Pajiba

please tell me y'all have seen this, because it's GOLD. I won't reveal to much, because that sort of ruins the punch line of who got to see 'expelled' and who didn't, but it's pretty awesome: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

asshats: 0
non-asshats: 1

So... got your thoughts on ID vs. evolution and right-wing politics here... thanks, appreciate reading them.

Anyhow, did you go see the movie or base your review off the trailer? Just curious....

So, does a "Commentary" mean a contributer doesn't actually review the movie? Is someone else going to review it?

Yeah, so, I do actually believe in God. I also believe in evolution. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that contradicts the Bible, it just takes a different interpretation about what God may have meant by a "day".

Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're crazy. Sometimes, it just means they're religious. I appreciate Chez's perspective on how this documentary fails, but not that he lumps all people of faith together under the crazy umbrella.

I have been waiting for this review, and for some reason it severely disappoints. I would have preferred a more in-depth critique and summary of the points the film actually tries to make. Also, I could barely read it because a 7-fucking-inch gray and black rapidly flashing ad on the left had my brain on seizure alert. Wtf?

I don't think Chez ever painted all Christians with the same brush, just that there be a lot of you all and that the idea that Christians are persecuted is pretty laughable.

And anyway, the "man in ridiculous robes and a funny hat" leads a religion with no problem with evolution. Catholics are on board with Darwin; what's wrong with Ben Stein?

I don't think the issue is so much the idea of welcoming "welcome an unremarkable man in ridiculous robes and a funny hat" because then no-one would bother going to Tom Petty concerts.

Point taken, but Tom Petty isn't received as a head of state at the White House, nor accorded a seat at the fucking United Nations. The nation-status of Vatican City has always puzzled and angered me, but the fact that it exists tends to nullify a priori arguments about science threatening or suppressing Christianity.

Another example: Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will!), but unlike a church, a science lab doesn't automatically qualify for property tax and income tax relief.

Okay, I'm off to get a funny hat, some robes, a sceptre, and a compound in Texas. I'm going to live tax-free, privately school my dozens of children with government-approved classes teaching my religion, and bleat like a hamstrung goat every time someone points out that there's no evidentiary justification whatsoever for teaching my theories in public schools.

I think Ben Stein's the spokesbabbler for this is simply because they couldn't find anyone else.

You'd think they could've at least gotten Kirk Cameron. Have you seen his video The Banana: The Atheist's Worst Nightmare. Gold, people. Gold.

I don't want to burst your pajiba or anything, but since when did Pajiba start advertising for Scientology?

I mean, if it pays good, I can't blame you, but poking Ben Stein in the eye whilst advertising for the least-likely religion of all time seems a little, um, inconsistent.

check out scientific american's awesome coverage over at sciam.com

So, I asked this about 6 months ago when people were upset about Mormon ads on Pajiba:
1) Why not Scientology or Mormon ads? Would you censor ads for Wicca? Isn't it just as closed-minded to try to ban those ads as you would find it if one of their sites banned an ad for Pajiba?
2) Isn't it a wonderful irony that the Pajiba guys might make some money off of a Scientology ad? And isn't it hilarious that Scientology, through the magic of web-targeting, is actually completely pissing its money away by advertising to Pajibans?
Embrace the fun in this people.

Pookie - "Science is a living breathing entity"? Really?

If so, I hope that the film contains footage of Science v. Stein - Deathmatch 2008. Because that would be awesome.

If "Expelled" DID include the aforementioned death match, we wouldn't know it, because none of us know anything more about the movie than we did before reading this review.

So....ran out of new material for today, eh?

I'm not sure if this has been passed around too much, but everyone immediately needs to search Youtube for "Dawkins rap," since I can't post the link. And believe me, it's a lot cooler than the search terms would lead yout to believe.

That was one of the most entertaining reviews I've read about this travesty of a film in a while. Thanks!

Regarding the fact that many people are making judgements about this film without having seen it; keep in mind the fact that there is at least 15 minutes of footage available online in various clips and trailers, and that the film was reviewed heavily long before its release so we all know what it is about.

One only needs to take one bite out of a shit sandwich to know that the rest of it is going to taste like shit too. If there was ever a movie that was overflowing with bullshit, it is Expelled. The same can be said about Ben Stein and the rest of the inbred jackasses behind it.

There is nothing that incites arguments more than a religious debate...especially when it's a "religion vs" argument...like versus science. I, personally, stay out of it...preferring to acknowledge the points made by both sides, make up my own mind, and move on. Documentaries like this, which only present one side as "the winning side", tend to make me tune out...just as if a fanatic were trying to convince me that my lifestyle is wrong and that I'm going to his version of hell.

For those of you who want something that takes on all the "points" and "arguments" raised in the this "documentary", you can go here:

www. expelledexposed. com

Hey, I drink plenty...I think...aw, crap...I'm gonna have a functioning liver...I'm sorry, I'll repent! Tonight, even!

Me too, Shadows. I always see this sort of doc as preaching to the converted anyway, especially since people on either side of the fence are usually so against listening to counter-argument.

Feel free to beat me down as an uninformed fuckspanner one and all, but I'd presume that 90 per cent of viewers will be watching this because they alredy agree and want to feel smug about themselves, while the other 10 per cent staunchly disagree and are just watching it in order to feel righteously indignant. It's not the sort of debate that allows for a foot in both camps.

Me? I just love watching the ball bounce back and forth.

Coveredinbees, I've never heard of a sprung pun, but there is such a thing as "sprung rhythm," a way of structuring poetry in short cadences that was a device used by Gerard Manley Hopkins (my favoritest poet).

Well, Kolby, I don't know about you, but when I go to a movie review site and I see a post about a movie that just came out -- I don't know, I just kind of expect it to REVIEW THE MOVIE. That review would presumably contain criticism of the writing, directing, style, and message of the movie. What did this commentary include that we didn't already know about the issue of intelligent design?

This review and many of the posted comments only serve to prove Stein's premise: Instead of engaging in healthy debate about genuine concerns that many smart people have about Darwinian theory and what it can and can't prove, the conversation devolves into a name-calling, obscenity-spewing shout-down of anything that questions the scientific community.
In my experience, many people who have such deep-seated, emotionally-charged negativity towards religion (and Christianity in particular), have these feelings because of negative church experiences with asshole Christians. The embrace of atheism and the arguments they use to back it up seem to come later.
As a Christian who tries not to be an asshole, I wish there was a way I could apologize on behalf of all the asshole Christians out there. Because there are many. But it's not all of us. Unfortunately the assholes tend to be louder.
All I can do is ask that you just hear what the other side is trying to say, that many of us have legitimate questions about Darwinism's flaws, and maybe the reason some of us feel suppressed is that there are a lot of people who like to characterize all religious folks as total fucking flat-earth morons.
We can't change the abuses that have happened in the name of Christianity. And we can't control those among us who actually are total fucking flat-earth morons. But most of us aren't. And I don't think Ben Stein is either. Listen to what he has to say, and if you disagree, tell us why. I think that's the real conversation that Stein is asking for with this film.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that this movie came out during the Pope's historical visit to America. Maybe Stein's views stem from the fact that he was reared in the church.

"Now you've done it, angering the Pajiba overlords (where the heck is B-Slim!!!). See pointedly revised header."

Yeah, but even with revisions, it still doesn't really accurately describe the contents.

Should have a picture of Chez up there, and the heading should be "My Thoughts on Intelligent Design, Ben Stein, and the Religious Right: A Short Essay by Chez Pazienza."

There is literally one sentence devoted to the contents of the film. ONE. Which was, incidentally, equal to the number of sentences devoted to American Idol.

Furthermore, if documentaries (which all have some sort of agenda, right?) are merely preaching to the choir and don't affect anyone's opinions, why are they reviewed at all? Why are they produced at all? I think, personally, it depends on what you're coming in with - if you bring an open mind with you, then I absolutely think you can be swayed, or at least take a look at the subject matter in a new way. If nothing else, a documentary will help you to better understand WHY you disagree with its contents. I think it's impossible come away from something like Stein's film without engaging in some sort of thought.

So yes, I do take issue with the above commentary because not only does it not address the film's contents, but it didn't even give me anything to think about. It's full of empty ranting - a useless waste of a perfectly good forum for discussion. Snarky remarks are great, but they are not a good substitute for substance.

Cindy

I understand your frustration with the negativity, but here are some facts.

First, Ben Stein isn't the guy you want to defend here.

Ben Stein's argument is NOT about engaging in healthy debate about genuine concerns that many smart people have about Darwinian theory and what it can and can't prove, the conversation devolves into a name-calling, obscenity-spewing shout-down of anything that questions the scientific community.. Just look at his quote from a NY Times article on his film:

"[Stein] said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called 'From Darwin to Hitler.'"

He who invokes Godwin's Law has no interest in "engaging in healthy debate about genuine concerns" of anything.

As for gaps or flaws in evolutionary theory. Sure. They exist. But it's a scientific theory. ID is just not. Just because there are gaps or flaws in it, however, does not invalidate it as a scientific theory or put ID on equal footing with it. At all.

There's the rub. Many creationists demand that there be some sort of "smoking gun" piece of evidence to support evolution or abiogenesis or whatever. The problem is, that's not exactly how science works.

Arguably, every scientific experiment that's ever been done confirms the assertion that science needs to be based on empirically verifiable data.

The modern scientific method didn't come about because some guy came up with it one day and everyone took his word for it. The scientific way of doing things evolved out of countless early observations and experiments. Hypotheses that did not stand up to testing were weeded out - science is self-correcting.

The implied hypothesis "I do not need to base my scientific experiments on empirically verifiable data" would not have stood up to scrutiny because experiments based on other kinds of "data" would not have had cohesive results and could not have been repeated by other scientists.

For example, pretend we're both ancient scientists testing a cure for a disease. You decide to base your experiments on observations you have made about this disease in the past, and I base mine on revelations from my dreams. Whose patient is more likely to die? And thus whose method is more likely to be repeated by other scientists?

Thousands of years of human curiosity and its consequences have honed and perfected the scientific method to be the way it is now; there is no one experiment you can point to to "prove" it. Very few ideas in science work on the "smoking gun" principle - instead they rely on a preponderance of the evidence. And I guess sometimes that evidence is so well-established and overwhelming that it appears to be "just the way things are".

Now, one could argue, that if you don't hold science to a "smoking gun" principle, why hold religion (or a belief in a higher power) to that same principle. I can only speak for myself on this, but I don't hold religious beliefs to a smoking gun principle. I hold them to the same test I use in evaluating every other claim to knowlegde I encounter in my life: logical conclusions based on observable evidence.

To me, it's not just that there is no "smoking gun" in favor of religious claims, it's that there is no evidence AT ALL in their favor. Saying "goddidit" is no different from saying "it was magic" (and trust me, after playing Dungeons and Dragons since I was 6 years old, nothing would make me happier.)

PaddyDog:

I don't remember the film specifically advocating teaching ID in schools. But I've only seen it once, so maybe I'm wrong.

Also I think it's worth pointing out that the premise of ID is NOT "we can't figure out this science thing so we'll just say God did it." Rather, it's the concept of exploring the source of all the information encoded into cells, DNA, etc. Maybe stuff can evolve, but the information in the stuff just might have a source, an intelligence behind it. ID is not trying to halt science, rather tt seems ID has become more plausible to some as science moves forward, and discovers the complexity of life that Darwin never imagined.

Darwinism doesn't explain the origins of life but to assume that some sort of deity must have done it is insulting to the whole purpose of science and intelligence in general. We humans are graced with the capacity of conscious thought, to think and explore the universe. We waste that capacity when we decide something is just too complicated so "god must have done it."

Cindy, that's really not what he's asking. What he is doing is:

a) lying to the people interviewed. Dawkins,Myers, and Eugenie Scott were told that they were going to be interviewed for a film called "Crossroads"about science and religion. Curiously enough, at that time the producers had already bought the "Expelled" domain.

b) participating in a movie about censorship, while missing the irony of having closed previews, and making people sign NDAs about the showing.

c) making no attempt at all to actually define intelligent design, or explain the "science"about it.

d) repeating over and over the same old tired canards about evolution, although those have been debunked time after time after time...(repeat ad nauseaum)

e) and last but not least, using gratuitous pictures of death camps to make the claim that evolution led directly to the holocaust, which is not only dumb (it's like saying that the guys that discovered chlorine and electrons are responsible for WMDs), but actually really really offensive.

Basically, Stein and the producers of this propaganda piece are ill informed liars.

Want to show flaws in "Darwinism" (BTW, is physics Newtonism, or is that reserved only for theories you don't like), then go study a little, do some research, find actual results, show that they survive scientific challenges, you know, that hard science stuff.

And if you don't like the tone of this message, rest assured, it's only because we get tired of rebutting the same claims over and over again.

its comments like Dev's that make the religon debate dissolve into flame wars

having faith in a god is not an insult to intelligence, being intolerant of someone else's view is. I believe in god but i dont think adherents to science or Darwinism are stupid or that i know something they dont. By now most of us understand the choices presented to us in regards to which side you want to believe and trying to demonize the other side isnt going to help anything at all.

Listen folks, say what you will about Stein, but that samonabitch knows how to get the red out...

Well put Jay.

ParanoidMarvin:

I'm hardly the first person in this string of comments to use the term "Darwinism", so I don't know that that's a fair zinger. But it's okay. I understand the need to vent.

The tone of your post is totally fine with me. It takes a lot more than that to offend me. I'm not even offended by the a person who would call me a total fucking flat-earth moron to my face. I just worry that emotionally-charged things like that prevent real conversation, that's all.

Right on, dylanj.

and further some of the guys Stein talked to are respected members of the scientific community

some of their ideas of where life came from included

1. Aliens
2. Life that grew off the back of crystals

i dont know if they are right or wrong but those theories require as big of leap of faith as believing in god does

Cindy:

The very title of the film and it's cover photo (I don't know the technical term) takes a direct shot at the fact that this is a battle for teaching ID in schools.

As for what ID proposes, I think you either mis-understand ID or are intentionally trying to spread mis-information. If it were just a case of believing "Maybe stuff can evolve, but the information in the stuff just might have a source, an intelligence behind it." as you suggest, then the ID lobby would not reject the Big Bang theory or deny the logic of geological evidence that rebuts the creation of a world about 5,000 years ago. But in fact, the ID lobby does categorically reject Big Bang, all pre-5,000 year evidence and a lot more science besides.

dylan you're being defensive about a comment directed towards those who are religious and want to stifle science. I wasn't aiming at those who are faithful in general, just those with agendas harmful to others and science.

Thanks Julie and PaddyDog, I'm fairly certain the journalist misused the term then. Ahem, sorry, I could not be MORE off topic. Carry on.

PaddyDog:

I would certainly hate to spread mis-information. Can you please direct me to your source summarizing the ID lobby?

Also PaddyDog:

If you watch the movie, you will see that many of the people "expelled" were researchers at higher learning institutions. Hence the school imagery. To my recollection, almost everything discussed had to do with high-level research at the university level. There was no discussion, for example, about creating an ID curriculum for third-graders.

So what scientific theory are they pushing?

Dev:

Hell if I know, but my point is that there is a think-tank for everything, and you can't dismiss an entire school of thought just because a think-tank you don't like endorses it.

Not points of view. Scientific theories that are born out of them. Get a clue.

"It's still a religious assertion, and not a scientific one."

That is exactly, my entire problem with these intelligent design people. As a religious belief I have no problem with Intelligent design. In fact, I think it's a quite logical intelligent way of combining Christian religious beliefs (if you have them) with modern science. But when they try to claim that it should be considered equal to science and taught as such in schools is downright offensive. All it fucking is, is evolution + God. There's nothing scientific to analyze. They try to claim that rather than natural selection or survival of the fittest it was God that guided evolution. And while there isn't necessarily physical evidence for the concept of "survival of the fittest" at least it's a logical, naturalistic explanation of the world. Intelligent design has NOTHING to do with real science. Goddamn this shit pisses me off.

Nobody has been blacklisted for questioning "Darwinism". Basically, the best way to actually get tenure these days is to challenge orthodoxy. Thing is, you actually have to challenge orthodoxy and be right.

I'll point to two of the main "examples" for censorship in the film:

First we have Gonzalez, lately of ISU. The film presents him as not gaining tenure just because he dared to write a book about ID.However, carefully checking his academic record since coming to ISU, it becomes clear that his publication record trailed off during those years, and that he received almost no grants. Basically, he was not doing tenure level work at all.

We now look at Caroline Crocker. The movie claims that she was fired for teaching ID in class. The truth: she was not rehired (she never had tenure) after it was found that she was teaching creationist material which was debunked long before. By this logic, it is censorship to fire a Physics teacher who teaches that the earth is flat.

As I said above, the solution is very simple. either do some research, or go away. There is no place in science departments for privileged viewpoints. If evolution is wrong, please provide a clear counterexample. A viable alternative hypothesis would also be nice. However, whining about censorship and talking about information without having even the slightest basis in information theory or biology isn't research.

Dev,

You said any "idea or theory" promoted by a think tank is "beyond lame" (oh, how greatly I care whether my ideas are lame. Moronic? Fine. Nonsensical? Fine. But LAME? Heaven forbid). I basically said, well, I'd be hard pressed to find a person who didn't think some things that coincided with an idea promoted by some think tank.

What am I supposed to get a clue about? I'm pretty sure I understand the conversation, and I'm pretty sure you're trying to have some bizarre argument over the fact that I didn't use the term "scientific theory" - but, if you'll notice, you used the terms "idea" and "theory" in your initial statement - which are much more inclusive than the term "scientific theory."

I think if you're honest, you were trying to debunk ID based on its connection to some think tank - essentially implying that think tanks are, in and of themselves, suspect. So my saying "point of view" instead of "scientific theory" is neither here nor there.

And anyway, if you look at what I said, I wasn't using the term "point of view" in connection with a think tank - I was saying that it would be difficult me or you to have a point of view that didn't coincide with a think tank's AGENDA. So if you're going to quabble about some term I used, it should be the term "agenda."

And Cindy, you are not a troll. I don't necessarily agree with what you're saying, but you are not a troll.

Pookie is a troll. A beloved troll, but a troll nonetheless.

To spot trolls, keep your eyes peeled for excessive use of the words "boobies", "whore", or "Lohan".

So no, you are no troll. Although I can totally picture you getting more and more fired up as comments are posted. But it passes the time, no?

One thing I never understand about this ID thing is that they always protest about science not being everything, not the only explanation and all. And, yet, they are always trying to make ID tantamount to science fact...

Now, is science to be dismissed as "partial crap" or is it so superior that it has to be reached out?

cindy: I get what you're saying, but with this *particular* agenda, it's just worse than "a few crazies" IMO.

What gets my dander up about the ID movement is that it creates a wedge between science and faith saying "PICK!" For me it's way too Sophie's Choice for me and I ain't buyin'.

liliana28:

I also hate the idea of creating a wedge between science and faith saying "Pick!" That's my whole point. And if that is what the mainstream ID lobby is doing, then that sucks.

But every single Christian I'VE ever discussed this with understands that faith and science go hand in hand, and are sick and tired of being told to just "Shut the Hell Up" about the faith part. That is EXACTLY what Richard Dawkins and company do. And I believe that is the overarching principle that Stein's film is trying to address.

I may have been born a snake-handler, but as far as I'm concerned all living things are brought into this world via stork. Where'd the stork come from? C'mon now... too many questions - let me get you a nice dish of ice-cream and we can put all this silly business behind us...

Seriously though - faith/science/aliens/big-bang/etc... Nobody knows the true secrets of life until he or she kicks the proverbial bucket. Science does good. Faith (in any denomination) also does good. Ignorance and bullying people who oppose your viewpoint is not only destructive, but a moot point. There is what there is, and even though that alone might be enough to have a semi-valid argument for or against creationism, evolution and the like, it's much better to shrug it off and buy each other a pint until we all get obliviated by asteroids... Or stripper zombies.

Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?

Celery, Scopes Monkey trail? Clearly you meant trial, but Scopes monkey trail makes me think of a wildlife preserve in which our trusty trail guide tells us that "the way of science is the way of darkness!"

Also, about time some one made a Ferris Beuller reference.

lilianna28, you are wise beyond your years. You uh... you must seek out your own uh... answer to these riddles... and stuff. Godtopus controls the overall snarkiverse, I suppose, but TOOTBOG's underlying message is just for everybody to be cool to each other. Unless you can win a role on some shitty-ass VH1 "reality" show. In that case, it's every motherfucker for themselves.

thank godtopous you're here, Skittaroonie- you have reminded me of the 7th "arm" of Godtopusness, the "do unto others unless the love of a washed out artist is at stake, then fuck em all"

Wise beyond my years, huh? I think you're giving me far too little credit for the year's I've amassed as the big 3-0 looms.

Couldn't the work that Stephan Jay Gould did with his partner on 'punctuated equilibrium' be considered the evolution of evolutionary theory?

See, all things evolve. Even scientific theories.

**just as a note, I don't actually want ID proponents to die, I just wish the "ID is right, Darwinism is WRONG" types would realize just how much they rely on science's understanding of the world through evolution.

Amazing rant, i enjoyed every letter of it, aswell as the comments following it :)

Why is it that this discussion always revolves around double standards?

Creationists claim that evolutionists refuse to listen to reason yet they ignore every single piece of evidence that doesn't support their theory. They hold a magnifying glass up to everything that evolution has a hard time explaining but when the same scrutiny is applied to their theory suddenly the issue of "tolerance" pops up.

As Dawkins explained perfectly in his literature, the world views religion with a double standard. If someone is criticised for his opinion on which is the best football team, nobody gives a fuck, if someone expresses even the slightest hint of negativism about any kind of religion, he's intolerant.

The scientific process is a process of evolution in itself. Every single scientific theory has to go through rigorous scrutiny time and time again so that in the end we're left with the most accurate explanation of reality possible at that time. Somehow creationist seem to believe that their theory is special in that it doesn't need all that pesky scientific process. That is why I find it deeply offensive to the wonderful scientific community that a dogmatic view of creation that can't even hold up to the most superficial levels of scrutiny tries to politically insert it's way into science.

If creationists want to argue that they have the correct theory they should produce the required evidence, like any other scientific theory had to do to become accepted. Most of the creationist's evidence is based on "Evolution has it's flaws so creationism is the answer". When did that become a valid arguement? That'ld be like saying "Gravity is too weak, the truth is that there's a giant invisible space mushroom pushing us all down". It just doesn't make sense.

Oh man, I love the random "why are there ads for _____ on Pajiba?" comments. I always feel like I get screwed, 'cause I'm always too late to the party, but HUZZAH, today I see the Scientology ads in all their glory!

But yes, the commentary. Nicely said, Chez. I don't understand why stupid people have to make this so complicated. Stupid people like Ben Stein.

Saying that evolution theory is wrong because 'Darwinism' has flaws is like saying that hygiene in biomedicine is unimportant because Semmelweis couldn't outline the germ theory yet back in 1847. Incidentally, Semmelweis figured out how to prevent puerperal fever but was put in an insane asylum, since folks back then couldn't quite get their heads around the idea of empirical evidence.

It's odd that people who pretend to equal intellectual footing seem to be operating on the premise that the neo-synthesis never happened. Darwin himself has been set as a straw-God by people who can't envision an argument framed without a deity; people who can't argue against the theory without first reflexively equating Darwin to the "Atheists' God" and Darwinism to our doctrine. Of course, this is nonsense.

Cindy, I do believe that people should be free to invest themselves in whatever theories about the world help it make sense to them--however, subjecting my children to religious doctrine in a public school is something I have to protest.

In any case, as much as 'Darwinism' does have its flaws, to the same extent is Darwinism largely beside the point unless you're a scientific historian interested in the state of the science in the mid 1800's. Evolution theory today is ever so much more nuanced and explanatory.

Darwin is not our God, nor our prophet, nor is The Descent of Man our holy testament, nor are scientific colloquia our liturgy.

ID may pretend to be on a par with any other scientific theory. All strong feelings aside, however, ID cannot be a scientific theory because it is premised on the axiomatic existence of a 'designer' but NEVER proposes experiments to directly test whether that designer exists. The ID argument conflates its axioms with its hypotheses in a manner that cannot be accepted as science.

ID proponents use the deceptively simple argument that if you find a statue in a field you can assume someone created that statue, because of its complexity, whereas you cannot assume the same of a boulder, and therefore we should look for such "complexity" in the natural order. However, there are two points to be made: first, the archeologist who finds the statue can justify a claim that it was 'made' because they have witnessed and have records of humans very often making similar things. But there are many complex things out there that were not designed by man--skeletons, for example. The reason the archeologist can tell the difference is empirical. ID folks have not determined any level of "complexity" that could only be explained through design, nor can they compare these 'objects' to things which have been designed in the past.

Cindy, I really recommend that you Wikipedia "new synthesis" before accepting critiques of Darwin's 1865 writings as damning evidence that evolution is wrong. A lot has been thought about the subject since Darwin. And although most evolutionary biologists I know have the same sort of respect for his prescience and the intellectual doors it opened as they do for Newton's or Copernicus', he is not a deity the refutation of whom could undo our whole paradigm....... He was a very insightful and observant scientist, who got the ball rolling. But no evolutionary theorist would defer to his theories in a pure form. Even Mayr and G.G. Simpson and the rest of those responsible for the modern synthesis have had to be revised in light of new evidence about speciation. I suspect we'll be moving on from the gene-centric view of evolution soon, as new evidence comes to light and new creative ways of testing theories are thunk up.

In any case, 'evolution' is as fundamental as the germ theory. We know germs cause disease--the ways, means, and outcomes are as complex as the universe itself, and awe-inspiring, and deceptive at times even to our best efforts. So we revise and revise again our attempts to contain flu, our attempts to understand resistance, etc. But that germs cause disease is unquestionable. That evolution happens, and that natural selection drives it is so well-established as to be hardly worth questioning, as such. But there are lots of fine points waiting to be discovered and revised. This is the reason that so few scientists are willing to test or retest ID--it would be like challenging Einstein to prove gravity.

De-lurking for a moment to make a few points:

1. The scientists in this film were not denied tenure because of their beliefs, but because they did not bring in any grant money or perform any significant research.

2. The makers of this film blatently ripped off Harvard U and XVIVO's Inner Life of a Cell Animation (see original here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxSLw1LMvgk )

3. ID is NOT science. Never has been. Science is about observation, experimentation, hypothisis, and revision of flawed theories. ID is simply a "we don't know, we don't care to find out because we just know a higher power (read: God) did it!"

4. This film intentionally superimposes images of Hitler with Evolutionary biology. If that doesn't suggest an alterative agenda, nothing does.

So, yeah. I call BS on the entire premise.

And as an aside, for those people of faith who would like some reading, may I suggest Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God." Nice perspective from a devout Catholic who is also a biologist.

It's painfully obvious the agenda the producers of this film have, and it's shameful what they're trying to do (and that's an understatement considering the "evolution is the inspiration for the Holocaust" garbage). It's clear in hearing the same tired and debunked creationist arguments that not only do they have no understanding of evolution, but they actually remain willfully ignorant of the subject they're trying so hard to contest.

"In other words, don't even attempt to claim that the religious suffer for their beliefs in this country. Hell, as long as you insist that you're doing it in the name of God, you can swap wives and molest children in The Middle of Nowhere, Texas for years before somebody finally comes and hauls your lunatic ass off to jail."

Thank you for this, Chez. As a former Mormon who was raised on almost all of the same beliefs as those child molesters and now an atheist who is a part of arguably the most distrusted of minorities in the US it is always great to hear people like Stein called out on their "poor, persecuted religious minority" BS. Great review.

"Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?"

Oh god, I knew it was coming. Try having that as a last name (with an alternate spelling). I mean really. And now Ben Stein's hawking ID? Gevalt. Why does he have a career?

The funny thing to me is how much people are willing to dig trenches and fight over something that is completely unresolved, and probably will not be. I am reminded of a close friend's response (a staunch believer in man-made climate change) to the fact that this has been one of the coldest and longest winters in recorded modern history, including record snowfalls all over the world. He said that "some peope believe China is polluting so much that the particles in the air are blocking out the sun".

If you ask me, both science, and belief in a higher power, require a lot of "faith" to answer unanswerable questions. With that point made, why are we able to judge so harshly the "faiths" of opposing viewpoints when both are unfounded in "scientific" evidence? Mere hypotheses become embraced as fact...on all sides. However, that is what is known as "faith" - believing in something that has not been proven. Are we really that free to judge?

jesus christ, pajiba - it's one thing to give pazienza space to rant about religion, under the guise of talking about a film (a film that, yes, deserves all the ridicule it gets). it doesn't appear that he's seen more than a tagline for the movie, but whatever. chez isn't exactly known for even-handedness.

but it's another thing to give him space to re-post, word-for-word, the same "commentary" that he put up on huffington post four days ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/he-blinded-me-without-sci_b_97339.html

at least you were second (well, as far as i know, anyway). i suppose he'll be on onegoodmove.com later today and richarddawkins.net tomorrow. for all we know, he's probably shopping it to tmz as we speak.

honestly - if you're going to keep giving chez the attention he so desperately, desperately, DESPERATELY craves, at least tell him to be original.

dylanj said:
"some of their ideas of where life came from included
1. Aliens
2. Life that grew off the back of crystals"

If you're getting that from "Expelled" you need to realise that the conversations in which those ideas were mentioned were brutally edited to made the scientists sound as crazy as possible, without giving them a chance to explain those ideas or point out that they did not necessarily subscribe to them.

If you read PZ Myers' comments on how his interview was edited, I believe he mentions that Stein's reaction shots and comments were not even filmed at the same time. That is unbelieveable intellectual fraud.

The fact that these scientists were willing to discuss far-out ideas for the origin of life, even if they didn't think they were true, shows that they cannot possibly hold the prejudices of which "Expelled" accuses them. I doubt you will see Ben Stein and the Dishonesty Institute engaging in the same open-minded debate.

Happy Earth was-maybe-created-maybe-evolved-but-sure-as-hell-we'll-be-fighting-about-it-on-the-intarwebs Day!

To hell with both ideas - I'm into random mutation myself. I believe that if I concentrate hard enough, I can grow an extra arm. I have faith. mutatemutatemutate

He Blinded Me Without Science?

A Thomas Dolby reference, no?

Props to Helcat. Well said. Matty Blue - great legwork, too. While the movie might have its flaws, I have no idea what they are because of the shotgun blast to head by the reviewer. What a joke. Not Pajiba's finest moment.

@fortheloveofscience makes a good point: Evolution by natural selection is not intended to answer questions about the origins of the universe and life in it. This is seldom acknowledged by religious pundits who mention "gaps" and "flaws" in Darwin's work. (It is said that even the Buddah asserted that he would not and could not answer questions about the origins of the universe. Smart cookie, that Buddah.)

Another aspect of evolution by natural selection that is often neglected by press and public is that it is not a theory; it is a fact. Evolution by natural selection has been observed in nature and proven to happen. It is happening right now. Legitimate scientists do not disagree on this point. What some of them disagree on are the rate at which it happens and the precise mechanisms by which it happens.

@Cindy: I, and others here, appreciate your candor about the people who claim to speak for Christians. Your honesty is rare and honorable, and it does count on the credit side of the ledger, at least in my book. And I agree that it is sad that this subject evokes so much anger and resentment. But centuries of torture, murder and persecution in the name of god can make people tetchy. Throw in systematic oppression of women, political and financial corruption, social hypocrisy, perpetuating and covering up endemic child molestation... and, well, it becomes easier to see why some folks are inclined to take a harsh stance -- especially given that the people who wrought all that misery have essentially been calling the shots for a looooong time. (Note to the leaders of the Catholic Church: Your apologies for making the last years of Galileo's life a grim imprisonment, and for failing to condemn the Nazis' persecution and murder of Jews, might have seemed more sincere and less of an effort to save your "brand image" if they hadn't come so long after the fact. I suggest you fire your PR team and hire some people who are quicker on the uptake.)

I really don't get the calls for, "please tell me more about the movie....I want a full review." And I really don't get those who think you need to have seen the movie to speak about it.

I don't need a full review of torture porn to know what it is and I don't need to watch it to denounce it. ID is much the same, I know what it is without watching this horrible sham of a documentary and I know it is wrong.

Science is the only thing that deserves to be taught in science class. Save ID for sunday school or theology courses.

And a last note...I am so tired of Christians complianing that they get lumped in with "all the crazies." If you choose to go by the same moniker as "a bunch of crazies" then you've made the choice not me.

The reason ID has no place in a scientific debate is because its not science, period.
Were we to teach ID, or the debate between ID and Evolution, we might as well do the same thing for Astrology vs. Astronomy, Phrenology vs. Neuroscience, Magic vs. Physics.

The word "theory" in science means something vastly different han the layman term. And Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists. There is no debate in the scientific comunity.

As for ID, it is not a viable hypothesis that can be tested, and therefore, not science, and should not be taught in classrooms.

I am both an evolutionary biologist and I believe in god. One is based on intellect and study, the other on faith. I happen to believe that if you need something to "prove" your religious beliefs, then your faith is not very strong, and maybe you should go pray about that rather than go about undermining scientific education in our already woefully inadequate schools.

Chugga,
Something to think on as well: religion has never had full control over any populace. It has tried. But never really achieved it. In fact the only places that have actually achieved close to full control is...N. Korea. Ya. That's an atheist state.
But in modern times what you speak of equates to state-sponsered religion.
Also known by the top 3 as:
Iran
Saudi Arabia
and
Israel

None of those countries are in the dark ages. Quite the opposite. Some laws in those countries leave Westerners mouth's dry. Mine as well. But certainly anyone who's ever travelled to Iran or Israel can tell you that there is good and bad in any country, and they really arn't as crazy as we'd like to think.

Dont get me wrong either, I think state-sponsered religion is de-facto crazy no matter if it is Saudi Arabia or Israel or Tibet with all those damn Buddhists. But the arguments towards 'Religion being totally crazy, ya'll" have got to be right. Not knee-jerk.

See that's the problem with the review. In being so absolute and god-damn reactionary it comes off sounding just as crazy as the ID folk.

Same with invalid 'religion is for crazy's, yo' arguments. It sounds stupid. More so then the argument that the majority of the quietly religious make. Which is this: "Erm, thank you very much Mr. I've-read-books-on-it. I get that you're a very learned-man. But can I just do my thing now without you trying to shove YOUR VIEWS down MY THROAT. Ya thanks".

So much for non-evangelical athiests.

Vivian, you don't know a fucking thing about history.

Also, since when is believing in invisible people beyond the age of, I dunno, 7, to be considered an appropriate world view?

Wow, I was just enjoying the scroll, but I have to respond to chucky. To adapt someone else's words (does every relevant, moderately clever phrase have to be repeated in every debate?), "Atheism is a matter of faith in exactly the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
The leap from "Why is there something" to speculation about some intelligent force might be reasonable, but belief in a specific religion is not. The overwhelming majority of religious people (in the high 90-percents) have the same faith as their parents, which indicates that reason is not what's going on. There are interesting psychological and sociological reasons for the existence of religion as a phenomenon of human behavior, however.