perhaps sue Michigan State for some kind of discrimination. To go outside these procedures is to request special treatment.

: I didn't get much out of your comment, as you seem to ignore or misunderstand the value of public scrutiny of data. There is no requirement of suspecting misbehavior or fraud, obviously, in order to acknowledge that public access to publicly funded research has substantial benefits. All it takes is a recognition that no researcher is perfect and flawless.

: Your point about the university is interesting, but unsupported. It may be that the State of Michigan or Michigan State University has a requirement of disclosure. Information about that is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

==Freedom of Information act==
The challenge on the front page refers to Lenski’s [[Federally funded research]]. Conservapedia’s article about about Federally funded research [[Federally_funded_research#Circular_A-110 | says:]]

*“As part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277), Congress included a provision introduced by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) that for the first time allows the public to obtain federally funded research data collected through grants and agreements with universities and other nonprofit organizations.”

If this work was federally funded, and if the legislation says what Conservapedia says it says, then a competent lawyer should have no problem in formatting the questions into a FOI request. Have I won the challenge?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 09:39, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, that doesn't work because unfortunately the Shelby Amendment has been construed not to enforce FOIA in the manner you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::Shame. But what, in that case, is the point about the work being "Federally Funded"? If you are saying that FOIA does not (for some reason) cover the work then why mention that its Federally Funded and then say that FOIA doesn't cover it? I dont understand. Is it a way of saying the law should be expanded? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 10:35, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I see you have not yet answered on this. Probably because I did not make my question clear. (It may be be because my medicines.) My question is: Why would you make a challenge: - ""Who will be first to figure out a legal means for obtaining public disclosure of Lenski's underlying federally funded data?"" - If you already know that the freedom of information act gives no authority or means to ask for this federally funded data. It seems a strange thing to do.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 14:17, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== Quick quiz: What form would the data for the Ara marker take? How is it tested? ==

One bit of data that is said to be missing is how the markers for the strains were tested. I have starter question for those who would like to see the data (and those people only, not those who've already demonstrated an understanding of microbiology): How is the Ara marker tested and what data would one write in one's notebook if one performed such tests? Would one describe a number, a sequence of bases, colors, taste, smell, optical density or isoelectric point? What instruments would be used to measure the results? How was it performed in Lenksi's lab?

What about T5 sensitivity testing?

And what things could go wrong in an experiment to test the Ara marker? What controls would you run to test for errors?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== Plans for the data? ==

Let's assume Lenski hands over everything outlined tomorrow. Mr. Schafly, what are your plans for analyzing the data? Who has the freezers and other equipment? If you don't have anyone with that equipment, how do you plan to analyze it? If you expect Lenski to hand over live bacteria, you need to show proof that you're able to contain it properly. As others have stated, you're the lawyer; if you get the documents and bacteria samples, but you don't have the storage capability, do '''you''' plan to be liable if these ''E. coli'' bacteria infect someone and cause them harm because of this "challenge"'s unpreparedness? - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 10:48, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: "LafinJack", please try to understand and acknowledge the benefits of public scrutiny, and also recognize the apparent existence of "data" as referenced in the article (not merely bacteria).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-05T14:35:14Z

Tolerance: /* Freedom of Information act */

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.

Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either:
1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or
2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will:
1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia.
2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await:
1) Your hypothesis
2) The data that would test it
3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards
Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

: Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify [[Talk:Main_Page#Lenski.27s_data | nature of the data requested and who would examine it]], and explain if you accept the [[Talk:Main_Page#Legal_means_to_get_Lenski.27s_data_2 | data are represented by the organisms]] (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: [http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html No Latitude]. He cites and links to the following data:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

: The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' Well, yes. The experiment has been running for two decades, has it not? Of course most of the related data is going to be years old.--[[User:Jimbb2004|Jimbb2004]] 22:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

: The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that [[Lenski]] will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 {{unsigned|MarieB}}

::: To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [http://www.pnas.org/feedback]--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.

::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:

::::"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."

::::So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: The statement says "once something is published it should be freely shared '''by everyone'''." Do you really think a clarification is necessary about what "by everyone" means?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Your the lawyer, everything needs to be clear. It says "by everyone" not "for everyone". Considering the preceding sentences it clearly means that everyone should have to share with some people or groups, not every person or group. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 20:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Andy in his letter Lenski did make it clear how his data would share '''by everyone'''. So long as '''everyone''' has a freezer capable of -80 degree temperatures, a contract of disposal of medical watse, the labratory to study the bacteria and are willing to sign the nessary paper work, then you can have it. This is because he is not going to go around handing out bacteria to people because it is not safe.

:::::: All the papers listed above have the data you need. You seem to forget this was not one publication but many going back several years. The data for the early parts of the experiment are in the earlier papers, you just need to read them. The big problem of this saga is you don't know what data you actually want. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]]. We do not permit the repetition of falsehoods here, and unless you can fill in those boxes then you will not be allowed to continue to state here that these identified data have been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Recall that I filled in one of those 'boxes' previously. It was removed with the description: "removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones". Here was that entry:

::::::::Under ''"'''Study Omissions'''" ''
::::::::''Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium...''

::::::::''DATA ON SPECIFIC CONCENTRATIONS USED?''
::::::::''A Lenski defender says: From the first page of the paper in question (Blount, Z. D., C. Z. Borland, and R. E. Lenski. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 105:7899-7906):''

::::::::''"To address the repeatability of evolutionary trajectories and outcomes, the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) with Escherichia coli was started in 1988 with the founding of 12 populations from the same clone (2). These populations were initially identical except for a neutral marker that distinguished six lines from six others. They have since been propagated by daily 1:100 serial transfer in DM25, a minimal medium containing 25 mg/liter glucose as the limiting resource (2, 22)."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)''

::::::::''WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?''
::::::::''A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment.''
::::::::--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== What missing data? ==

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I havent really been following this so much so am unsure what data is missing (I'll look around this site though and find out) however I am interested in the outcome. Not being a US citizen I have little legal recourse as I am sure is wasn't my tax dollars footing the bill!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, I saw that but how much of that missing data is provided in the five links posted above? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You can let us know, DenningMR. Citing a pile of meaningless links on the internet is the oldest trick in the book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: That rather indicates to me that you are not even sure whether there is any data missing at all. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 22:08, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the link, and yes, I see what you mean about this data. I will leave it to the legal/science team however as its outside my realm of knowledge. I am interested though.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Just comment/ask the Editor, or the corresponding affilliation. ==

1) First look at cited publications. Publishing data does not necessarily mean that he sends you the datafiles.

2) If you doubt a scientific publications content on a scientific basis, just write a comment in an appropriate form (title, abstract, length depending on the journal). Send it to the address of the editor of the original article. He will screen it for form, content, and style (if you dont write it in a more calm mood that you write your rants here, it will not be accepted). A comment is a standard way of forcing somebody to reply, because the editor will ask the authors to respond and both, comment and reponse are published together. Be specific (you arent). A request like: "In Fig.x the error bars are missing and we believe these are necessary" has much more chances of beeing followd than "which data? where how certain?". Make in the following paragraph explicitly clear what you problem is. e.g.: The region (x) inf Fig.(y) is not displayed in a resolution high enough to exclude (z). Make it clear that you are not the only one who believes that this is necessary by citing other works, where the author do capture a certain point in higher resolution. Don ask for unreasonable things (which would essentially require screening a colletion of 10000 Photos taken over twenty years....).

3) If you suspect scientific misbehaviour (like: falsifying data, faking results etc), report it to the responsible person in the research organization the other person works for. For such things you can loose your job and your phd title. Refrain from blaming the referees for not hunting scientific misbehaviour. The function of a referee is NOT to search for scientific misbehaviuor, but to check the conciseness, consitency and completeness of the things presented in the paper. (if somebody really fakes data it will be impossible withpout spending a long time in the lab, some people really fake data in a very tricky way)

If you suspect both, do both. Howver if you have nothing more than your scientifically worthless comments about articles, which are, as far as i read and understood them, written to the highest scientific standards (i have seldom read a more clear and concise paper than Lenskis one), spare your readers from your whining. Sadly the highly statistically nature of the experiment makes it in principle difficult to reproduce (which in the past hast tempted more scientists into faking data, look for "Schön Affair"). But the befault in scientific publications is to believe that the author did at least not fake data, so i trust the authors in this point fully because all of them seem to have a clean scientific record.

Legal Note: Lenski does not own all that data. His university owns the material. The way it works is, you file an MTA with the university for whatever it is you want, and you are generally expected to bear the standard costs of providing it to you. This is accepted practice in science. If you want the data, do this, and then if they turn you down you could perhaps sue Michigan State for some kind of discrimination. To go outside these procedures is to request special treatment.

: I didn't get much out of your comment, as you seem to ignore or misunderstand the value of public scrutiny of data. There is no requirement of suspecting misbehavior or fraud, obviously, in order to acknowledge that public access to publicly funded research has substantial benefits. All it takes is a recognition that no researcher is perfect and flawless.

: Your point about the university is interesting, but unsupported. It may be that the State of Michigan or Michigan State University has a requirement of disclosure. Information about that is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

==Freedom of Information act==
The challenge on the front page refers to Lenski’s [[Federally funded research]]. Conservapedia’s article about about Federally funded research [[Federally_funded_research#Circular_A-110 | says:]]

*“As part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277), Congress included a provision introduced by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) that for the first time allows the public to obtain federally funded research data collected through grants and agreements with universities and other nonprofit organizations.”

If this work was federally funded, and if the legislation says what Conservapedia says it says, then a competent lawyer should have no problem in formatting the questions into a FOI request. Have I won the challenge?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 09:39, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, that doesn't work because unfortunately the Shelby Amendment has been construed not to enforce FOIA in the manner you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::Shame. But what, in that case, is the point about the work being "Federally Funded"? If you are saying that FOIA does not (for some reason) cover the work then why mention that its Federally Funded and then say that FOIA doesn't cover it? I dont understand. Is it a way of saying the law should be expanded? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 10:35, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== Quick quiz: What form would the data for the Ara marker take? How is it tested? ==

One bit of data that is said to be missing is how the markers for the strains were tested. I have starter question for those who would like to see the data (and those people only, not those who've already demonstrated an understanding of microbiology): How is the Ara marker tested and what data would one write in one's notebook if one performed such tests? Would one describe a number, a sequence of bases, colors, taste, smell, optical density or isoelectric point? What instruments would be used to measure the results? How was it performed in Lenksi's lab?

What about T5 sensitivity testing?

And what things could go wrong in an experiment to test the Ara marker? What controls would you run to test for errors?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia challenge

2008-07-05T13:39:46Z

Tolerance: Freedom of Information act

A challenge! Very well, Sir, I accept!

I am not a rich man and would be unable to handle all the data accumulated over twenty years. Neither do I think it acceptable to enjoin a publically funded organization to spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data without a defined public benefit.

Let us, then, agree a hypothesis that can be tested by ' 'some' ', of Prof. Lenski's unpublished data. I will then procure from said Professor either:
1) That very data, which I will then deliver to you, or
2) An admission from the Professor that he does not have that data

If I succeed you will:
1) procure me one pint of Fuller's "London Pride" at the Nicholson's pub in the Strand, London, and display a picture of me drinking it on the front page of Conservapedia.
2) Publish a statement on the front page of Conservapedia stating that you accept Professor Lenski's honesty and professionalism.

I await:
1) Your hypothesis
2) The data that would test it
3) Your "prize" should I fail

Regards
Tony Lloyd (User:TonyLloyd

: Your "offer" is fascinating but also self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply that there are voluminous data ("spend the large sums required to send such a large amount of data"), but on the other hand you suggest that Lenski may not have any such data! You also seem to misunderstand or ignore the purpose and benefits of public scrutiny, as the data are not merely for me ("your hypothesis" and "data that would test it") but for all the public who paid for the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
::As I have asked elsewhere Mr Schlafly I really do think you need to clarify [[Talk:Main_Page#Lenski.27s_data | nature of the data requested and who would examine it]], and explain if you accept the [[Talk:Main_Page#Legal_means_to_get_Lenski.27s_data_2 | data are represented by the organisms]] (and if you think the data are not represented by the organisms explain why not.)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

At least one blogger has already claimed to have won the challenge: [http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html No Latitude]. He cites and links to the following data:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9107.full.pdf+html
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%20Breeding%20Reviews,%20Lenski.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20PNAS,%20Cooper%20et%20al.pdf

Of these, the last is particularly data-rich.

: The missing data are very specific. The above citation list is a common tactic of distraction: try to obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info. Most of the dates on those cites are years ago, predating when key data could have even occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' But not ALL of them, right? What about those citations which do not predate what you are looking for? Also, the Lenski dialogue now exists on several talk pages besides this one, some of them archived. I'm a busy person and do not have time to go hunting around through dozens if not hundreds of posts. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to state here, in a concise manner, what data exactly that would satisfy your request? - I say this in part because many of your interlocutors are trying to make YOU look unreasonable by making it appear as though you want Lenski to ship you on old mustard jar full of e coli (yes, I'm exaggerating)...I think it would do this discussion some good to refocus it on a short list of exactly what it is you're looking for...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::The oldest paper there is from generation 20,000.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 14:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::''Most of the dates on those cites are years ago'' Well, yes. The experiment has been running for two decades, has it not? Of course most of the related data is going to be years old.--[[User:Jimbb2004|Jimbb2004]] 22:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

There is no contradiction in "obtaining or admission of non-existence". If a piece of data is essential for a conclusion and yet does not exist then that non-existence provides bad faith on the part of the person reaching (and publishing) the conclusion.

I do understand about 'public scrutiny'. However this undefined 'public scrutiny' is vacuous testing 'in potentia'. I am suggesting actual public scrutiny. I am suggesting formulation of a hypothesis and a test which that hypothesis may fail. If it escapes refutation it will become corroborated. If it fails then we must accept that failure.

Cheers

Tony (on a windows mobile device and unable to "sign")

: The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data. Your insistence on a single "hypothesis" is contrary to the very benefit of public review. Also, it's obvious to me that [[Lenski]] will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data, and thus proposing a hypothesis would be a fool's errand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Has the PNAS been contacted regarding this matter? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're welcome to do so. PNAS does not make it easy to contact it, and accountability is far from clear at that publication. If you can post an appropriate contact here, then I'd be happy to follow up with it about its stated policy and what the procedure is for ensuring compliance with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::pnas@nas.edu • phone: 1-202-334-2679 • fax: 1-202-334-2739 {{unsigned|MarieB}}

::: To elaborate on the contact info, "Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials." Here would be another good spot. [http://www.pnas.org/feedback]--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks MarieB, I just called the number for PNAS that you provided. The PNAS staffer said that I should first contact the author to request the data, which I have done, and if that is unsuccessful, as it has been, then the next step is to contact PNAS at the above email address.

::: Jareddr's description of PNAS policy is incomplete. In fact, PNAS has adopted "UPSIDE", which is the Uniform Principle for Sharing Integral Data and Materials Expeditiously. That standard establishes that the "author's obligation is ... to release data and materials to enable others to verify or replicate published findings," and that the "upside" is that this "keeps science honest." Moreover, PNAS expressly rejects "a requirement that the material be used for research purposes." [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah but they really aren't saying that any tom, dick or harry should have access. They say:

::::"PNAS does not endorse this restriction because we believe that it would limit the sharing of materials with industry. Requiring a company to not make commercial use of scientific results seems wrong in principle and hardly enforceable. The overriding principle is that once something is published it should be freely shared by everyone."

::::So they want the information to be freely shared with "industry". [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: The statement says "once something is published it should be freely shared '''by everyone'''." Do you really think a clarification is necessary about what "by everyone" means?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Your the lawyer, everything needs to be clear. It says "by everyone" not "for everyone". Considering the preceding sentences it clearly means that everyone should have to share with some people or groups, not every person or group. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 20:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Andy in his letter Lenski did make it clear how his data would share '''by everyone'''. So long as '''everyone''' has a freezer capable of -80 degree temperatures, a contract of disposal of medical watse, the labratory to study the bacteria and are willing to sign the nessary paper work, then you can have it. This is because he is not going to go around handing out bacteria to people because it is not safe.

:::::: All the papers listed above have the data you need. You seem to forget this was not one publication but many going back several years. The data for the early parts of the experiment are in the earlier papers, you just need to read them. The big problem of this saga is you don't know what data you actually want. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]]. We do not permit the repetition of falsehoods here, and unless you can fill in those boxes then you will not be allowed to continue to state here that these identified data have been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== What missing data? ==

In order that this Conservapedia Challenge be run on a fair and comprehensible basis could someone provide a clear satatement of exactly what data is missing? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 18:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I havent really been following this so much so am unsure what data is missing (I'll look around this site though and find out) however I am interested in the outcome. Not being a US citizen I have little legal recourse as I am sure is wasn't my tax dollars footing the bill!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: The missing data are identified in [[Richard Lenski]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, I saw that but how much of that missing data is provided in the five links posted above? --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 19:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You can let us know, DenningMR. Citing a pile of meaningless links on the internet is the oldest trick in the book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: That rather indicates to me that you are not even sure whether there is any data missing at all. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 22:08, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the link, and yes, I see what you mean about this data. I will leave it to the legal/science team however as its outside my realm of knowledge. I am interested though.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 19:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Just comment/ask the Editor, or the corresponding affilliation. ==

1) First look at cited publications. Publishing data does not necessarily mean that he sends you the datafiles.

2) If you doubt a scientific publications content on a scientific basis, just write a comment in an appropriate form (title, abstract, length depending on the journal). Send it to the address of the editor of the original article. He will screen it for form, content, and style (if you dont write it in a more calm mood that you write your rants here, it will not be accepted). A comment is a standard way of forcing somebody to reply, because the editor will ask the authors to respond and both, comment and reponse are published together. Be specific (you arent). A request like: "In Fig.x the error bars are missing and we believe these are necessary" has much more chances of beeing followd than "which data? where how certain?". Make in the following paragraph explicitly clear what you problem is. e.g.: The region (x) inf Fig.(y) is not displayed in a resolution high enough to exclude (z). Make it clear that you are not the only one who believes that this is necessary by citing other works, where the author do capture a certain point in higher resolution. Don ask for unreasonable things (which would essentially require screening a colletion of 10000 Photos taken over twenty years....).

3) If you suspect scientific misbehaviour (like: falsifying data, faking results etc), report it to the responsible person in the research organization the other person works for. For such things you can loose your job and your phd title. Refrain from blaming the referees for not hunting scientific misbehaviour. The function of a referee is NOT to search for scientific misbehaviuor, but to check the conciseness, consitency and completeness of the things presented in the paper. (if somebody really fakes data it will be impossible withpout spending a long time in the lab, some people really fake data in a very tricky way)

If you suspect both, do both. Howver if you have nothing more than your scientifically worthless comments about articles, which are, as far as i read and understood them, written to the highest scientific standards (i have seldom read a more clear and concise paper than Lenskis one), spare your readers from your whining. Sadly the highly statistically nature of the experiment makes it in principle difficult to reproduce (which in the past hast tempted more scientists into faking data, look for "Schön Affair"). But the befault in scientific publications is to believe that the author did at least not fake data, so i trust the authors in this point fully because all of them seem to have a clean scientific record.

Legal Note: Lenski does not own all that data. His university owns the material. The way it works is, you file an MTA with the university for whatever it is you want, and you are generally expected to bear the standard costs of providing it to you. This is accepted practice in science. If you want the data, do this, and then if they turn you down you could perhaps sue Michigan State for some kind of discrimination. To go outside these procedures is to request special treatment.

==Freedom of Information act==
The challenge on the front page refers to Lenski’s [[Federally funded research]]. Conservapedia’s article about about Federally funded research [[Federally_funded_research#Circular_A-110 | says:]]

*“As part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277), Congress included a provision introduced by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) that for the first time allows the public to obtain federally funded research data collected through grants and agreements with universities and other nonprofit organizations.”

If this work was federally funded, and if the legislation says what Conservapedia says it says, then a competent lawyer should have no problem in formatting the questions into a FOI request. Have I won the challenge?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 09:39, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Theistic evolution

2008-06-30T19:23:41Z

Tolerance: /* Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design */

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] officially declared that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible, this remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) Catholic Libraryv[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although superficially similar to [[Intelligent Design]], Intelligent Design proponents have made clear that they are not the same thing, and in fact [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that "As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference is the percieved role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, Intelligent Design seeks to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been critized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be heretical or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>
*[[Category:Origins Debate]]
*[[Category: Creationism]]

Creation week

2008-06-30T19:22:25Z

Tolerance: /* Other views */

The '''creation week''' is the seven days described in the [[Bible]] during which God created the universe, including the day of rest. The length of time that people believe creation week to take is a good test of orthodoxy.

== Length of the days ==

The Bible does not of course say that each day was 24 hours, because hours are a later human invention, but there is sufficient reason for believing the days to be normal days. These reasons include:
* The Hebrew word ''yom'' (day) must mean a normal day in the context of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, each day is numbered and used with the words "morning and evening".
** ''Yom'' only ever means a normal day when used with a number.
** ''Yom'' only ever means a normal day when used with "morning".
** ''Yom'' only ever means a normal day when used with "evening".
* God used the seven days of creation as a basis for keeping the [[sabbath]] every seven days, in the [[Ten Commandments]].
* Each day is ''defined'' as comprising a morning and an evening.

That the passage describes normal days is the consensus of the experts. Professor James Barr, former Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oxford University, wrote:
{{quoteBox|...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: ... creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience ... Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time ... are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.<ref>Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson, quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943/ Should Genesis be taken literally?] by Russell Grigg, ''Creation'', vol. 16 No. 1 p. 38.</ref>}}

== Narrative or poetry? ==

Since the rise in popularity of ideas that the Earth is much older than would be indicated by a straightforward reading of Genesis, many people have proposed that the creation account is poetry rather than literal history.
However, there are a number of reasons to reject this proposal.

The quote from James Barr (above), points out that the language indicates that the writer intended it to be understood as actual history.
The style of writing does not conform to the distinctive style of Hebrew poetry, which includes, among other characteristics, parallelism of thoughts.
A statistical analysis of the verbs used in the [[Old Testament]] shows that percentage of [[preterite]] verbs in narrative accounts have a median value of 52%, whilst the percentage in poetic passages have a median value of 4%.
The creation account in Genesis has a preterite verb percentage of about 65%.<ref>DeYoung, Don, "Thousands... not Billions", Master Books, 2005, p.157-167.</ref>

==The Sabbath Rest==

The common literary feature of the creation week is that it is broken down into days. Different English translations have different styles in the English, but the main feature is the way the creation week is broken down into listed days. The following is the last verse in the first creation day.

{{Bible quote|book=Genesis|chap=2|verses=1-3|version=NIV|Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.}}

This change in literary structure is considered important by some, who claim, despite the past tense, that it conveys an idea that is found in several other Bible stories: The seventh day is still continuing, it never ended.

Mankind was created in day six, likely the last thing created in that day. According to this idea, mankind then fell. God, in his mercy is at rest in this day of mankind's fall, but he is working doing one thing: Rescuing fallen mankind.

== Other views ==
Despite the arguments listed above, some Christians try to harmonise the biblical account with naturalistic science, usually by interpreting the days to be long periods of time, figurative days, days of revelation of the account, or other explanations.

Some do this by claiming that there was a "[[Gap theory|gap]]" of millions or even billions of years between the events of Gen1:1 and Gen 1:2, into which the billions of years of naturalistic science and the fossils are placed.<ref>[http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/Gaptheory.html Gap Theory]</ref> Others do this by reference to [[Theistic evolution]] or [[Guided evolution]].

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Creationism]]

Cherub

2008-06-30T19:15:52Z

Tolerance: stub

A kind of angel.

They are a very powerful type of supernatural being coming only after the [[Seraphim]] in terms of power. After [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] were expelled from the [[Garden of Eden]] a cherub with a flaming sword guarded the east side of Eden.

{{stub}}

[[Category:bible]]

Forbidden fruit

2008-06-30T19:10:08Z

Tolerance: stubb. can't beelive this isn't here.

The Forbidden Fruit grew on the [[Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil]].

After being tempted by [[Satan]](in the form of a snake) [[Eve]] persuaded [[Adam]] to eat of the tree.

After [[God]] discovered what they had done he cast them our of the garden and cursed mankind.

{{stub}}

[[category:creationism]]
[[category:bible]]

Progressive Creationism

2008-06-30T19:05:36Z

Tolerance: xp

'''Progressive creationism''' or the '''day-age interpretation''' is an interpretation of the [[biblical creation account]] which, like the [[Gap theory]], attempts to harmonise the [[Bible]] with [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] ideas about the age of the earth, while at the same time rejecting [[Theory of evolution|evolution]].

It suggests that creation took place over a much longer period of time than the literal [[Garden of Eden]] six day account related in [[Genesis]] and [[Exodus]], and, depending on the version, does not necessarily have the "days" in order.

Progressive creationists generally believe that a series of distinct creation events took place.

==External Links==

*[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c009.html Christian Answers]
*[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html An overview]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Progressive Creationism

2008-06-30T19:03:16Z

Tolerance: xp

'''Progressive creationism''' or the '''day-age interpretation''' is an interpretation of the [[biblical creation account]] which, like the [[Gap theory]], attempts to harmonise the [[Bible]] with [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] ideas about the age of the earth, while at the same time rejecting [[Theory of evolution|evolution]].

It suggests that creation took place over a much longer period of time than the literal six days related in [[Genesis]] and [[Exodus]], and, depending on the version, does not necessarily have the "days" in order.

Progressive creationists generally believe that a series of distinct creation events took place.

==External Links==

*[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c009.html Christian Answers]
*[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html An overview]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Gap theory

2008-06-30T19:00:46Z

Tolerance: /* Problems with the theory */ balance

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-24T15:09:22Z

Tolerance: /* The Missing Link */

== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
 www.conservapedia.com
 cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Draft letter ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek

== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==

Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.

This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current total of supporters: 7'''

*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:

Dear Prof. Lenski,

Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.

We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

----

Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Recap ==

Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.

::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?

::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.

:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of evolutionists fraud]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?

: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.

:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==

Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Another email? ==

Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."

Or some such.

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.

First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.

I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.

It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”

Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before

For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Dear Aschlafly,

:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.

::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.

::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?

:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.

:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.

:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
::::::::::Is that correct?
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

'''(Unindent)'''

Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?

With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this: 
{| width="500px"
|-
|'''Scientist A''' publishes results. 
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they? 
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such. 
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed? 
'''A''': ... 
'''B''': You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this: 

'''A''' publishes results. 
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data! 
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind? 
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
|-
|}

-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==

I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Something to note ==

From the AiG article:

"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."

Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.

{{unsigned|Benp}}

==Hypothetical==
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Follow-up Email==
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?

I would suggest something along these lines:

''Dear Professor Lenski''
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''
''Thank you,''
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''

Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==

One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.

Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.

But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)

This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:

{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}

:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind.

:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.

:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.

:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.

::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.

:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.

:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Question==
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==

I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::So your answers are

# you "skimmed" it
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.

What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.

I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

)

:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.

:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Really? I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.
:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).
:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).
:::::::* Peter Hess: PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).
:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).
:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).
:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).
:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).
:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).
:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).
::::::: Biologists, yes. "full of PhD's in biology"? No.
::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon. Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools). I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group. I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate). The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper? This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to? A scientific research lab or a PR group?
::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists. So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point). And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools. Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:No need to threaten a block Philip, for to block me due to said accusation would require a block from those who are stating that Lenski is with holding his work from review. Here is a list I compiled from the website you gave me. Please correct me if I am wrong or missing names. I will add the information just as I did above as I discover it. Oh, does AU have a system to list accreditation? I will need to know that as well for those who received their Ph.Ds in AU.
:Carl Wieland
:Don Batten
:Gary Bates
:Jonathan Sarfati
:Tas Walker
:David Catchpoole
:Pierre Jerlström
:Peter Sparrow
:Russell Grigg
:Mark Harwood
:John Hartnett
:Rod Walsh
:Barry Tapp
:Stephen Grocott
:Richard Fangrad
:Emil Silvestru
:Calvin Smith
:Jeff Chiasson
:Adrian Bates
:Johan Kruger
:Philip Bell
:Rob Carter
:Skip Tilton
:The above list is a working list.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::I've never heard of an accreditation list in Australia, but calling yourself a University when your not is an offence. [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=University+act&meta= If you scroll down a bit] Each universities relevent act shows up eventually. It is a unique Australian phenomenon the act of parliment to create a university.

::PJR giving Able806 a stupid job to do to deflect from the fact that you are severlly losing an argument is petty. All the Australians above have by and large from some of Austalia's top universities. Okay you have made your point. However I will note that one of them is famous for his twin publishing record. He publishes in top quality geology journals with the rock is 2.6bya, this glacier formed 100mya, and he has another list where he publishes in his creation "journal" he is on the board for defending his rediculous 6000 year hypothesis. Yes these days crationist have PhD either through abandoning their when that "have been saved" in which case they corrupt the scientific method to prove their new belief or they went through doing their PhD all the time not believing what they write. As someone currently studying a PhD I can't see how they managed but being slightly divorced from reality probably helped. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.

I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

==Detractor Lineup==

Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''

* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Comments'''

StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.

But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== False Claim of a Bad motive ==

Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.

:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.

:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?

:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]

:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?

:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]

:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: StatsMsn, note that:

:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work

: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it.

::*Correct
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it.

::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.

::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.

::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.

Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?

And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.

: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

----

[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.

Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:

* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results

If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.

Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Failure to supply data? ==

Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Piltdown All Over Again ==

The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.

As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp

:: Well put, Bugler. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)

::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers. If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.

::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:

: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.

The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see?

Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:

: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).

: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).

: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).

In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)

Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''": Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals. In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity. So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself. The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.

Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth. Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided. Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== General Reply ==

Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding. Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review.

It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data. I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: How long does peer review normally take? And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:

Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)

Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells
approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)

Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)

Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)

Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review. 2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article. You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual. I hope you will post the editor's reply here. Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page. Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I intended peer review in general, not just at the PNAS, but that's a fair comparison. Like Murray, I would have thought that a fortnight is sufficient, but you do appear to be correct that the Lenski paper was much quicker than normal at the PNAS. So that just leaves the question of broken policies... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If you take Lenski's paper for what it is, peer review of the paper would not take long after all. The majority of his data could be kick out for his paper is just the documentation of the bacteria using the citrate. Murry, what is this about breast cancer?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Murray is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims this poorly researched thesis proposed by ASchlafly], Able806. No data to support the thesis was ever provided by ASchlafly. I'd invite you to take a look. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Looking at the paper, it seems to me almost all the experimental data is shown in figure 1: the ability of the bacteria to utilize citrate as revealed by optical density measurements. Something clearly happened around generation 33000, and the OD measurements jumped fivefold (from 0.05 to 0.25) with the range of measurements over three samples being way, way less that 0.2 (the size of the jump). That seems to be it experimentally. The rest of the paper describes the methodology and discusses what could have caused the change.

::: People keep talking about raw data. Would someone who says that explain what they mean? To me, raw data is relevant when what is reported is derived data. For example, suppose you have a study of health effects of working at a facility that handles nuclear material. You report the radiation exposure over background of workers. That is derived data. The raw data are the workers' dosimeter readings and the background radiation measurements. That is what you would ask for when you wanted the raw data which supported the derived data.

::: But in the Lenski paper, as far as I can tell, the data reported is the actual measured data: they measured the optical density of the samples and reported those numbers in figure 1. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not an expert in this field, but if someone disagrees with me, please tell me what the raw data would be and how the data in figure 1 was derived from it. (Lenski said that all the data being asked for is in paper. That statement is consistent with what I am saying.)

::: As to 14 days, I do not see any problem. This is a very exciting result to people in the field and the reviewers would very likely put it on top of their to do lists. As I say, the experimental data is simple and unambiguous (something significant happened at generation 33000), the description of the methodology is clear and straightforward, and the discussion of the causes is at least consistent and believable. What is there to object to?

::: Aschlafly talks of 'concealed data'. Could you please tell me what data you believe is being concealed? Specifically, what measurements are not revealed? (I know you can say 'how could I know if they do not tell me', but can someone at least suggest what kind of information is not being revealed?) -divaricatum 10:03 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:::: If Aschlafly is talking about the "data not shown" parts of the paper as being "concealed", then he is being ignorant about normal scientific paper submission. Due to length constraints and other factors, most (read: all) researchers will leave out unimportant pieces of data that aren't necessarily the key points of the paper. For example, a paper could catalog the radiation levels of all the workers at a given nuclear power plant, and have a main point that workers who are in a certain part of the plant are getting higher exposure rates. Because it had to catalog all workers of the plant, it might also have to take dosage readings of people who work off-site. Obviously, people who aren't working at the plant will not have high radiation doses, and thus in the paper that result might look like "Predictably, those workers who perform their duties off-site had no detectable radiation doses that were above background (data not shown)". It would be pointless to show that "hey look, people who don't work around the radiation don't have readings above background! Here's a chart proving it!". That is why almost all papers have at least one data set that isn't shown. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind. If you agree with my statement that "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data," then let's talk. If not, then please rant somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: In the 'Piltdown all over again' thread above, I list all three instances of 'data not shown' from the paper and point out that, according to my understanding of what is being reported, the conclusions are not relevant to the point being made. Therefore (reinforcing what aaronp says) I would not expect the data to be shown and do not understand what use it would be to anyone interested in arguing with the paper's conclusions. Again, I could be wrong, but please if you disagree, address the point by explaining how the unshown data would be relevant to the conclusions of the paper.

:::: With regard to aschlafly's last comment, please tell me what data you believe has not been revealed. My contention is all the relevant data is in figure 1. I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but please explain what data you think has not been revealed. -divaricatum 10:40 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:::: : The data hasn't been concealed! "Concealed" from you, perhaps, but I blame that more on who you represent rather than some vague plot to get this information published without going through checks and balances. The data was peer-reviewed. The data was presented in a clear and logical manner. The data supported the conclusions. This is your run-of-the-mill publication, and has satisfied all it needs to in order to be recognized. I agree that if some person were to make an unverified claim (like all those crazy people who claim to have cloned a human being, but haven't shown the clones or released any data) and depict it as truth, then yes, that would be unscientific. But this paper hasn't done that. As for being close-minded, I believe it is you that is being close-minded. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 13:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

For reasons already explained, I'm not going to waste time with close-minded argument here. If you agree that it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data, then clearly say so. Otherwise, it's a futile exercise. Anyone at any time could make an unverified claim based on concealed data, and people could be found to defend it. Only fools would try to reason with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

: If you are referring to me, please show where I have been close-minded. Sure I agree that "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data", but I am asking whether that is the case here. I ask repeatedly about what data have been concealed, and no one, particularly you, responds. There are two claims made in the paper: that a strain of E. colii evolved the ability to utilize citrate, and that the strain first had a mutation which while it did not allow the utilization of citrate, in some fashion potentiated the later mutation. The first claim is supported by the optical density data in figure 1. I contend that that is direct data and there is no associated raw data to look at, and that the ability to utilize citrate is clearly shown by the data provided.

: The second claim is demonstrated by repeat experiments using stored samples. In some cases, the ability to utilize citrate evolved, in some cases not. They report on the strains used, how often the ability evolved, etc. I again do not see what data are not being supplied. All I am asking from you is to explain what data you believe is available to the researches that would be relevant in evaluating their results which is not in the paper. I do not see what is unreasonable about that request.

: Lenski said in his letter to you that all the relevant data was in the paper. From my reading, that seems to be true. I am of course open to an argument that something additional needs to be revealed but I would like to understand what that additional something is, and no one, specifically not you, has said.

: Now perhaps you are suggesting that the data reported in the paper is not the actual data collected (whether accidentally or intentionally mistranscribed, or whatever). If that is what you are saying is possible, please say so explicitly so we can understand your point, and also say how you would like the matter resolved (xeroxes of lab books? Computer backup tapes? what?)

: I would just like to understand what people think has not been revealed. I do not see why asking that question indicates a closed mind or any such thing. -divaricatum 11:30 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:: OK, divaricatum, we're arguing from the same logical basis, so let's proceed. The underlying data are not in the papers. The papers have an interpretative summary of the data which may be mistaken, incomplete, or worse. The underlying data were only analyzed by two people: Lenski and a grad student (presumably under the control of Lenski). Let's see what they analyzed. We may see things they missed or ignored. Or there may be defects in the data that they didn't realize or disclose. In less than 14 days between submission and acceptance of the paper, it's unlikely any peer review did this.

:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side. Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(this discussion is limited to those who accept the logical premise repeated above: "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data." Sermons, rants and illogical postings can be made elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT))

::: Thank you. Let us look at claim number 1, that a strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate. This is from page 2 of the paper (and onto page 3):

:::: After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant. The evolved Cit+ variant grows to high density in DM0 (a citrate-only medium), produces vigorous colonies on minimal citrate (MC) agar plates, and causes a positive color change on Simmon’s citrate agar, all of which indicate that it can use citrate as a sole carbon source. In DM25, Cit+ cells undergo a period of rapid growth on glucose that is followed by slower growth on citrate (Fig. 2). Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit+ mutant of E. coli (42, 43).

::: So, there was a population that could utilize citrate. The claims made are (1) it was not a contaminate (the data asserted is that it had the markers of the earlier populations), (2) it had mutations found in earlier strains from the same evolving populations. (3) It grows in a glucose-free environment and can use citrate as a carbon source. (4) It continues to grow on citrate/glucose medium after the glucose is exhausted (while other E. coli stops growing).

::: Data explicitly supplied (figure 1) shows the ability of strains after the mutation to grow on citrate only (glucose free) medium. I assert this is direct (not derived) data since (I believe) the optical density is directly measured and that is what is shown in figure 1. Further data (figure 2) compares a strain with the mutation and one without and shows the with strain continues to grow after the glucose is exhausted while the without strain stops growing. Again, this is OD data directly reported. (I could of course be mistaken and OD data is in fact derived from other data, like excess radiation exposure, in which case someone please correct me.)

::: The derived data is that the mutated strain has markers from the ancestral source and has specific mutations from more recent ancestors (that is, there are presumably DNA and other analyses which show these things which are not shown). He also reports on growth on other specific media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) where we are told only that on the first, the growth is vigorous, and on the second produces a color change. Finally (in what seems to be a parenthetical comment) growth in inhibited by the "citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate", but that data is not shown, and it is noted that was reported by the other known E. coli variant that can utilize citrate. (I interpret this as simply reporting that the variant they found is likely the same or very similar to the variant previously reported. That is interesting but not, it seems to me, relevant to the result of the paper, so the lack of supplied data does not seem significant to me.)

::: So, what could you ask for? The OD reports from saved samples shown in figure 1 seem unambiguous as to the ability of the strain, after 33000 to utilize citrate, and so, except as qualified next, the basic claim seems to me to be verified. I cannot imagine what additional data with respect to OD you could ask for unless you are claiming that they mistranscribed the data (in which case, I repeat, resolve it how? Look at Lab books?)

::: So here is the qualification: could it be a contamination? They explain how they reject the contamination hypothesis. You could say that was very important to your confidence and so you would like to see the specific test results for the markers and mutations. That is certainly a specific question and one that could be answered, although with some (perhaps significant) expenditure of time and money.

::: As to the growth on other media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) the paper simply describes the growth as vigorous and the color changing. But these reports seem unambiguous in that they could be in error only if the investigators were misrepresenting their findings. Here again, what would you like to see? Lab books? Because this could only be false through fraud, the lab books would presumably in that case also be fraudulent.

::: So it seems to me that all one could ask for is the dna/marker data that verifies that the cit+ samples are not contaminates. Perhaps, if you were willing to pay for the tests, one could ask for ancestral, close to mutation, and post mutation samples on which to repeat the tests.

::: Let us leave fraud aside. So then the question is, did they make (honest) mistakes? It frankly seems unlikely to me because the tests seem straightforward: the ability to utilize citrate seems very easy to test unambiguously (smear some on a citrate/no glucose base and see what happens). The differences between growing vigorously and hardly are surely great enough that one could not mistake one for the other. The contamination tests, while much more complicated, also seem standard. DNA sequencing is a well-established technique. There are looking for specific loci ("DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population"). I am not sure how the markers mentioned are identified but I again think this is a standard test.

::: So, to repeat my conclusion: the only thing I feel is worth asking about (all this is about result 1, there was a mutation which allowed utilization of citrate) is the contamination question. There they presumably have data which confirms there statements but I am not sure whether it is reasonably to ask them for it absent some specific concern. (Here an experienced microbiogist would be helpful, if I have the field right: is their description of how they determined that the strain was not contaminated reasonable and the tests they did straightforward and unambiguous, or is there room for reasonable doubt? Answering that is beyond my knowledge. I would be pleased to hear from such an expert.)

::: As to claim 2, I understand it less well, but could discuss it in more detail but I feel I have gone on long enough discussing claim 1. I would be pleased to read differing analyses of claim 1, particularly with regard to where the authors might reasonably be incorrect, absent fraud. divaricatum 13:09 June 20, 2008 (PDT)

Thank you, Divaricatum, for putting what I wanted to say so eloquently on the page. I believe that Lenski was being straight when he published his findings, and that barring gross fraud, the paper is very well-researched. -- Aaronp

==Note re. article==
As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here? At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski". The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about. There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically. Just an FYI. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Lenski's second reply==
Are you happy now? He has answered everything you asked. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 06:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Andy should be thanked and congratulated by everyone here for his efforts on behalf of truth and openness. Those of us not blinded by Liberal deceit can now see atheistic pseudo-science for what it is. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Really, Bugler? After that statement, I have trouble believing you're real. Atheistic pseudo-science? Liberal deceit? Do you even know what you're talking about? This isn't pseudo-science. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the information is suddenly invalid. In fact, after what is seemingly a post purely to stroke Andy's ego just a little bit more, even in the face of Lenski's reply, I believe that you are just a sock of Aschlafly. By the way, I'm expecting a 90/10 for this. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of dignifying such a ridiculous post in that manner. Nor does the exchange require my poor talents to explain it to you. The messages stand by themselves, and Andy's honest intentions and integrity stand out. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok Bugler, to be fair, I will let go of my frustration and attempt to make a "valid" point. Can we at least respect Lenski for taking the time to write out his replies? The man is incredibly busy (trust me, I know), and still managed to communicate to a random person from the internet who was challenging 20 years worth of work. In addition to this, Lenski was very courteous with his replies! Surely we can't demonize the man purely because of his work on a bacterial strain? I can respect that Andy was doing what he thought was right, but can't we also give the same courtesy to Lenski, who put equal heart into his own work? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::I can't say I noticed sarcasm or mockery in Andy's messages. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::True, but I did notice some serious (unfounded) allegations of fraud in his statements on the talk page; since the talk page is public domain, it means that Lenski saw them as well. I would say that Andy was being very rude, accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::::: Really, Aaronp? When was I "accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence"? Perhaps you can provide a quote for your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Anyway back to my question, are you now satisfied in the response? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review..." "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data..." Both of these quotes, Mr. Schlafly, imply that Lenski falsified his data and collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to get his paper published! You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! How is that not accusing him of fraud? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] Also, sorry to distract from your question, Daniel. Andy, please answer Dan first. Thank you.

: Aaronp, your quote does not support your accusation, and I suggest you retract it immediately. I leave that up to you. Obviously there are many types of possible flaws in scientific claims that are not "gross fraud." For example, I don't think Andrew Wiles' (an example I used) was fraudulent in presenting his initial proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], which general scrutiny found to be flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::''You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this!'' You are a mind-reader, Aaron! Truly remarkable! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::You're right. What can I say? I am omniscient. As for the quote, by stating you doubted the paper was peer-reviewed, you are claiming that Lenski didn't actually go through the proper steps to get his data published, which is accusing him of fraud. I don't see how that can be any more straightforward. --Aaronp

::::The responsibility for peer review is on the peers that do the reviewing. I don't know why you would assume that Andy would be accusing Linski of dubious scientific practice, when the more likely explanation is that he was accusing the reviewers. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 08:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Don't be naive, Drochld. Andy was attacking Lenski specifically. -- Aaronp
That is enough. If you persist with these ludicrous accusations of malevolence you will be blocked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:AaronP to be safe you should preface every truth you say with "it seems" so that way it isn't an accusation... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp

Lenski's reply in a nutshell, once all the talk pollution and ad hominem attacks are removed: No, I will not give you my raw data or my E. Coli samples, not to you or any other non-Darwinist.

And we're still supposed to believe his research is legitimate??? This is exactly what Andy predicted he would do, only not necessarily so rudely. Andy wins. Game. Set. Match. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 10:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think [[Behe]] meets Lenski's three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Missing Link ==

Excuse the pun but could you please provide the link missing from Lenski's second reply. I know your against censorship so assume good faith here. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 06:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:What missing link is that? All the links to Wikipedia are included. I dont think Andy would stoop so low as to remove anything from the letter when Lenski he specifically asked that it be reproduced in its entirety. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 07:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::This one '[Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter]'. As stated above I am not suggesting anyone is stooping anywhere and assume good faith. I would still like to see the link. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 07:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh yes, I didn't see that. Well in that case I think I think it should be made known. Even if a spam filter stops it being shown then there could be a couple of asterisks to get round it. Although I doubt that Lenski would use any profanity in his reply so I don't know what could possibly be excised from the original. Without it the terms of Lenski's post have not been complied with. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 07:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The spam filter blocked it because it consists of a link previously determined by this site to be unacceptable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I am concerned that you have chosen to censor an element of Lenski's reply. Could you please be more specific. If Lenski's reply contained vulgarities etc this is of note to the argument at hand. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::It does seem rather odd that one of his references was omitted. It can hardly be a pornographic site. In general, what other links are subject to censorship?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly has said that the site concerned has been deemed unacceptable. Further questioning on this point will be deemed disruptive and dealt with accordingly. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:It hardly seems fair to censor part of Professor Lenski's full and comprehensive reply. It also seems to be a little heavy-handed to say that people who ask questions about such censorship will be "dealt with accordingly".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::No, the link should definitely not be revealed. Although I, naturally, don't know what the link is to, though we can assume it was a shock site, foul language, pornography, or something in that line. Since Lenski knew that his response would be posted on this family-friendly encyclopedia, he would have purposefully put the link in to aggravate readers. That tells us a lot about [[professor values|his attitude]], and by keeping the link intact, we let him "win".

::However, I would like to ask mr. Schlafly to reveal the ''nature'' of the unacceptable site. I personally find it a bit strange that Lenski would insert a pornographic link in his otherwise relevant response. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 09:59, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If I am allowed to continue questioning this without further threats from sysop:Bugler I would say that it seems to me to be extremely unlikely that the link would be to "shock site". But I agree with you that we should be told why it was necessary to censor the reply. Especially so when Mr Schafly has been arguing for the importance of the disclosure of data all this time.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Deal however you see fit Bugler old fruit. Your censorship of both me and more importantly of Lenski will stand fine testament. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Censorship? Censorship? Even a good dog needs a tug on the choke chain every now and again - and where on earth am I supposed to have censored the esteemed Prof? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Bugler. Very obviously the link in Lenski's e-mail has been censored (as per the top of this thread). I have simply asked specifically why this is the case. If that gets me banned it says more about you than me. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::Bugler, perhaps rather than trying to speak for Mr. Schlafly, you could stand down and let him respond to questions that were directed at him and that he is more qualified to answer. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 10:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::RedDog, it has been removed as it links to a site deemed unacceptable. I do not know what the link was. I did no remove it. However, one either believes that Andrew Schlafly acted in good faith or not. If you believe not, then why should you be here? I know I wouldn't be. And since he acted in good faith and the best interests of CP, we should leave it at that.

ZTak, MYOB

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:I agree Bugler and I accept good faith. But make no mistake this IS censorship. There is no other word for it. I do accept what you say though and will let the matter drop here. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

My guess would be RW. I know that it is blocked by the spam filter, and I don't know of any other websites blocked by the filter. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:What is "RW"? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

- :If you knew that is the site, it would be improper for you to mention it by name. Since you don't know, it is utterly irresponsible of you to speculate. Do you see what you have started? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Asking what it is seems a lot different from speculating as to what it is... [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

(@Tim)Why would Professor Lenski be linking to RW? Quite frankly, there are many other more reliable websites to be used as sources... --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::RW is a wiki which claims to be rational. It is highly critical of Conservapedia and I had understood that mentioning its existence generally got the poster blocked. Am I correct in this or has that polocy changed?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:09, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peer Review Process==

My apologies if I am contributing to a debate that has already closed, but skimmed through the letters exchanged and the debate here and noticed a slight discrepancy in understanding. The peer reviewers of a paper do not receive any data other than that which is eventually published in the journal (although some may be removed by the editor, such as for page restrictions). They exist to judge the method and to ensure that the conclusions are accurately drawn from the results provided in the paper. They do not check to make sure the raw data is properly summarised in the results, nor do they ever have access to the raw data. The checking of raw data is carried out after the paper is published, either through scientists reproducing the experiment or (such as in this case) obtaining materials and records directly from the scientist involved.

Hope this clears things up. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well I don't know the details of the peer review process. I also dunno about anyone else. But I did get a chuckle out of his little anecdote. For what its worth, it lightened my mood after 38 hours without sleep, (recipe for regret, I don't recommend it). [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:44, 24 June 2008

==Chuckle==

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T20:14:32Z

Tolerance: /* Biblical position */ problem

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)

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)

==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)

==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."

: 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)

==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)

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

: 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)

:::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)

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)

==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)

==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)

:::::::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)

== 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)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T19:41:58Z

Tolerance: /* Biblical position */

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)

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)

==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)

==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."

: 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)

==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)

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

: 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)

:::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)

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)

==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)

==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)

== 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)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T19:11:43Z

Tolerance: /* Biblical position */

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)

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)

==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)

==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."

: 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)

==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)

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

: 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)

:::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)

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)

==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)

==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)

== 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)

Theistic evolution

2008-04-20T19:02:22Z

Tolerance: /* Criticisms of Theistic Evolution */ links

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and atheists have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] officially declared that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible, this remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) Catholic Libraryv[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]</ref>.

William Jennings Bryan wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while atheism removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although superficially similar to [[Intelligent Design]], Intelligent Design proponents have made clear that they are not the same thing, and in fact [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that "As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference is the percieved role of proof. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, Intelligent Design seeks to prove the necessary existence of God in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been critized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] and [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be heretical or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>
*[[Category:Origins Debate]]
*[[Category: Creationism]]

Theistic evolution

2008-04-20T19:00:36Z

Tolerance: sections

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and atheists have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] officially declared that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible, this remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) Catholic Libraryv[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]</ref>.

William Jennings Bryan wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while atheism removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although superficially similar to [[Intelligent Design]], Intelligent Design proponents have made clear that they are not the same thing, and in fact [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that "As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference is the percieved role of proof. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, Intelligent Design seeks to prove the necessary existence of God in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been critized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, atheists and agnostics. [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] and [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be heretical or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>
*[[Category:Origins Debate]]
*[[Category: Creationism]]

Day age creationism

2008-04-20T18:48:13Z

Tolerance: stub

Day age creationism refers to an [[Old Earth Creationism|old earth creationist]] belief that the days of creation in [[Genesis]] do not refer to literal days but to longer periods.

Frequently the concept of "as day is a thousand years" from 2 Peter 3:8<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:8;&version=9; KJB version]</ref> is used to justify the concept.

{{Bible quote|1But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.|book=2Peter|chap=3|verses=8|version=KJV}}

Nevertheless, other day age creationists are prepared to give longer values to each day. In more extreme case they are even prepared to change the order of the "days".

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:creationism]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T17:49:32Z

Tolerance: /* Movie Reviews */ link

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
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 hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008. '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue 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]] and a 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>

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"/>

Several critics deny that the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" led to the [[Holocaust]]. But the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. 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]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film engaged in the same kind of illegitimate tactics that the movie describes. In an attempt to demonize the film, many [[evolutionists]] call it "hysterical" even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.<ref>Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called ''Expelled'' "bizarre and hysterical." [http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes. The ''Time'' reviewer, having put words in Stein's mouth, then claims that this supposed misrepresentation is a typical example, probably hoping that potential viewers will choose not to watch the movie. Actually, all it shows is that ''Time'' is so desperate to keep people fooled about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution that they will stoop to misquotation and character assassination.

==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> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. The [[atheist]] liberal [[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 were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, conservative 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>

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

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] 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 Bethel 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]]:
{{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>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even 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>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human," a shockingly ignorant claim that denies its unique horror:

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<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>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, 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.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its aesthetics trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

==Alleged Copyright Violations==

On April 9, 2008, legal notice was sent to the producers of ''Expelled'' by the graphic firm XVIVO, LLC, alleging copyright infringement. The notice states that ''Expelled'' includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled ''The Inner Life of a Cell''. XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in ''The Inner Life of a Cell'', and had not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of the material. The notice threatens legal action if the producers of ''Expelled'' do not remove the allegedly infringing segment from all copies of the film prior to its scheduled commercial release on April 18, 2008. <ref> [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/EXPELLED-Letter.pdf] </ref>

The producers of ''Expelled'' responded with a lawsuit filed on April 14, 2008, seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. This lawsuit is currently unresolved.<ref>[http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080415/20080415006769.html?.v=1] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Producers File Lawsuit and Expose Other Efforts to Suppress Free Speech</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== 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]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

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

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T17:46:11Z

Tolerance: /* Liberal Reception */ link

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
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 hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008. '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue 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]] and a 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>

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"/>

Several critics deny that the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" led to the [[Holocaust]]. But the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. 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]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film engaged in the same kind of illegitimate tactics that the movie describes. In an attempt to demonize the film, many [[evolutionists]] call it "hysterical" even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.<ref>Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called ''Expelled'' "bizarre and hysterical." [http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes. The ''Time'' reviewer, having put words in Stein's mouth, then claims that this supposed misrepresentation is a typical example, probably hoping that potential viewers will choose not to watch the movie. Actually, all it shows is that ''Time'' is so desperate to keep people fooled about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution that they will stoop to misquotation and character assassination.

==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> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. The [[atheist]] liberal [[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 were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, conservative 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>

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

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] 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 Bethel 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]]:
{{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>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even 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>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human," a shockingly ignorant claim that denies its unique horror:

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<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>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, 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.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its aesthetics trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

==Alleged Copyright Violations==

On April 9, 2008, legal notice was sent to the producers of ''Expelled'' by the graphic firm XVIVO, LLC, alleging copyright infringement. The notice states that ''Expelled'' includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled ''The Inner Life of a Cell''. XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in ''The Inner Life of a Cell'', and had not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of the material. The notice threatens legal action if the producers of ''Expelled'' do not remove the allegedly infringing segment from all copies of the film prior to its scheduled commercial release on April 18, 2008. <ref> [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/EXPELLED-Letter.pdf] </ref>

The producers of ''Expelled'' responded with a lawsuit filed on April 14, 2008, seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. This lawsuit is currently unresolved.<ref>[http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080415/20080415006769.html?.v=1] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Producers File Lawsuit and Expose Other Efforts to Suppress Free Speech</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== 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]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

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

Herbert Spencer

2008-04-20T16:13:37Z

Tolerance: clarification

'''Herbert Spencer''' (April 27, 1820 – December 8, 1903) was an [[English]] [[philosopher]] and prominent [[liberal]] [[political theorist]]. He was a defender of [[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of [[evolution]], and coined the terms "the [[Survival of the fittest]]"<ref>''fit'' - meaning suitable, or the right size and shape, '''not''' ''fit'' as in athletically strong (although some have inferred this interpretation).</ref> and "the Descent of Man." Spencer, like many scientists of the time, was a [[deist]], which is to say he did not believe in [[God]] ''per se'', but only in ''a'' god. Eventually, Spencer became an [[agnostic]].

Spencer is largely remembered today for his theories of [[social Darwinism]], the idea that Darwinist evolutionary ideas applied to societies as well as people. Social Darwinism reached its political [[zenith]] in the [[Nazi]] regime of [[Adolf Hitler]], and is mostly discredited today.

Herbert Spencer died of poor health in 1903. He asked to be buried in the [[Highgate Cemetery]] of [[London]] so that he would be facing the grave of the [[atheist]] , [[Karl Marx]], the well-known founder of the [[Communist]] movement. A fair number of people travel each year to pay their respects to Marx and Spencer.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Spencer, Herbert}}

[[Category:Political Scientists]]

Social Darwinism

2008-04-20T16:12:31Z

Tolerance:

'''Social Darwinism''' is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in [[England]], [[United States|America]], and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The [[theory]] was chiefly expounded by [[Herbert Spencer]], whose ethical [[philosophies]] always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of [[Darwin]]ian ideas such as adaptation and [[natural selection]]. <ref>[http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml Social Darwinism] at Thinkquest, retrieved on 08/04/2008</ref>

Beginning in 1887, social [[scientists]] were using the term "social Darwinism" to apply the [[Survival of the fittest]] theory to social situations. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be [[biologically]] superior, and less "fit" persons should die.

Soon many began to view [[racial]] struggles, and [[war]] itself, as a perfectly natural example of survival-of-the-fittest in the human race. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans. While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races.

==David Klinghoffer==

John Toland’s ''Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography'' says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928:
* "An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right."<ref name="dhc">[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc= ]</ref>

In his biography, ''Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris'', Ian Kershaw explains that
* "crude social-Darwinism" gave Hitler "his entire political ‘world-view.’ "

Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw [[Darwinism]] as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called "social Darwinism" is a logical extension of [[Evolutionism|Darwinian evolutionary theory]] and was articulated by [[Darwin]] himself.

==Social Darwinism Today==
With the fall of the [[fascist]] states Social Darwinism fortunately entered a period of disrepute and few societies, if any, now embrace its ideas that the week should be disregarded; that there are "superior" and "inferior" races; or that war is an appropriate way to show a countries "virility".

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]

Social Darwinism

2008-04-20T16:03:19Z

Tolerance: link

'''Social Darwinism''' is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in [[England]], [[United States|America]], and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The [[theory]] was chiefly expounded by [[Herbert Spencer]], whose ethical [[philosophies]] always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of [[Darwin]]ian ideas such as adaptation and [[natural selection]]. <ref>[http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml Social Darwinism] at Thinkquest, retrieved on 08/04/2008</ref>

Beginning in 1887, social [[scientists]] were using the term "social Darwinism" to apply the [[Survival of the fittest]] theory to social situations. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be [[biologically]] superior, and less "fit" persons should die.

Soon many began to view [[racial]] struggles, and [[war]] itself, as a perfectly natural example of survival-of-the-fittest in the human race. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans. While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races.

==David Klinghoffer==

John Toland’s ''Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography'' says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928:
* "An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right."<ref name="dhc">[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc= ]</ref>

In his biography, ''Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris'', Ian Kershaw explains that
* "crude social-Darwinism" gave Hitler "his entire political ‘world-view.’ "

Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw [[Darwinism]] as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called "social Darwinism" is a logical extension of [[Evolutionism|Darwinian evolutionary theory]] and was articulated by [[Darwin]] himself.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]

Social Darwinism

2008-04-20T16:02:41Z

Tolerance: link

'''Social Darwinism''' is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in [[England]], [[United States|America]], and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The [[theory]] was chiefly expounded by [[Herbert Spencer]], whose ethical [[philosophies]] always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of [[Darwin]]ian ideas such as adaptation and [[natural selection]]. <ref>[http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml Social Darwinism] at Thinkquest, retrieved on 08/04/2008</ref>

Beginning in 1887, social [[scientists]] were using the term "social Darwinism" to apply the survival-of-the-fittest theory to social situations. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be [[biologically]] superior, and less "fit" persons should die.

Soon many began to view [[racial]] struggles, and [[war]] itself, as a perfectly natural example of survival-of-the-fittest in the human race. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans. While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races.

==David Klinghoffer==

John Toland’s ''Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography'' says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928:
* "An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right."<ref name="dhc">[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc= ]</ref>

In his biography, ''Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris'', Ian Kershaw explains that
* "crude social-Darwinism" gave Hitler "his entire political ‘world-view.’ "

Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw [[Darwinism]] as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called "social Darwinism" is a logical extension of [[Evolutionism|Darwinian evolutionary theory]] and was articulated by [[Darwin]] himself.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]

Herbert Spencer

2008-04-20T16:00:34Z

Tolerance: small copy edit

'''Herbert Spencer''' (April 27, 1820 – December 8, 1903) was an [[English]] [[philosopher]] and prominent [[liberal]] [[political theorist]]. He was a defender of [[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of [[evolution]], and coined the terms "the [[Survival of the fittest]]"<ref>''fit'' - meaning suitable, or the right size and shape, '''not''' ''fit'' as in athletically strong (although some have inferred this interpretation).</ref> and "the Descent of Man." Spencer, like many scientists of the time, was a [[deist]], which is to say he did not believe in [[God]] ''per se'', but only in ''a'' god. Eventually, Spencer became an [[agnostic]].

Spencer is largely remembered today for his theories of [[social Darwinism]], the idea that Darwinist evolutionary ideas applied to people as well as objects. Social Darwinism reached its political [[zenith]] in the [[Nazi]] regime of [[Adolf Hitler]], and is mostly discredited today.

Herbert Spencer died of poor health in 1903. He asked to be buried in the [[Highgate Cemetery]] of [[London]] so that he would be facing the grave of the [[atheist]] , [[Karl Marx]], the well-known founder of the [[Communist]] movement. A fair number of people travel each year to pay their respects to Marx and Spencer.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Spencer, Herbert}}

[[Category:Political Scientists]]

Survival of the fittest

2008-04-20T15:56:56Z

Tolerance: small expansion

'''Survival of the fittest''' is a famous phrase coined by British economist [[Herbert Spencer]] in ''Principles of Biology'' (1864), used to summarize [[natural selection]]. He went on to use the phrase to reinforce his theories on the development of companies and societies in general.

The phrase went on to infulence ideas such as [[Social Darwinism]] and [[fascism]].

Modern biologists tend not to use the phrase because it reduces to an informal [[tautology]] if one defines "fittest" to mean possessing attributes conducive to survival.

[[category:evolution]]

Old Earth Creationism

2008-04-20T15:25:38Z

Tolerance: /* Rich diversity of views */ links

'''Old Earth Creationism''' is the belief that God created the universe and the world billions of years ago.
Old Earth Creationists do not all agree on the extent of the [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]], although many maintain that it was a local flood.<ref>Ross, Hugh, [http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/1990_v4n4_q4/index.shtml#let_us_reason Let Us Reason: The Waters of the Flood] ''Facts & Faith'', Volume 4, No. 4, Winter 1990.</ref>

== General ==

Old Earth [[Creationism|Creationists]] hold to view of the Biblical book of Genesis that allows for an old earth <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm</ref>.
Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race."
Dr. Geisler also wrote concerning young earth creationist and old earth creationist the following: "Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to [[naturalism]], which they see as the philosophical [[presupposition]] of [[theory of evolution|evolution]]." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref>

Proponents of Old Earth Creationism include [[Hugh Ross]], David Snoke, Greg Neyman, Francis Schaeffer, and Norman Geisler. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml</ref>

==Rich diversity of views==
There are a wide number of views of creationism starting from the radical literalistic purity of "[[Young Earth Creationist]]s", through "[[Gap theory|Gap theorists]]" and "[[Day age creationism|Day age Creationists]]" and ending with "[[Theistic evolution|Theistic evolutionists]]" and believers in "[[Intelligent design]]". These last stopping just short of full "[[Theory of Evolution|Atheistic Evolution]]".

Old Earth creationists frequently, though not always, hold views which are more in keeping with those which are held by naturalistic scientists. For example believers in the [[Gap theory]] maintain that there was a gap of millions or billions or years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Believers in [[Progressive Creationism]] or the "day age" idea believe that each "day" of creation lasted a thousand years or more. Believers in [[Theistic Evolution]] go even further in trying to harmonize the Bible to naturalistic views.

== Criticism ==

Meanwhile [[Young Earth creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] hold that belief in an old Earth is frequently based on extra-biblical sources, not on the Bible. For example:
{{QuoteBox|If an old earth were really the teaching of Scripture, then one claim is glaringly conspicuous by its absence, that is, any claim in commentaries that the Bible ''unambiguously teaches'' long ages. Rather, the usual claim is that the biblical text appears on the surface to teach a young earth but ''may allow for'' an old earth.—[[Jonathan Sarfati]]<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Compromise'', Master Books, March 2004, p.55. Emphasis in original.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.—[[Pattle Pun]]<ref>Pun, P.P.T., ''Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation'' 39:14, 1987; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4155].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.—[[Gleason Archer]]<ref>Archer, G.L., ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction'', Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4154].</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.—[[Charles Hodge]]<ref>Hodge, C., ''Systematic Theology'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997; quoted by Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4166] (their parenthetical insertions).</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|[C]onfessedly, it would not have been as readily deduced from the Genesis text had it not been for the evidences advanced by secular science.—J. Barton Payne<ref>J. B. Payne, ''The Theology of the Older Testament'', (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1972, p.136); quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, "Refuting Compromise", Master Books, March 2004</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|We have to admit here [concerning those who take the six days of Creation as literal days] that the exegetical basis [the arguments from the words of Scripture] of the creationists is strong. … In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists. … Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and even older universe.’—James Montgomery Boice<ref>Montgomery Boice, J.L., ''Genesis: An Expositional Commentary'', Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1:57–62, 1982; quoted by [[Ken Ham|Ham, Ken]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/324/#r5 The big picture], ''Creation'' 23(2):16–18, March 2001 (their insertions in square parentheses).</ref>}}

==External links==

===Old Earth Creationism Ministries===
* [http://www.reasons.org Reasons to Believe]
* [http://www.answersincreation.org Answers in Creation]
* [http://www.godandscience.org Godandscience.org]

=== Criticism of Old Earth Creationism by Young Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2080 Jonathan Sarfati addresses Old Earth Claims]

===Evidence for an Old Earth===
[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html Old Earth Evidence from an OEC]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationism]]

Talk:Old Earth Creationism

2008-04-20T15:16:50Z

Tolerance: /* Age of the Earth */ AIG says it

What an economical article this is! How concise in argument, how clean in execution!
It contains 3 links to Old Earth Crationism, 1 to New, and some 30 or so words to paste it all together. And this little note of mine is the first in the Discussion Page of same. Marvellous. If only all entries could follow this lead, the entire Conservapedia would fit on a floppy disk. --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 06:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gould Quote ==

The quote from Stephen Jay Gould is both incorrect (there should be an elipsis, which I've added), and highly misleading. Gould's claim is not that transitional fossils are *missing*; he felt that they were too rare to justify the gradualism, and instead justified punctuated equilibrium. [[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:41, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Age of the Earth ==

Do Old Earth Creationists necessarily believe that the earth is billions of years old? I thought there were different strains that were in the millions, not billions. Isn't there a theory that the earth was brought into its current form with a different series of creation events at different times in its history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, there are differences. I'm thinking about adding more to this.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:: The whole point of most versions of OEC is to accommodate the uniformitarian timescale, so if they then propose a ''different'' age, they've effectively shot themselves in the foot.
:: However, having said that, I think there are a few views with non-uniformitarian ages, including the belief that each day was a thousand years (which I know no good reason for other than a misinterpretation of the "day is as a thousand years" verse), and the Jehovah's Witness view that each day is seven thousand years (and we are still in the seventh day).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::These ideas are based, in part on 2 Peter 3:8 where we are told that, for God, a day is as a thousand years. The idea is not relay uncommon in some circles and, if this site is to be truly an Encyclopedia, it obviously should explore them in a Neutral Manner. I am starting to get the impression that only one version of Creationism is relay welcome here. I am sure that this is a mistake on my part but I wonder if somebody could confirm this? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I realise that some quote that verse, but fail to quote the rest of it ("and a thousand years is as a day"). Also, it says that a day is ''as'' a thousand years, not a day ''is'' a thousand years. Further, the word translated "day" in Genesis cannot, in context, mean anything other than an ordinary day (see [[Creation week]]). I'm glad that you started the article on the Gap theory and expanded some other articles, as our coverage of them was lacking, 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. (I accept that the first part of that last sentence you might well not agree with, but I'm prepared to back that up.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I fully agree that some form of creationism is the only valid way to see the world. But if this encyclopedia is really going to follow true Christian values, why is the concept of Intelligent Design given so much space? I recently posted a comment about Christian values on the "expelled" article and it was removed in short order. From what you tell me above, Gap Theory - whether you accept it or not - is a lot closer to the truth than ID is, yet ID has vastly more supportive text than the Creationism article. Why should this be? I am genuinely confused. [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:31, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Interesting question! I don't agree, though, that the Gap Theory is closer to the truth than ID. But it depends on how you understand ID. ID, I would say, is merely an attempt to show scientifically that there is evidence of design. That's it. Sure, some ID people believe in an old universe, and some ID people believe in some form of evolution, and ID doesn't make any claims about who the designer is, but at its core, it's simply a scientific attempt to show evidence of design. In that sense, it is ''not inconsistent'' with the Bible at all, as the Gap Theory is. ID is not "Christian", but it is not ''anti-Christian'' either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would say that anyone glancing at this site would say that it supports ID rather than Biblical Literalism. As to no conflict I'm not so sure. ID includes (at least according to its main proponent, Behe) Common Descent and long atheistic timescales which would have the Dinosaurs extinct well before humanity. I, of course, believe that they died in the Gap - but I'm frankly surprised that you accept it here without objection.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: What false impressions people might get from a ''glance'' at the site is beside the point. ID (usually?) ''assumes'' common descent, long ages, etc., but I believe that I'm right in saying that they are not what ID is about. ID's point is to argue that there is evidence of design, not to argue for common descent or long ages; the latter are merely the background framework into which ID is set. Yes, YEC disagrees on those particular points, but not on ID itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:42, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Well yes, ID most certainly does argue for evidence of design - but it also argues for "evidence" of common descent and long time scales. It's all based on what they call "evidence". But isn't it wrong two out of three? Anyway, I've got to edit some more articles.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 10:58, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Where does it ''argue'' for common descent and long time scales? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
The AIG article [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here] "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]] 11:16, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Gap theory

2008-04-20T15:13:49Z

Tolerance:

== "No longer lighting the Earth" ==
In the "support" section is the line that Genesis 1:2 "shows that the heavens were no longer lighting the earth and that consequently something must have changed the situation and darkened the heavens". Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Verse 1 says nothing about the Earth being lit, so how can verse 2 mentioning that the Earth was in darkness be indicating a change? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Because of the editing rules here I will have to post quite a lot of material before actually engaging in a debate. However, heaven (including the sun) and the earth were created first. If the EArth were dark, then something must have changed to make the earth dark. Or are you suggesting the the sun is not in the heavens?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Genesis records the sun being created on day 4 (and light being created ''after'' verse 1). So where do you get the idea that heaven includes the sun? The "unproductive activity" commandment refers to 90% talk and 10% editing. You are nowhere close to that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::But the sun is in the Heaven - ie the sky. It is created in Day One. Isn't that obvious? (I must admit that I have a rather literal interpretation though - and I acknowledge that more liberal interpretations are poissible.) As an aside I would like to thank you for confirming my edit position. Are the statistics held somewhere so that I may reference them and Confirm my Position? I consider it most important that one should Follow the Rules.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: The sun is in the heavens ''now'', but that doesn't mean that when the Bible says that the heavens were created that everything ''in'' the heavens were created at the same time, and Genesis specifically says that the sun was created on day 4. Isn't ''that'' obvious? And literal? As for your edit statistics, see the Personal edit counter link in the welcome box on your talk page. But keep in mind that the "90/10" rule is not a precise 90%/10% figure, but a commandment against "unproductive activity", with the 90/10 split being a guide to what that might be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:55, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::So that I understand your interpretation correctly: your position would be that when the heavens were created there was no sun? Just the earth floating in space? And when Scripture says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It should be "In the beginning God created the heaven, but not the sun, and the earth."? Personally I think the literal (gap) interpretation make more sense from every angle. Why not just let the bible explain itself and accept it literally?
::::: On another issue, thank you for pointing me to the edit counter, and for explaining the edit rule - I thought it literally meant 90/10 I understand now that it's more symbolic.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:15, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Yes, my position is that when the heavens were created, there was no sun, moon, or stars, as we are told that they were created on day 4. I do let the Bible explain itself and accept the creation account literally. It says that the heavens were created on day 1, and the sun, moon, and stars on day 4. It doesn't say that the heavens were created with the sun, moon, and stars on day 1.
:::::: I wouldn't call 90/10 "symbolic". Rather it's a ''guide'' to what "unproductive activity" is.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Thank you for taking the trouble to reply, but I remain confused by your position. If no sun, moon or stars were created when the heavens were created - then what was created when the heavens were created? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: The universe. The stars, etc. are ''in'' the universe. They are not the universe itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::But surely, the Universe is Defined by the matter within it. If there were no Matter in the Universe would it exist?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Tolerance, heavens mean the space , the vast empty space ...--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 12:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Some would argue that the vast emptiness is defined by the distance between two points of matter. Without these two points such a measurement cannot be made. To put it another way, the Universe only exists where there are things in it. One could argue that if you removed all the Matter from the universe you have no Universe.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:13, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Gap theory

2008-04-20T15:12:14Z

Tolerance: format

The '''Gap theory''' or '''Gap creationism''' is the idea that there was an indeterminate "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. During this gap the surface of the [[Earth]] was destroyed by a battle between [[God]] and [[Lucifer]].

==Dinosaurs==
The [[dinosaur]]s were also destroyed at this time and their fossil remains are those that are found to this day.

==Differences of opinion==

Many [[Christian]]s believe that following the gap a six-day creation took place. Others hold more to a view of [[Progressive Creationism]].

As a theory which attempts to harmonise the age of the earth with that promoted by [[naturalism|naturalistic]] scientists, it is preferred by some Christians, although has largely fallen out of favour in recent times.

== Problems with the theory ==

A crucial point for the Gap theory is the translation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It appears in some translations as follows:
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NIV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=KJV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NASB}}

Gap theorists claim that the verse can be translate to say that the Earth ''became'' formless and empty. However, the [[Hebrew]] letter ''waw'' used as a conjunction does not allow this translation in this context.<ref name="JS06">Sarfati, 2006</ref>

Another problem is that in trying to harmonise the Bible with uniformitarian geology, the Gap theory introduces a new global catastrophe (the so-called "Lucifer's Flood") which uniformitarian geology doesn't recognise and the Bible doesn't mention.<ref name="JS06" />

== Proposed Biblical Support for the theory ==
The first verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1;&version=9; Gen 1:1]</ref> {{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=KJV}} clearly shows that the heavens and the earth were constructed simultaneously.

The second verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:2%20;&version=9; Gen 1:2]</ref> {{Bible quote|1 :"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." |book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=2|version=KJV}}shows that the heavens were no longer lighting the earth and that consequently something must have changed the situation and darkened the heavens. This something was the war between God and Lucifer. The Gap. <ref>[http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html Beyond the gap theory]</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://downloads.creationontheweb.com/pdfs/gap_theory_tract.pdf The Gap Theory, Why it fails on all counts], 2006.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==

* [http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/Gaptheory.html Biblical basis of the Gap Theory]
* [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-the-earth-recreated-after-an-initial-creation-1.html Was the Earth recreated?]
* [http://www.bbmhp.org/editorial/tohu.html BEREAN BIBLE MINISTRIES]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T15:04:40Z

Tolerance: /* Biblical position */

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)

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)

==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)

==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."

: 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)

==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)

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

: 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)

:::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.

::: 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)

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)

==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)

==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)

Talk:Old Earth Creationism

2008-04-20T14:58:12Z

Tolerance: /* Age of the Earth */

Talk:Gap theory

2008-04-19T16:16:11Z

Tolerance: One could argue that if you removed all the Matter from the universe you have no Universe.

== "No longer lighting the Earth" ==
In the "support" section is the line that Genesis 1:2 "shows that the heavens were no longer lighting the earth and that consequently something must have changed the situation and darkened the heavens". Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Verse 1 says nothing about the Earth being lit, so how can verse 2 mentioning that the Earth was in darkness be indicating a change? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Because of the editing rules here I will have to post quite a lot of material before actually engaging in a debate. However, heaven (including the sun) and the earth were created first. If the EArth were dark, then something must have changed to make the earth dark. Or are you suggesting the the sun is not in the heavens?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Genesis records the sun being created on day 4 (and light being created ''after'' verse 1). So where do you get the idea that heaven includes the sun? The "unproductive activity" commandment refers to 90% talk and 10% editing. You are nowhere close to that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::But the sun is in the Heaven - ie the sky. It is created in Day One. Isn't that obvious? (I must admit that I have a rather literal interpretation though - and I acknowledge that more liberal interpretations are poissible.) As an aside I would like to thank you for confirming my edit position. Are the statistics held somewhere so that I may reference them and Confirm my Position? I consider it most important that one should Follow the Rules.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: The sun is in the heavens ''now'', but that doesn't mean that when the Bible says that the heavens were created that everything ''in'' the heavens were created at the same time, and Genesis specifically says that the sun was created on day 4. Isn't ''that'' obvious? And literal? As for your edit statistics, see the Personal edit counter link in the welcome box on your talk page. But keep in mind that the "90/10" rule is not a precise 90%/10% figure, but a commandment against "unproductive activity", with the 90/10 split being a guide to what that might be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:55, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::So that I understand your interpretation correctly: your position would be that when the heavens were created there was no sun? Just the earth floating in space? And when Scripture says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It should be "In the beginning God created the heaven, but not the sun, and the earth."? Personally I think the literal (gap) interpretation make more sense from every angle. Why not just let the bible explain itself and accept it literally?
::::: On another issue, thank you for pointing me to the edit counter, and for explaining the edit rule - I thought it literally meant 90/10 I understand now that it's more symbolic.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:15, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Yes, my position is that when the heavens were created, there was no sun, moon, or stars, as we are told that they were created on day 4. I do let the Bible explain itself and accept the creation account literally. It says that the heavens were created on day 1, and the sun, moon, and stars on day 4. It doesn't say that the heavens were created with the sun, moon, and stars on day 1.
:::::: I wouldn't call 90/10 "symbolic". Rather it's a ''guide'' to what "unproductive activity" is.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Thank you for taking the trouble to reply, but I remain confused by your position. If no sun, moon or stars were created when the heavens were created - then what was created when the heavens were created? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: The universe. The stars, etc. are ''in'' the universe. They are not the universe itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::But surely, the Universe is Defined by the matter within it. If there were no Matter in the Universe would it exist?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Tolerance, heavens mean the space , the vast empty space ...--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 12:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Some would argue that the vast emptiness is defined by the distance between two points of matter. Without these two points such a measurement cannot be made. To put it another way, the Universe only exists where there are things in it. One could argue that if you removed all the Matter from the universe you have no Universe.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:16, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Gap theory

2008-04-19T16:07:19Z

Tolerance: If there were no Matter in the Universe would it exist?

Talk:Old Earth Creationism

2008-04-19T16:04:01Z

Tolerance: /* Age of the Earth */

Talk:Gap theory

2008-04-19T15:57:13Z

Tolerance: Thank you for taking the trouble to reply,

Talk:Old Earth Creationism

2008-04-19T15:31:19Z

Tolerance: /* Age of the Earth */

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-19T15:22:42Z

Tolerance: Biblical position

Talk:Gap theory

2008-04-19T15:15:46Z

Tolerance:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-18T19:08:23Z

Tolerance:

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a documentary charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
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 hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and set for release Friday, April 18, 2008.

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue 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]] and a 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>

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"/>

Before the film opened, some critics trashed the movie using the same kind of illegitimate tactics which the movie describes. For example, ''Time'' said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes. The ''Time'' reviewer, having put words in Stein's mouth, then claims that this supposed misrepresentation is a typical example, probably hoping that potential viewers will choose not to watch the movie. Actually, all it shows is that ''Time'' is so desperate to keep people fooled about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution that they will stoop to misquotation and character assassination.

==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> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. [[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 were similarly "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>

The stridently 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>

The rabidly pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticises the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] 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 Bethel 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]]:
{{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>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even 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>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in typically [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] puts words in Ben Stein's 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.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its aesthetics trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

==Alleged Copyright Violations==

On April 9, 2008, legal notice was sent to the producers of ''Expelled'' by the graphic firm XVIVO, LLC, alleging copyright infringement. The notice states that ''Expelled'' includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled ''The Inner Life of a Cell''. XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in ''The Inner Life of a Cell'', and had not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of the material. The notice threatens legal action if the producers of ''Expelled'' do not remove the allegedly infringing segment from all copies of the film prior to its scheduled commercial release on April 18, 2008. <ref> [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/EXPELLED-Letter.pdf] </ref>

The producers of ''Expelled'' responded with a lawsuit filed on April 14, 2008, seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. This lawsuit is currently unresolved.<ref>[http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080415/20080415006769.html?.v=1] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Producers File Lawsuit and Expose Other Efforts to Suppress Free Speech</ref>

==A Christian perspective==
It is nevertheless clear to thinking Christians that Intelligent design is simply an attempt to force an impossible marriage between Biblical Truth and atheistic Science, and as such Intelligent Design and Darwinism are equally wrong.

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed] at the [[IMDB|Internet Movie Database]]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom] by Barbara Bradley Hagerty at NPR.com
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of the film aggregated at Rottentomatoes.com]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

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

Gap theory

2008-04-18T17:03:51Z

Tolerance: /* Proposed Biblical Problems with the theory */

The '''Gap theory''' or '''Gap creationism''' is the idea that there was an indeterminate "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. During this gap the surface of the [[Earth]] was destroyed by a battle between [[God]] and [[Lucifer]].

==Dinosaurs==
The [[dinosaur]]s were also destroyed at this time and their fossil remains are those that are found to this day. Gap Theory supporters feel this gives a far more rational reason for the disappearance of the Dinosaurs than the theory they died in the Great Flood.

==Acceptance==
Many [[Christian]]s believe that following the gap a six-day creation took place. Others hold more to a view of [[Progressive Creationism]].

As a theory which attempts to harmonise the age of the earth with that promoted by [[naturalism|naturalistic]] scientists, it is preferred by some Christians, although has largely fallen out of favour in recent times.

== Proposed Biblical Problems with the theory ==

A crucial point for the Gap theory is the translation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It appears in some translations as follows:
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NIV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=KJV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NASB}}

Gap theorists claim that the verse can be translate to say that the Earth ''became'' formless and empty. However, the [[Hebrew]] letter ''waw'' used as a conjunction does not allow this translation in this context.<ref name="JS06">Sarfati, 2006</ref>

Another problem is that in trying to harmonise the Bible with uniformitarian geology, the Gap theory introduces a new global catastrophe (the so-called "Lucifer's Flood") which uniformitarian geology doesn't recognise and which believers in official YEC religions claim the the Bible doesn't mention.<ref name="JS06" />

== Proposed Biblical Support for the theory ==
The first verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1;&version=9; Gen 1:1]</ref> {{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=KJV}} clearly shows that the heavens and the earth were constructed simultaneously.

The second verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:2%20;&version=9; Gen 1:2]</ref> {{Bible quote|1 :"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." |book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=2|version=KJV}}shows that the heavens were no longer lighting the earth and that consequently something must have changed the situation and darkened the heavens. This something was the war between God and Lucifer. The Gap. <ref>[http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html Beyond the gap theory]</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://downloads.creationontheweb.com/pdfs/gap_theory_tract.pdf The Gap Theory, Why it fails on all counts], 2006.
* G.H. Pember, EARTH'S EARLIEST AGES; Harry Rimmer, MODERN SCIENCE AND THE GENESIS RECORD; Francis Schaeffer, GENESIS IN SPACE AND TIME. (Supportive of the Gap theory.)
* Arthur Constance, WITHOUT FORM AND VOID. (Supportive of the Gap theory.)
* [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/gap_theorists_defended.htm Gap Theory defended]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==

* [http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/Gaptheory.html Biblical basis of the Gap Theory]
* [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-the-earth-recreated-after-an-initial-creation-1.html Was the Earth recreated?]
* [http://www.bbmhp.org/editorial/tohu.html BEREAN BIBLE MINISTRIES]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Gap theory

2008-04-18T17:02:07Z

Tolerance: small exp

The '''Gap theory''' or '''Gap creationism''' is the idea that there was an indeterminate "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. During this gap the surface of the [[Earth]] was destroyed by a battle between [[God]] and [[Lucifer]].

==Dinosaurs==
The [[dinosaur]]s were also destroyed at this time and their fossil remains are those that are found to this day. Gap Theory supporters feel this gives a far more rational reason for the disappearance of the Dinosaurs than the theory they died in the Great Flood.

==Acceptance==
Many [[Christian]]s believe that following the gap a six-day creation took place. Others hold more to a view of [[Progressive Creationism]].

As a theory which attempts to harmonise the age of the earth with that promoted by [[naturalism|naturalistic]] scientists, it is preferred by some Christians, although has largely fallen out of favour in recent times.

== Proposed Biblical Problems with the theory ==

A crucial point for the Gap theory is the translation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It appears in some translations as follows:
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NIV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=KJV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NASB}}

Gap theorists claim that the verse can be translate to say that the Earth ''became'' formless and empty. However, the [[Hebrew]] letter ''waw'' used as a conjunction does not allow this translation in this context.<ref name="JS06">Sarfati, 2006</ref>

Another problem is that in trying to harmonise the Bible with uniformitarian geology, the Gap theory introduces a new global catastrophe (the so-called "Lucifer's Flood") which uniformitarian geology doesn't recognise and the Bible doesn't mention.<ref name="JS06" />

== Proposed Biblical Support for the theory ==
The first verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1;&version=9; Gen 1:1]</ref> {{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=KJV}} clearly shows that the heavens and the earth were constructed simultaneously.

The second verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:2%20;&version=9; Gen 1:2]</ref> {{Bible quote|1 :"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." |book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=2|version=KJV}}shows that the heavens were no longer lighting the earth and that consequently something must have changed the situation and darkened the heavens. This something was the war between God and Lucifer. The Gap. <ref>[http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html Beyond the gap theory]</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://downloads.creationontheweb.com/pdfs/gap_theory_tract.pdf The Gap Theory, Why it fails on all counts], 2006.
* G.H. Pember, EARTH'S EARLIEST AGES; Harry Rimmer, MODERN SCIENCE AND THE GENESIS RECORD; Francis Schaeffer, GENESIS IN SPACE AND TIME. (Supportive of the Gap theory.)
* Arthur Constance, WITHOUT FORM AND VOID. (Supportive of the Gap theory.)
* [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/gap_theorists_defended.htm Gap Theory defended]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==

* [http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/Gaptheory.html Biblical basis of the Gap Theory]
* [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-the-earth-recreated-after-an-initial-creation-1.html Was the Earth recreated?]
* [http://www.bbmhp.org/editorial/tohu.html BEREAN BIBLE MINISTRIES]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Gap theory

2008-04-18T16:51:49Z

Tolerance: /* Bibliography */ expansion

The '''Gap theory''' or '''Gap creationism''' is the idea that there was an indeterminate "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. During this gap the surface of the [[Earth]] was destroyed by a battle between [[God]] and [[Lucifer]].

The [[dinosaur]]s were also destroyed at this time and their fossil remains are those that are found to this day.

Many [[Christian]]s believe that following the gap a six-day creation took place. Others hold more to a view of [[Progressive Creationism]].

As a theory which attempts to harmonise the age of the earth with that promoted by [[naturalism|naturalistic]] scientists, it is preferred by some Christians, although has largely fallen out of favour in recent times.

== Problems with the theory ==

A crucial point for the Gap theory is the translation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It appears in some translations as follows:
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NIV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=KJV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NASB}}

Gap theorists claim that the verse can be translate to say that the Earth ''became'' formless and empty. However, the [[Hebrew]] letter ''waw'' used as a conjunction does not allow this translation in this context.<ref name="JS06">Sarfati, 2006</ref>

Another problem is that in trying to harmonise the Bible with uniformitarian geology, the Gap theory introduces a new global catastrophe (the so-called "Lucifer's Flood") which uniformitarian geology doesn't recognise and the Bible doesn't mention.<ref name="JS06" />

== Support for the theory ==
The first verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1;&version=9; Gen 1:1]</ref> : "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." clearly shows that the heavens and the earth were constructed simultaneously.

The second verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:2%20;&version=9; Gen 1:2]</ref> :"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." shows that the heavens were no longer lighting the earth and that consequently something must have changed the situation and darkened the heavens. This something was the war between God and Lucifer. The Gap. <ref>[http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html Beyond the gap theory]</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://downloads.creationontheweb.com/pdfs/gap_theory_tract.pdf The Gap Theory, Why it fails on all counts], 2006.
* G.H. Pember, EARTH'S EARLIEST AGES; Harry Rimmer, MODERN SCIENCE AND THE GENESIS RECORD; Francis Schaeffer, GENESIS IN SPACE AND TIME. (Supportive of the Gap theory.)
* Arthur Constance, WITHOUT FORM AND VOID. (Supportive of the Gap theory.)
* [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/gap_theorists_defended.htm Gap Theory defended]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==

* [http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/Gaptheory.html Biblical basis of the Gap Theory]
* [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-the-earth-recreated-after-an-initial-creation-1.html Was the Earth recreated?]
* [http://www.bbmhp.org/editorial/tohu.html BEREAN BIBLE MINISTRIES]

[[Category: Creationism]]

Gap theory

2008-04-18T16:45:23Z

Tolerance: /* Support for the theory */ spel

The '''Gap theory''' or '''Gap creationism''' is the idea that there was an indeterminate "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. During this gap the surface of the [[Earth]] was destroyed by a battle between [[God]] and [[Lucifer]].

The [[dinosaur]]s were also destroyed at this time and their fossil remains are those that are found to this day.

Many [[Christian]]s believe that following the gap a six-day creation took place. Others hold more to a view of [[Progressive Creationism]].

As a theory which attempts to harmonise the age of the earth with that promoted by [[naturalism|naturalistic]] scientists, it is preferred by some Christians, although has largely fallen out of favour in recent times.

== Problems with the theory ==

A crucial point for the Gap theory is the translation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It appears in some translations as follows:
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NIV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=KJV}}
{{Bible quote|1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1-2|version=NASB}}

Gap theorists claim that the verse can be translate to say that the Earth ''became'' formless and empty. However, the [[Hebrew]] letter ''waw'' used as a conjunction does not allow this translation in this context.<ref name="JS06">Sarfati, 2006</ref>

Another problem is that in trying to harmonise the Bible with uniformitarian geology, the Gap theory introduces a new global catastrophe (the so-called "Lucifer's Flood") which uniformitarian geology doesn't recognise and the Bible doesn't mention.<ref name="JS06" />

== Support for the theory ==
The first verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1;&version=9; Gen 1:1]</ref> : "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." clearly shows that the heavens and the earth were constructed simultaneously.

The second verse of Genesis <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:2%20;&version=9; Gen 1:2]</ref> :"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." shows that the heavens were no longer lighting the earth and that consequently something must have changed the situation and darkened the heavens. This something was the war between God and Lucifer. The Gap. <ref>[http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html Beyond the gap theory]</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://downloads.creationontheweb.com/pdfs/gap_theory_tract.pdf The Gap Theory, Why it fails on all counts], 2006.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==

* [http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/Gaptheory.html Biblical basis of the Gap Theory]
* [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-the-earth-recreated-after-an-initial-creation-1.html Was the Earth recreated?]
* [http://www.bbmhp.org/editorial/tohu.html BEREAN BIBLE MINISTRIES]

[[Category: Creationism]]

User:Tolerance

2008-04-18T16:31:43Z

Tolerance: I wonder if somebody could confirm if all Christian viewpoints are welcome here?

{{userboxtop|Wiki for Jesus}}
{{User OEC}}
{{User GapTheory}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User nobias}}
{{userboxbottom}}

During the early part of April 2008 I attempted to make some posts on another site suggesting that a more tolerant attitude to Religion might be appropriate.

Sadly, I did not, and indeed am not, making much progress. While debating there I was told that I would only last "four posts" here. In the event, I find that unlikely as there is much here with which I agree, but I felt it as necessary to sign up if only to make the point.

I wonder if somebody could confirm if all Christian viewpoints are welcome here?

Talk:Old Earth Creationism

2008-04-18T16:30:49Z

Tolerance: /* Age of the Earth */ These ideas are based, in part on 2 Peter 3:8

Talk:Gap theory

2008-04-18T16:23:23Z

Tolerance: /* "No longer lighting the Earth" */

Talk:Gap theory

2008-04-17T16:48:31Z

Tolerance: