Let's get ahead in our knowledge of the movie expelled before it actually comes out...
Keep checking Expelled Exposed for the National Center for Science Education's official response to the Ben Stein movie Expelled; for now, we hope you will find this collection of resources helpful. (all info from ExpelledExposed)
Reviews of Expelled from those who have seen it
- Colorado Confidential: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies
- The Orlando Sentinel: Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?
- The Screengrab: Screengrab Exclusive Preview: EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED
- Short Sharp Science (New Scientist blog): Are ID proponents being silenced?
- Richard Dawkins: Lying for Jesus?
- Josh Timonen, RichardDawkins.net: Expelled Overview
Other News Coverage of Expelled
- New York Times: Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin
- The New University (University of California Irvine): I.D. Rakes it in and Gets Rake in Face
- Encyclopedia Britannica Blog: How Low Can Ben Stein Go? (To the Maligning of Charles Darwin)
- New York Times: Disinvited to a Screening, a Critic Ends Up in a Faith-Based Crossfire
- Popular Science website: An upcoming documentary raises controversy in the blogosphere over its anti-evolution stance
Biologist PZ Myers expelled from Expelled screening
- New York Times: No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film
- Pioneer Press: Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'
- Complete list of news and blog coverage on Greg Laden's Blog
For more information on creationism and evolution, see NCSE's main website atwww.ncseweb.org
. Questions? Emailexpelled@ncseweb.org
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
The difference is that a believer has good inner reasons to love others. The atheists doesn't have any reason to be always good, to never do anything wrong even if he wouldn't get caught.
I care about others because I know in a scientifically provable sense that we are all related. Christians care about others because in a fantasy world that can be proven false they believe we all descended from Adam and Eve. My reasons are better.
I understand this. Do I need to repeat after you? Yes Yes Yes. natural selection selects the best adapted organism to cause evolution. I don't fail to grasp this, but you believe that without looking at the consequences of this which is ridicule. That theory supposes that very complex organs such as the bacterial flagellum will arise by multiple positive mutations that will all be functional (no useless organs, only functional ones will be selected). Well, this is a very broad assumption since no one knows even how a complex system like the bacterial flagellum could arise by random mutations that would all cause a series of functioning organs. Of course, no one knows how less complex organs made of some of the elements of the bacterial flagellum could be functional. Remember that it's impossible to go through steps of mutations of non-functioning organs because, if it was the case, we would need to see plenty of useless organs in mutation everywhere and it's not the case. Also, why don't we see transitional fossils if it all went through very little steps of change? Do you fail to grasp this?
You don't understand. Natural selection is NOT about an individual surviving or reproducing. Natural selection is about having children who can have children. The individual may die immediately after reproducing (mayflies, eg). This is a perfectly valid evolutionary state that will not change unless mayflies are pressured by their environment to evolve into some thing that is not a mayfly.
Also, evolution is NOT about being more complex. Bacteria are as complex as they need to be. They don't change unless they have to - hence drug resistant TB that only existed in tiny numbers 50 years ago that is very prevalent now. Evolution is not a tree, not a bush, but more like a lawn - with many organisms evolving from each other and not from each other. It is not about a bacteria becoming a human - as if humans were a pinnacle of some sort. We aren't at the top of some imaginary ladder. We don't have to be.
Transitional fossils - see Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero. He is a paleontologist who studies the ancient ruminants of North America. His book has pages and pages of photos of transitional fossils. Many fossils are in museums in basement store rooms or laboratories where the general public doesn't have access. So Dr. Prothero has put together this book showing the progression from an early ancestor to modern day species. Not for one species but for a lot of species. The book is easy to read for the general public. I checked it out from my local library, so you don't have to spend money if you don't want or don't have.
And, irreducible complexity:
Or, you can take cellular biology and really learn what a flagellum is and how it functions and its evolutionary path. Movement for a single cell organism is very important - not only must it move to where there is food, it must also move out of its own waste stream. Otherwise, it would be poisoned by its own waste products. And, you must remember that moving through liquid is vastly more difficult if you are only a single cell. More like a human trying to move through a mud slide than moving through water. Consequently, there are many different motive mechanisms for different environments. A sponge is sessile (doesn't move around) but it also is multi-cellular. So when water flows by, it can take advantage of the flow and change in nutrients. A bacteria is not sessile - it moves - it has to because the relative size of the bacteria to the water flow means it can get stuck in one place within the flow. Rather like being on a sidewalk so crowded that you can not move faster or slower than the crowd moves and you can not move to one side since your path is blocked by other people. The single cell organism (bacteria, amoeba, paramecium, etc) must have a way to push or pull through the water. Amoeba move by contracting internally. Paramecium have some number of external flagella. We have many examples of different ways that organisms have evolved to move in a medium that is viscous relative to the organism.
I'd be a lot more impressed with your arguments if they didn't sound like the same old, same old, heard it a hundred times from someone who has obviously never passed a science course at university.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I said this because charity mean to love others even your ennemies and to help others etc. Hitler didn't do that. He didn't love his ennemies, he sent them into concentration camps. So, it's obvious that understanding the word charity tells you that Hitler wasn't catholic. I just fail to understand how you appear to live in America and you've never heard of the signification of the word charity. Man, open your dictionary. Psychopath also call their mental construction "reality".
If you're going to exclude everyone who doesn't love his enemies and helps others, etc..then it's not looking too good for you either, never mind the rest of your religious brethren.
Yes, cracking open a book might be a good idea. Try these for starters, if the subject really interests you : "The German Churches Under Hitler" , "Hitler-- Memoirs of a Confidant". He was a psychopath alright, but as you'll find out, that's not incompatible with being catholic, unfortunatly.
The thing is , you don't even need to bring up hitler to figure that out. Just think of all the godfearing german folk who did the actual killing.
Was it ? Then why didn't you answer me the first time ?
He sent priests into concentration camps and didn't love his ennemies. Do I need more explanations as to where I got that idea. I got it directly from observation.
Uhm, no, you didn't get it from "observation". *sigh*
Yes, you need more "explanations". Explain, for example, the monk who assisted with the writing of "Mein Kampf". Explain the "brown priests". Explain how exactly you can know who a psychopath "loves" or not.
And you also need to explain why you even brought him up, when we were talking about something else entirely.
There was nothing more obvious.
O, goody. I'll look forward to your "explanations" then.
Your assertion would be like saying that the soldier that scourged Jesus during his passion was a christian. Why do you fail to understand this?
What assertion ? I asked a question. Do I have to explain the difference ?
Why should I care about what we're discussing?
You're posting on a discussions forum, and you don't care about what you're discussing ??
Yeah, that explains a lot.
For me, it's becoming obvious that anything I discuss with atheists becomes as purposeless as their lives.
See, now that's an assertion. Do you get the difference now, or are you going to give me another example ?
I guess you were looking for a way out.
And you provided one to me.
You're just admitting you needed a way out ? Gee, I didn't think my questions were that hard. Oh well, at least you're honest.
Don't start things you can't finish.
Uhm...it kinda makes you look stupid.
I'm reluctant to watch it because I anticipate becoming extremely frustrated while watching it and being unable to directly respond to the dishonesty that pervades creationism.
This is all atheism is about. Anger at creationists, bad emotional feelings and irrationality. Exactly what is contrary to science.
Here's a great review: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html
Snippet of Ebert raping Ben Stein:
I've been accused of refusing to review Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled," a defense of Creationism, because of my belief in the theory of evolution. Here is my response.
Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away two of the wrong answers. Now you are faced with two choices: (A) Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or (B) Intelligent Design.
Because this is a special edition of the program, you can use a Hotline to telephone every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A). A million bucks hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. You could use the money. Which do you choose? You, a firm believer in the Constitution, are not intimidated and exercise your freedom of speech. You choose (B).
Squaaawk!!! The klaxon horn sounds. You have lost. Outraged, you file suit against the program, charging it is biased and has denied a hearing for your belief. Your suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it. You call for (B) to be discussed in schools as an alternative theory to (A).Your rights have been violated. You're at wit's end. You think perhaps the field of Indie Documentaries offers you hope. You accept a position at the Institute of Undocumented Documentaries in Dallas, Texas. This Institute teaches that the rules of the "$64,000 Question" are the only valid game show rules. All later game shows must follow them literally. The "$64,000 Question" came into existence in 1955. False evidence for earlier game shows has been refuted by scientists at the Institute.
On the cover of "Expelled", there was a quote from a Ben Stein review where rated his own movie 5 stars. That says all you need to know right there. Also, Stein's posse "expelled" PZ Meyers from an open screening of the movie because they were afraid he'd give it a negative review (meaning the film actually lived up to its name).
Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical
Yes I know, atheists are fearful that their protective dady be humiliated. This is why they invent other hypothesis. The truth is that Dawkins really has no clue as to how information arise in the Genome. There is duplication, deletion, moving around of genes, random mutations. None of these processes can add information. Even if Dawkins had not been stuck at this question, even if he had started to talk right away, he wouldn't have answered the question because there is no known process that can add information in the Genome. Random mutations are random, and information is not random. So, in the end, even if Dawkins had answered, he would still have been stumped by that question in his intellect.
Yawn. The typical creationazi response when confronted with the truth. Nothing to see here.
You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
By creationist "logic":
-Historians are not 100% sure that Columbus was the 1st foreigner to discover the Americas. Therefore it's logical to assume it was Mr. Spock.
-Historians are not 100% sure that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, therefore it makes more sense to believe that Elmer Fudd did it.
-Scientists aren't sure what causes black holes, therefore they must be caused by Zeus having a large oatmeal fart.
Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical