Atheist Scientists in Uproar over Movie Showing Intolerance of Evidence for Intelligent Design

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | October 5, 2007

[monomaniac]

Atheist Scientists in Uproar over Movie Showing Intolerance of Evidence for Intelligent Design

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Coming to Theatres in February 2008

LOS ANGELES, October 5, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) -  Atheist scientists who have become famous for attacking those who disagree with them are now loudly complaining about supposedly being mistreated in a film they haven't seen.

Oxford zoologist, Richard Dawkins, has made a lot of money and fame calling people who believe in God "delusional." Yet he is now grumbling that the producers of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed "tricked" him into doing an interview. EXPELLED exposes the intimidation, persecution and career destruction that takes place when any scientist dares dissent from the view that all life on earth is the mere result of random mutation and natural selection.

"Some of these people -- especially Mr. Dawkins -- spend a lot of time insulting the millions of folks who disagree with them, so you would think they would have a little tougher skin," said Mark Mathis, one of the film's producers. "The funny thing is they are whining about the fact that the film is going to allow them to insult people on a much larger stage."

Other notable scientists who claim they were "deceived" by the producers of EXPELLED include Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education and PZ Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who devotes much of his time to his popular science blog.

Myers has attacked the film several times on his blog since EXPELLED announced its arrival in theaters in February 2008.

EXPELLED's producers say they aren't surprised by the academic uproar over the film because it is consistent with what happens on university campuses when students or professors question atheistic materialism.

"There is some serious mistreatment and downright reprehensible behavior going on here, but I can assure you it's not coming from us -- we're just the ones exposing it," said Executive Producer, Walt Ruloff. "When our audience sees the stories of the real victims of scientific malpractice they're going to be outraged."

The producers of EXPELLED are particularly amused by Dawkins's complaint that the name of the film was changed from "Crossroads" to "EXPELLED" suggesting that this re-naming was a deception. Dawkins is well aware of the fact that movie titles change. When he was interviewed for EXPELLED he made the comment that the title of his anti-religion documentary, "Root of all Evil?" was chosen as a replacement for the original title late in the process.

Additionally, Dawkins participates in the documentary "A War on Science," which is an attack on Intelligent Design (ID). Producers of that film presented themselves to the Discovery Institute as objective filmmakers and then portrayed the organization as religiously-motivated and anti- scientific.

"I've never seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites in my life," said Mathis, who set up the interviews for EXPELLED. "I went over all of the questions with these folks before the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in advance. The lady (and gentleman) doth protest too much, methinks."

"Both Myers and Scott say they would have agreed to be interviewed under any circumstances, so why are they complaining?" said Ruloff. "In fact we had a second interview set up with Eugenie Scott, which she cancelled once rumors about EXPELLED began to circulate."

The legal releases all of the interviewees signed were quite explicit in regards to editorial control and transferability, something that is standard in the film business. Dawkins, Myers, Scott and many other scientists were paid for their interviews (Scott's check went to her organization, the National Center for Science Education).

EXPELLED's producers have made it clear the film will portray the scientists interviewed in a way that is consistent with their actual viewpoints or other public statements.

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is scheduled for release in February 2008. For more information on Ben Stein's journey visit http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

[muawiyah]

Problem with Dawkins is that he’s the quintessential whiner.

[damondonion]

Superb. We have something like 200,000,000 dead bodies lying around from this idea of a man’s neighbor being a meat byproduct of random events rather than a fellow child of God, and it’s way past time somebody called the idiots on it.

[Star Traveler]

Sounds like something I’ve got to see, along with the new Creation museum in Kentucky. W00T... LOL!

No, really, I’ve got to see them both... really, I mean it...

[HerrBlucher]

Crybaby athiests bump.

[Free Vulcan]

Whether you favor evolution or ID, bottom line is these atheists act like sniveling leftist bullies who can’t tolerate any dissent. If your theory is valid, it will speak for itself, and you don’t have to use totalitarian tactics to prove it’s validity.

If you can’t run with the dogs, don’t come out of the doghouse.

[Thumper1960]

Mr. Dawkins may know by now that God works in mysterious ways.

[joebuck]

Nothing like lots of free publicity to help out a flick.

[joebuck]

"Sounds like something I’ve got to see, along with the new Creation museum in Kentucky"

Going there next month on a Church outing.

[Coyoteman]

The "evidence" for ID is laid out in the Wedge Strategy.

A sample:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions....

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

No science there, except creation "science." And in fact, in the Dover decision, a federal judge determined that ID was creation "science" with the serial numbers filed off.

[woofer2425]

A MUST SEE for my wife and I.

[Evie Munchkin]

I’d love to see this movie and I wish it were being released earlier. My baby is due in early February, so it may be hard to get out of the house for a couple of hours.

[pray4liberty]

EXPELLED's producers say they aren't surprised by the academic uproar over the film because it is consistent with what happens on university campuses when students or professors question atheistic materialism.

That's the point right there. That's what they are afraid of. When the light of truth shines, the roaches scatter.

[Archon of the East]

Boo Hoo deal with it Dawkins.I love it when people feel they step all over others then whine like spoiled child when someone disagrees. But we are talking about leftists and Democrats.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"... when any scientist dares dissent from the view that all life on earth is the mere result of random mutation and natural selection."

Not even Charles Darwin believed that! The Theory of Evolution addresses the origin of species not the origin of life.

Meanwhile a new life form has been created in the lab -- which does seem to prove that Intelligent Design of lifeforms is feasible.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907889/posts

[Darkwolf377]

Yet he is now grumbling that the producers of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed "tricked" him into doing an interview.

What's good enough for Michael Moore...

[Renderofveils]

Not even Charles Darwin believed that! The Theory of Evolution addresses the origin of species not the origin of life.

And follow that with a link to an article where scientists mutate an existing bacteria into another bacteria? That's not creation. That's mutation.

[scarface367]

We have something like 200,000,000 dead bodies lying around...

Ah yes, trot out the pathetic Darwin is responsible for all the world's evils nonsense. Why don't you just go ahead and blame Darwin for traffic jams, elevator music and the Broncos piss poor performance while your at it. It's only slightly less stupid to do so.

[grey_whiskers]

Meanwhile a new life form has been created in the lab -- which does seem to prove that Intelligent Design of lifeforms is feasible.

From the article in the Guardian:

The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks for easy recognition.

Plagiarism!

Cheers!

[FunkyZero]

Although these fellows deserve what they get, I do hope it is all quoted in context. We already have one too many Michael Moores. Not busting on the producers because I obviously haven’t seen it yet either, I just hope it is done fairly so the freaks can’t scream foul over it.

[Turret Gunner A20]

re: # 10

And in fact, in the Dover decision, a federal judge determined that ID was creation "science" with the serial numbers filed off.

And we all know that federal judges are immentnently well qualified to determine exactly what is and what isn't -- like when a human being actually ceases being just a glob of goo and becomes a person, etc., etc., etc.. In a pig's A$$.

[boop]

"I just hope it is done fairly so the freaks can’t scream foul over it."

I predict it will be an accurate representation of the way leftists react when challenged on ANYTHING. I also predict that they will scream foul no matter what.

[Turbo Pig]

Hmm, seems like these atheist scientistsare about as smart as the liberals who a continually claiming that Bush “tricked” them into going in to Iraq.

If all these people are so gullible that they can be “tricked” so easily, why should I listen to them? I mean, no telling who put the ideas they espouse into their heads. Maybe they have been “tricked” into their beliefs, as well.

[damondonion]

The only thing pathetic in the picture is that anybody with an IQ above that of a dog still believes in this sort of junk science.

[HerrBlucher]

I just hope it is done fairly so the freaks can’t scream foul over it.

Me too. Looking forward to seeing it.

[beefree]

Type science frontiers anomolies into a search engine to see over 2000 entries, many of which could be used to argue against evolution theory. The truth really is out there, and with the internet so widely available, there is no excuse for blindly accepting the Evolution theory, which is a taxpayer supported belief system (religion.)

[isrul]

They sound more like the doges in the middle ages attacking some men of science as heretics.

[scarface367]

And your well reasoned arguments for this assertion are?

[Coyoteman]

The truth really is out there, and with the internet so widely available, there is no excuse for blindly accepting the Evolution theory, which is a taxpayer supported belief system (religion.)

It is really amusing to see the lengths to which creationists will go to try to discredit the theory of evolution.

We are told that the theory of evolution is a religion, although it has none of the hallmarks of religion.

We are also told that ID is science, although it has all of the hallmarks of religion.

So, calling a science religion is supposed to denigrate that science. But calling religion a science is supposed to elevate that religion?

Especially when neither of these claims is true?

I guess this is what is called creation "science" -- something like the opposite of real science, eh?

(Didn't George Orwell have a term for that kind of language manipulation?)

[beefree]

Science Frontiers is a secular science magazine, decidedly not Creationist. The anomoly articles are fascinating regarless of one’s world view.

[Coyoteman]

Science Frontiers is a secular science magazine, decidedly not Creationist. The anomoly articles are fascinating regarless of one’s world view.

I was commenting on another part of your post, suggesting that:

...Evolution theory, which is a taxpayer supported belief system (religion.)

But I will check out Science Frontiers. Thanks for the information.

[beefree]

The actual title of Darwin’s book regarding the Evolution Theory is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life. It was used to justify slavery.

[TASMANIANRED]

Silencing criticism with anything except evidence is contrary to science.

The evidence leads where it leads.

Clapping your hand over the mouths of a contrary opinion gives the appearance of weak evidence.

[Coyoteman]

The actual title of Darwin’s book regarding the Evolution Theory is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life. It was used to justify slavery.

Not by Darwin.

But, as I recall, the Bible was frequently used to justify slavery, more so than anything Darwin ever wrote. We have one or more posters here who have refused to condemn slavery because of that.

Almost exactly two years ago, one posted, "My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves."

The post was pulled, but it has never been retracted. Nor apologized for.

I would be careful with using Darwin as a source for the acceptance of slavery.

[beefree]

I think the main issue here is the hostility that scientists show toward each other, sorta like when Galileo bucked the science of his day. I watch a lot of science shows on Discovery, Science, etc., and noticed some time ago how disrespectful some are toward others and their findings. Snide, really. This fact, I think, makes it unlikely there could be any civilized debate between them. Too bad, I have a lot I want to learn about science, but who do you believe?

[NicknamedBob]

"It was used to justify slavery."

calumny [kal-uhm-nee]
–noun, plural -nies.

1. a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something: The speech was considered a calumny of the administration.

2. the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1400, –50; late ME < L calumnia, equiv. to calumn-, perh. orig. a middle participle of calvī to deceive + -ia)]

-Synonyms 2. libel, vilification, calumniation, derogation.

[Coyoteman]

Silencing criticism with anything except evidence is contrary to science.

The evidence leads where it leads.

Clapping your hand over the mouths of a contrary opinion gives the appearance of weak evidence.

Science has already examined and rejected many "contrary opinions."

The evidence leads where it leads, and alchemy, astrology, phrenology, phlogiston chemistry, and many other "contrary opinions," have already been examined and rejected by science. Creation "science," is one of these.

Changing the name from creation "science" to ID does not change the fact that both are religion in the guise of science.

You are worried about "Silencing criticism with anything except evidence is contrary to science." Where is the evidence? What has changed in creation "science" in the past few decades, other than the name?

If there is new evidence, it certainly would be examined by science. But so far, the ID movement is being pushed largely by the Dyscovery Institute, following the plan laid out in the Wedge Strategy, to destroy science as it is currently practiced and replace it with a "theistic" science.

"Theistic" science? Sure sounds like religion in disguise to me.

[beefree]

The actual title of Darwin’s book regarding the Evolution Theory is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life. It was used to justify slavery.
Not by Darwin.

But, as I recall, the Bible was frequently used to justify slavery, more so than anything Darwin ever wrote. We have one or more posters here who have refused to condemn slavery because of that.

Darwin’s ideas were racist. Favoured races was about human beings as well as finches. Hitler based his “supremecy” on this book. Hitler’s men tortured jews and told them it was being done in Jesus’ name. Conquistadors killed americans in the name of Jesus. If someone runs over a suirrel in my name doesn’t mean I approved it. :) Slavery’s bad m’kay.

[Coyoteman]

Darwin’s ideas were racist. Favoured races was about human beings as well as finches.

Creationist Claim CA005.1: Charles Darwin was a racist [rebuttal at this link].

[NicknamedBob]

"Darwin’s ideas were racist. Favoured races was about human beings as well as finches. Hitler based his “supremecy” on this book. Hitler’s men tortured jews and told them it was being done in Jesus’ name. Conquistadors killed americans in the name of Jesus. If someone runs over a suirrel in my name doesn’t mean I approved it. :) Slavery’s bad m’kay."

Darwin spoke of races as some speak of "kind."

Darwin cannot be condemned because of Hitler's misdeeds. Neither can the Bible.

Conquistadors killed more for the love of killing than anything else. Religion was just their excuse.

If someone runs over a squirrel, or if Hitler uses any excuse for his insanity, neither is doing it in your name, or in Darwin's name.

Slavery's bad, but it has nothing, or very little, to do with species.

[Caesar Soze]

Superb. We have something like 200,000,000 dead bodies lying around from this idea of a man’s neighbor being a meat byproduct of random events rather than a fellow child of God, and it’s way past time somebody called the idiots on it.

Somebody has definitely called the idiots.

[kbingham]

I agree...it is frightening. I think many ID people are confused. They think the lack of specific details in something like Evolution by Natural Selection means that anything goes and people can drop anything they want into the suggestion box: giant turtles, indivisible spiritual entities etc. But the whole ID premise is: We can’t understand anything so don’t try.

I’ve yet to see any ID theory. A theory lays out specifics details for a process and makes predictions. It will replace Evolution at each juncture. It will be a very detailed set of books on exactly how God designed/created each part and why. Animal by animal. IDers want to jump in and say God did it in an intangible way, and that’s it, let’s go home. The world’s shortest science book.

By what method does God compute? Specifically, if God is intelligently designing everything, he must have astounding computing power. Is God a quantum computer the size of the Universe?

By what methods does God interact with the Universe without violating 1st and 2nd laws of TD (or is he integrated into our system?).

At some point a complex theory may be able to model how energy from the Sun cast to a place like Earth can lead, statistically, to the formation of complex bio system via the thermodynamic gradient. It may demonstrate how very complex systems can flourish, and with the help of something like Natural Selection, life can arise and grow.

But IDers don’t even want to bother. They just want to throw their hands up in the air and say “It’s too hard...no way it happened through Natural Selection...God did it. Let’s give up and go sing songs instead.”

We tried that folks. It’s called the way life was before the Renaissance. Medieval ID produced a big fat Zero in its efforts to stave of death and disease. Oh, right, keep science around to solve the real problems, but when it comes to answering the questions, we’ll ask St. Thomas Aquinas.

If you want to purport that an entity without parts can interact with this Universe (even design things in it), then lay out a theory for how this is done. I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m saying lay your theory on the table in some mathematical formulation which will define how something without parts computes.

Another hint: a theory for how God interacts here without violating TD.

etc

[goldstategop]

The Left complains about censorship but then turns around to reject alternatives to the dominant Darwinist view of life on earth in science. Whatever happened to the free marketplace of ideas?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[SuziQ]

Atheist scientists who have become famous for attacking those who disagree with them are now loudly complaining about supposedly being mistreated in a film they haven't seen.

Typical liberal response. They'll dish it out all day, but don't ever think about doing the same to them, or they'll squeal "unfair"!

[goldstategop]

The theory of evolution is based on naturalistic explanation of the origin of species. Atheist scientists have taken Charles Darwin's naturalism a step further by assuming life itself came into being through entirely natural (e.g, non-theistic causes). Even Darwin never went as far they have in assuming the very existence of life on the macro level rests on the notion we live in a universe devoid of Divine Intelligence. Now if that was true, evolutionary theory ought to be able to explain why we appear to be the sole sentient species on the planet, never mind the cosmos. The fact no other sentient species has emerged in millions of years of evolution on our planet reveals the weakness of naturalism as an explanation for the question of this macro level uniqueness in humanity.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[dschapin]

I don’t quite see your point with the wedge doctrine. An organization like the Discovery Institute may well want to promote a view of science that is more consistant with Theism but that hardly means that their scientiffic arguments are invalid.

Here are some of the arguments that I find to be the most persuasive. First, have you looked into any of Dr. Behe’s arguments for design - I think they make a very compelling case that many of the cellular biological mechanisms are very complex machines that could not have developed through a process of random mutation and natural selection. Second, Evolution has a huge problem explaining the development of new protein’s. Given the length of even a simple protein chain, statistically, you would need most of the supposed evolutionary time table to expect to randomly generate even one new simple protein. This is a huge problem for evolution since a partially coded protein produces no benefit to the organism and thus natural selection cannot solve this statistical problem.

[NicknamedBob]

"The fact no other sentient species has emerged in millions of years of evolution on our planet reveals the weakness of naturalism as an explanation for the question of this macro level uniqueness in humanity."

"Wait, what?"

Have you perhaps indelicately forgotten about the Neanderthals? And others?

[kbingham]

ID isn’t a theory. It was a theory, a long time ago. It was the only theory. I’d be prepared to accept the ID theory again on one condition: If that theory produced results.

But as I said in my last post, medieval theology produced zero results.
No cures. No end to pain and suffering. Cluelessness about everyting. That’s its legacy.

Here they had God himself in charge and couldn’t figure out the Earth wasn’t the center of the Universe.

They had the Great Designer himself in charge and couldn’t defeat Plague. After all, God designed plague or one of its ancestors. Surely God must have known something about how to stop it.

I just don’t see how people can take ID seriously.

[goldstategop]

Apart from modern man, the existence of sentience for other species has not been established. Both Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have written books to demonstrate the irrationality and absence of empirical support for religious belief. They posit reality is limited to the facts of Nature and what science can tell us about it. There is no Ultimate Reality and the belief in one is just human wishful thinking in an attempt to come to terms with the permanence of our demise. They argue man is just a more sophisticated kind of animal - an animal nonetheless - and if there is no heaven awaiting the lesser beasts, then it follows death is truly the end of us of all.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “The actual title of Darwin’s book regarding the Evolution Theory is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life. It was used to justify slavery.”
________________________________
My response: So? It wasn’t used BY DARWIN to justify slavery. Besides, the Bible was used to justify slavery. If you’ve read the Bible, you know that God approves of slavery.