Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Finally a Reason to go to the Movies Again







Ben, "Bueller, Bueller" Stein is responsible for giving me the desire to enter a movie theater again! In this new film, Ben Stein takes on the Scientific co9mmunity as he reveals how the "darwinists" and athiests have taken hold of the community and persecute any and all scientists who dare to even question their "evolution" theory. In the film you will see how those who have attempted to question and reveal new evidence that casts doubt on Darwin's evolution theory, have been basically blacklisted - losing their jobs, credibility and sometimes, even much more!

I have viewed several of the trailers offered on the site...linked above...and it is telling! I can't wait to get to the theaters on opening night...I will gladly hand over my $12 to support Ben Stein's courageous efforts and so should you!!

The film opens at selected theaters April 18, check out his website "Expelled" to see if a theater near you is listed and if not...get on the phones and demand that your theaters offer it!

And no...I have no connection to Mr. Stein...although, I wish I did, I would love to thank him personally for making this film!!

15 comments:

Benjamin Franklin said...

This films’ main thesis, that anyone in the science community who believes in God, or is a Darwin dissenter is being “expelled” is false at its core.

In a New York Times interview, Walter Ruloff (producer of Expelled) said that researchers, who had studied cellular mechanisms, made findings suggestive of an intelligent designer. “But they are afraid to report them”.
Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”, explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Mr. Ruloff said that Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line”.

That’s “just ludicrous,”
Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=2

Similarly, Dr. Ken Miller is a professed Christian who wrote “Finding Darwin’s God” (which I suggest you read). Dr. Miller has not been “expelled” in any fashion for his belief in God.

The movie tries to make the case that “Big Science” is nothing but a huge atheist conspiracy out to silence believers, but only presents a very one-sided look at some Discovery Institute “martyrs”.

Carolyn Crocker “expelled”? - No.
Her annual teaching contract was not renewed. Was she “fired” for daring to bring God into research? - No. She was hired to teach Biology, and she decided to ignore the schools’ curriculum and substitute her own curriculum.

http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/ode-to-caroline-crocker/

Guillermo Gonzalez “expelled”? - No.
He was not granted tenure. The film doesn’t bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he had only brought in only a miniscule amount of grant money. Nor does it bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he failed to mentor a single student through to their PhD. Nor does it mention that in his career at ISU, his previous excellent record of publication had dropped precipitously.

Richard von Sternberg “expelled”? - No.
Sternberg continued to work for NIH in the same capacity. Of course the movie doesn’t bring up his underhanded tactics in getting Meyers work published.

This movie attempts to influence it’s viewers with dishonesty, half-truths, and by a completely one-sided presentation of the facts.

If a scientists’ research is not accepted by the scientific community, it isn’t because the scientist either believes or doesn’t believe in God, it is usually because they are producing bad science.

Benjamin Franklin

neat62 said...

Hi Benjamin,

Thanks for checking out our blog and for your comments.

However, since the film has yet to be released its quite difficult to assess its contents and message isn't it?

In addition, one only has to apply basic common sense to realize that the scientific community has, in fact, denied the possibility of intelligent design for several years now. We hear constant stories of students struggling to reconcile the teachings of "evolution" with their religious beliefs. I could site countless cases where courts, teachers and school districts have denied any access or mention of intelligent design in the classrooms...for instance:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

In addition, we are told constantly that intelligent design promotes religion, therefore, it has no place in public schools (the inproper application of the non-existant "separation of church and state").

In addition, I can hardly give the New York times article credibility...as their liberal bias has been exposed more than once and the lies they have been caught in, don't warrant anyone giving them a second look.

Finally, WHY are Darwinist's so afraid of exploring the possibility of intelligent design if they so strongly feel they are RIGHT? Could it be that there are far too many things the "evolution" theory can't explain??

Again, thanks for your comments...but I think I will judge for myself when this movie is released and WE have had an opportunity to actually see and hear its contents!

Benjamin Franklin said...

I'm confused.

You said "Since the film has yet to be released its quite difficult to assess its contents and message isn't it?"

But that didn't seem to stop you from endorsing the movie - to the point of insisting that people "get on the phones and demand that your theaters offer it!" if its not at a theather near them.

Why is that?

neat62 said...

Well simply put...because those who have seen it, many who I respect, have offered reviews and generally, the comments are that if offers an alternative point of view, something worth considering.

You are willing so willing to bash it...why? Is this what you have "heard/read"? I imagine your reasons are the same as mine...no?

neat62 said...

Or does it just scare you to think that the theory you support just might not be true?

One day when we die all will be revealed...

If there is no God, no intelligent design...well then there is no harm in my believing it.

But if there is...I could be doing a great deal of harm to myself, my soul, by its denial, don't you think?

ckrob said...

Were it not for science the Pope would still have us believe the Sun and the Universe revolves around the Earth. Maybe, like Galileo, we should all be incarcerated for not believing the required beliefs.

If a reader has scientific support for ID please supply. It does need to be more than the fallback position that 'God did it!'

CKR

Benjamin Franklin said...

neat-

No, my reasons are not the same as yours, because I have done a great deal of reading, study and research on both sides this subject, sorting through, analyzing and weighing the evidence. You, on the other hand, appear to be basing your opinion, and have become, in fact, a shill for this movie, based on a couple of movie trailers, and what else? A writeup in Ray Comfort's blog? An endorsement from James Dobson?
Am I right?

You state that ID is an alternate point of view, but if I step outside at 3:00 in the morning and say "The sun is shining bright", that too, is an alternate point of view, but it is incorrect.

ID proponents want you to believe that ID is equally valid as the theory of evolution, but that too, is incorrect.

Proponents of ID haven't been silenced, in the last 20 years the Discovery Institute has been shoveling money at ID, (mostly for PR and lawsuits) but also a great deal to scientists to come up with even a valid theory of ID, but to date, they have come up with nada - zero, zilch. In fact it is the proponents of ID that have been silent.

All the scientific community is asking for, as ckrob put it, is to come up with some scientific support for ID. Can you provide any?

leftistdestroyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leftistdestroyer said...

CKRob,

Let's not forget, that science, also told us that the sun revolved around the earth, at one time. Look, we are all smarter now, than we were 400 years ago. We found out that you cannot turn lead into gold. That there is no fountain of youth. That the foundations of genetics were discovered by a Priest. In 1927, a Catholic priest, suggested that the universe is expanding. And guess what? Even Albert Einstein was skeptical of that. Hell, my fathers own uncle, a Catholic Brother, was asked to work on the A-Bomb, but refused because he was a religious brother! That same man was one of the founding fathers of Lewis University in Illinois. The theory of impetus was developed by a Catholic priest. Nicole Oresme, a Catholic Bishop worked with light refraction, and more. You want scientific proof on ID? Ok, then I want scientific proof on Darwin. Until either one has been proven, they should both be taught. There is no 100% proof on evolution or man made Global Warming for that matter,(and yes, I am a...D-E-N-I-E-R OOOooo!) but they are being taught as 100% proven and undisputed fact. You guys always pick a few tragic instances that happened centuries ago, but at the same time, fail to mention the times, when religious folks have added so much to the field of science.

leftistdestroyer said...

Ben

"based on a couple of movie trailers, and what else? A writeup in Ray Comfort's blog? An endorsement from James Dobson?
Am I right?"

James Dobson is not a Catholic, we are. Just for the record.


"ID proponents want you to believe that ID is equally valid as the theory of evolution, but that too, is incorrect."

Why is that invalid? You people believe evolution to damn near fact, but have no real hard evidence to back it up. (If I am wrong, please inform me.) But even if evolution became law, can evolution tell us more? Can it explain the creation of the universe?
And I find it very telling by the extreme anger and outrage that has been directed at ID. As scientists, knowledge and truth seekers, why the closed mind?

Benjamin Franklin said...

leftistdestroyer-

I said - "ID proponents want you to believe that ID is equally valid as the theory of evolution, but that too, is incorrect."

you asked -
"Why is that invalid?"

ID is not equally valid as the theory of evolution because ID is not yet even a theory. At this time it is barely a hypothesis. Really, it is just a concept. A scientific theory, for one thing, allows you to make predictions, which can then be empiricaly tested.

ID allows you to make no predictions. Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:


Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests.

Thats just one reason ID is not equally valid, but if you want more, the information is certainly out there for you to learn.

I would also like to address your response to ckrob. If you do some research on it, it was church doctrine that supported and sustained the geocentric theory, until the time of Galileo.

One final point. You asked - Can it explain the creation of the universe?

No, and if you would even do the first bit of research about it, instead of so strenuously denying it - that the theory of evolution doesn't even address the creation of the universe.

Now, I'm not angry about your being uninformed about it, but it does seem that very often, the people who are the most vocal opponents of teaching evolution are those who don't know, nor understand the actual arguments for, or even against evolution.

This was certainly the case with the members of the school board in Dover, PA that neat referenced in his reply to me. The chairman of the school board, Alan Bonsell, and the chairman of the curriculum committee, Bill Buckingham, who were so eager to teach creationism instead of evolution in the Dover science classrooms, admitted in the trial that all they knew about evolution was what they read at the Answers in Genesis website, and the information provided to them by the Discovery Institute.

next question?

leftistdestroyer said...

"This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects"

Why haven't they found hemocyanin in any other winged insects that come from the water and then sprout wings as they matured? Is the stonefly the only insect with hemocyanin? Why is that? Is a stonefly the same as a stonefly nymph? (I am a fly fisherman) Is a stone fly born in water and then move to land? If so, how does it breath, if it can no longer use it's gills?

"I would also like to address your response to ckrob. If you do some research on it, it was church doctrine that supported and sustained the geocentric theory, until the time of Galileo."

If you read my reply, you will see that is what promted me to respond the way I did. And it geocentric theory was supported by many men of science, even way before Galileo. My point was the Church and religious people, were not anti science, and that many religious peole have made substantial contributions to science.

"No, and if you would even do the first bit of research about it, instead of so strenuously denying it - that the theory of evolution doesn't even address the creation of the universe."

1) I, personally, belive that evolution and Christianity can coexist.
2) This is also a political blog. We also have political ideology at play here. We are attempting to block many who hold your views,(though you may not be radical) from gaining ideological ground by fucking with the Constitution. (Free speech, 1st amendment, etc)
3) Well, no shit! I know that evolution does not have anything to do with the universe, so fuck you smart ass. But if the evolutionists are going to tell me that we all came from mud, then I will expand the conversation much deeper. And that is why some want ID taught along side evolution.

"who were so eager to teach creationism instead of evolution in the Dover science classrooms,"

No, he wanted to teach it alongside evolution. He wanted another POV. BIG difference.

Benjamin Franklin said...

leftistdestroyer-

You raised an interesting question about stoneflys, so I did some more research on it (here is a link to the study I mentioned)

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=321773

from the abstract of the study-

Insects possess an elaborate tracheal system that enables transport of gaseous oxygen from the atmosphere directly to the inner organs. Therefore, the presence of specialized oxygen-transport proteins in the circulatory system of insects has been considered generally unnecessary. Here, we show for the first time, to our knowledge, the presence of an ancestral and functional hemocyanin (Hc) in an insect. In the hemolymph of nymphs and adults of the stonefly Perla marginata, a hexameric Hc was identified, which consists of two distinct subunit types of 659 and 655 amino acids. P. marginata Hc displays cooperative oxygen binding with a moderately high oxygen affinity [(half-saturation pressure, P50 ≈8 torr (1 torr = 133 Pa)]. No evidence was found for the presence of Hcs in the more evolutionarily advanced holometabolan insects, suggesting that this type of respiratory protein was lost later in insect evolution. However, our results demonstrate that, in contrast to the accepted paradigm, certain basal insects have retained an ancestral blood-based mechanism of gas exchange.

Insects are the world's dominant life form, yet there remain uncertainties regarding their key evolutionary transitions. The leading phylogenetic hypothesis indicates a close relationship between insects and crustaceans, suggesting that fundamental changes in the mechanisms of respiration must have accompanied the diversification of insects from crustaceans and their invasion of terrestrial and aerial environments.

Our results indicate that functional Hcs were most likely present in early insects, are still present in certain extant taxa, and were inherited from the common ancestor of insects and crustaceans. Why stoneflies in particular have retained this oxygen transport molecule in their blood remains an interesting question. Although the Plecoptera possess what appears to be a typically developed insect tracheal system, they have a number of ancestral features, and are aquatic as nymphs and are semiaquatic as adults. Thus, it is likely that the presence of a Hc in stoneflies reflects an intermediate state in the transformation from a crustacean to an insect respiratory system.
,
,
,
In other words, the theory of evolution predicts that water-based life changed (evolved) to air and land based life. Earlier life forms, such as crustations, used hemocyanin (which is copper based) to transport oxygen to the cells. This obviously changed to using hemoglobin(iron based), in later life forms.

The stonefly is interesting, because it begins as an aquatic creature, then becomes semi-aquatic, indicating a transition. Some species of stonefly are fully aquatic.

Additionally, this knowlege can be used. Knowing more about hemocyanin, may lead us to more advances on producing synthetic hemoglobin, or blood. And who knows what else.

This is some "real, hard evidence" that you requested from "you people", whatever that means.

This is the kind of stuff kids need to be taught in class, as opposed to ID, which just says "There are some things that appear very complex, and we think that they are too complex to have come about naturally, so that must mean that we can't figure it out, so a designer (God) must have made them".

If ID, goes any further than that, show me. I have searched and researched, but thats where ID goes, and thats where ID stays.

To me, that is totally inadequate. It doesn't teach kids to learn, it teaches kids to stop investigating, stop challenging, and stop learning.


Now, regarding your point on Bill Buckingham that he "wanted to teach it alongside evolution. He wanted another POV." That too is incorrect.

Buckingham, as chairman of the curriculum committee, originally did not want to purchase the Miller/Levine biology textbook.

When he and the rest of the curriculum committee met with the schools science teachers in Spring2004, he had a list of complaints about the book, all of which revolved around the section on evolution.

He said at that meeting "This book is laced with Darwinism." he complained that the book presented natural selection, common descent and "monkey to man" as fact, not theory. And there was no way he was going to approve a book that was so one-sided, that failed to present scientific problems with evolution, and that remained silent on alternative explanations for creation.

Bill Buckingham did not want to get the Miller/Levine biology book at all for the Dover schoolrooms. Bill Buckingham did not want evolution taught at all. Bill Buckingham wanted creationism taught in the classrooms, in accordance with his own personal religious views that the Bible should be interpreted literally, as was taught in Harmony Grove Community Church, which he attended.

In his own words Buckingham says "To me, the Earth is six thousand years old. I believe in the book of Genesis as being literal. And two thousand years ago, more or less, someone died on the cross for us. It's either all truth or it's all lies. There's no in-between....And I know it's truth."

He looked at purchasing other textbooks, including one published by Bob Jones University Press, more in line with his young earth creationist views, but was advised that it was over the line on being overtly religious, and would never pass the state requirements. He later wanted to order 200 copies of "Of Pandas and People". He eventually had to compromise by ordering the Miller Biology textbook, and having Pandas available to the classes for reference.

Read the transcript of the Dover trial, read the statements by Bertha Spahr and the rest of
the science teachers, and the other members of the school board. Read "Monkey Girl" by Edward Humes for more information on Bill Buckingham, Alan Bonsell, and what really happened in Dover.

Finaly, you said in a post that there is "extreme anger and outrage that has been directed at ID", but look at my posts, and look at your posts. Who is angry here? Who presents reasoned, sound information, with proof and evidence, and who says "Fuck you, smartass" as the response?

The one positive thing that you have said in your post is that you believe that evolution and Christianity can co-exist. That is correct. If you go back to my first post, I reference and recommend Dr. Ken Miller and his book "Finding Darwin's God". This is the same Ken Miller who also co-wrote the biology textbook used in Dover. Dr. Miller is Catholic, but also is an expert in evolution. There are many other scientists who believe as Dr. Miller does, but you will not find any of them interviewed, or even mentioned that they exist, in Expelled.

When specifically asked about this lack of even a mere reference in Expelled to the fact that many (most?) Christians, and many Christian scientists have no problem with the theory of evolution, Mark Mathis (producer of Expelled) said - "That would just make the movie confusing."

I don't think that it would make the movie confusing, but it would certainly shoot down the false premise the movie is trying to present, that is - Either you are religious, or you are an atheist scientist (Darwinist), who has no morals, and could countenance another Holocaust.


Skip this junk movie. Read Millers book "Finding Darwin's God". Don't call people smartass, just because they are more informed about a subject than you, learn the information and you can be smarter too.

leftistdestroyer said...

Ben,

I am not going to argue evolution as I may agree with much of it.

Keep in mind that this is a political/social blog as well. We know that free religious expression in governmental arenas, are being silenced, even though our basic independence is based on rights endowed by our Creator. We belive that the First Amendment is being manipulated, twisted, and distorted. We believe that secularists, are forcing their will upon a great many people. Engel v. Vitale was not based on the government sanctioning of any one single religion, OR, any religion period. The entire discussion about Darwinism, is fundamentaly based on the snowball effect of secularism. That one single person, such as Madalyn Murray O'Hair, can order millions of people to be silenced, in the same way that one cannot disagree publiclly with homosexuality, golbal warming, or many other controversial topics, without being branded as some kind of kook, or being sued. Sure, there are some kooks on the fringes who do not want to see Darwinism taught anywhere, and that is just nuts. But for the most part, we simply want to see ID taught along side evolution. And frankly, I don't care where, teach it in English class for all I care, but allow another POV, in the name of free speech.


"It doesn't teach kids to learn, it teaches kids to stop investigating, stop challenging, and stop learning."

Quite the contrary, it is more to think about, more to research, and more to learn. And recall the partial list of religious folks who also studied science. Their religion hardly stopped them from seeking more knowledge.

And look man, why us it that in schools and many other public arenas, anything and everything can be brought up, said, or taught, unless it may reference a topic of religion? Why is it that kids can be taught how to put a condom on an erect penis? I don't agree with that, but because my position is not a Liberal one, it does not count. Free speech is an agreement between the people and their government. The government cannot silence free speech. The 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" Last time I checked, the Dover school board was not Congress of any kind, not state, not federal. Since Congress did not pass any such law in this particular case, yet the government can silence free speech, it is mine, and many, many others opinion, that the government is is violation of the 1st amendment.

The plaintifs in this case believe that, because they disagree with ID, that it should not be included. Wheras, the Defendants in this case, feel the exact same way, yet the government picks one side, always. The side that seeks to silence. This absolutely, goes both ways. For every complaint the defendants have, I can make an equal argument in favor of the defendants. You don't like the mention of God in schools, well I don't like the mention of sex in schools. I pay taxes, they pay taxes. They have the government on their sides, we get fucked.


"Finaly, you said in a post that there is "extreme anger and outrage that has been directed at ID", but look at my posts, and look at your posts. Who is angry here? Who presents reasoned, sound information, with proof and evidence, and who says "Fuck you, smartass" as the response?"

Oh hell yeah we are angry! I am not hiding it on bit. I said fuck you to you because of your arrogant, condascending tone. Just because I have a different opinion that you do, does not make me uninformed. My point was, why are you so scared of ID being taught as a possible alternative to people? Why do you get so angry if it is brought up? If it is so stupid, then only stupid people will buy into it, no? So let them make up their own fuckin minds. I see so many darwinists who see blood if I even mention ID, and I'm not even activley pushing for it! Those people simply hate religion, and therfore, hate me. And you ask why I am angry? Fuck you, thats why.


"you believe that evolution and Christianity can co-exist. That is correct. If you go back to my first post,... Dr. Miller is Catholic, but also is an expert in evolution."

Oh, gee, I'm glad I picked the correct answer for you.(rolleyes) If you recall, I provided a sample list of religious folks who were very much into science, and have even disproved some ideas that the Church, and a ton of other people once believed, so don't take credit for a point that I had already made to ckrob, and don't think that you are teaching me shit that I didn't already know. If you do, I will tell you, cause that is the kinda guy I am.


"I don't think that it would make the movie confusing, but it would certainly shoot down the false premise the movie is trying to present, that is"

Sorry, the premise is not either or, but highlighting the point that the same people who cry for free speech, diversity, and tolerance in academia are full of shit.

"Don't call people smartass, just because they are more informed about a subject than you, learn the information and you can be smarter too."

You see your tone? That's why you are a smartass. And I'll go a little further: Fuck you, smartass. If we had this conversation in public, your arrogance would have made me a staunch believer in Darwin because the remnants of the Neanderthal would have come out in me as I cracked you. And it would not be over opinion, but attitude.

Anonymous said...

How very Christian of you.

Blog Archive

BTTS - Where Personal Responsibilty is the EXPECTED NORM!