'Expelled' makers go on offensive against 'thought police'

“Flat earth” controversy was a hoax invented by elitist atheists in the 19 th century, i watched that on the ewtn show about the Catholic Church and western civilation.

These “expelled” attackers don’t even know their history.

Evolution is similarly a godless ideology being peddled as science, by atheists and secularists who hate God and His Holy Word.

The fossil record alone disproved evolution, and the darwinists are trying to stifle any and all discussion that is detrimental to darwinism/evolution.

Discimination may be good in many instances, i certainly agree, but in this instace it is not because it strifles discussion about the truth, the truth about the fake science that is darwinism.

Now, about the so-called plagerism, let leave that up to the courts, unless of course we can see first hand any evidence of wrongdoing.

But still we should not let any accusations of plagerism distract us from the truth that “expelled” has exposed, the truth that the darwinists are using stalinist tactics in order to cover up the truth and stifle discussion that is destrimental to their phoney science.

Even if you remove all those disputed “animations” the message of expelled is NOT diminished one bit.

And where does it dispute Evolution? I’ve yet to see a mammalian/reptilian fossil in strata that contain trilobytes. Say what you want about the fossil record, but the genetic and molecular evidence for Evolution is just way too compelling.

Look at my above post, and see if you can provide refutation of ANY of the works I describe there. Don’t just dismiss them as “too complex” to have happened through evolution. Can you provide direct evidence any of them are incorrect?

Additionally, can you explain why the basal ganglia of humans originates with 3 stratified layers, and then as it winds up to the thalamus and cerebral cortex, does it near perfectly transition to six layers? In lower animals, sometimes it only transitions to 5, or even 4. Could that explain the hyperthrophy of corticies that give humans much more processing power?

Bacterial voltage-gated potassium channels usually only contain 2 transmembrane domains, yet their eukaryotic counterparts contain 6, which tend to look like duplications of the original 2 with some modifications to the channel pore. Any ideas? Email Roderick MacKinnon and let him know.

Most credible scientists dont look at Evolution as the end all be all of existence. It is a natural process that relies on mechanisms. It’s like saying I know the secret of the Universe because I understand the thermodynamics of how my car engine operates. It’s irresponsible and incorrect.

I agree. I think the movie will encourage a lot of people who knew that there was something wrong – and this is fully confirmed by the testimonies of the evolutionary scientists interviewed in the film.

The movie Expelled shows a case where a scientist who had a peer reviewed paper published supporting Intelligent Design was still fired – for supporting ID theory.

Many do (depending on what you mean by “credible”). The movie Expelled makes that abundantly clear as the audience can hear scientists make that claim in detail.

What exactly do you mean by “many”? Many is a rather vague term.

Not at all true to anyone who understands paleontology. The world’s natural history museums are crammed with transitional fossils, strengthening the theory of evolution every year.

Really now, well then maybe you can show us one those transitional fossils. Maybe you can tell us what specie it came from and to what specie to became.

So tell me, do those transitional fossils show one species changing into another or is it one of those fossils that purportedly show reptiles “evolving” into mammals?

Darwin’s Kool-Aid
A review of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (opening in theaters April 18)

By J. Matt Barber

April 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com/CWA) - There’s a shakeup in the cult of neo-Darwinist pseudo-science, and that endearing, monotone high school teacher of “Ferris Bueller” fame is doing the shaking.

With his new feature documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (opening in theaters April 18), Ben Stein - actor, economist, presidential speechwriter and all around really smart guy - squares off with some of the world’s most prominent anti-theist elites as he gets to the heart of the question, “Who are we, and how did we get here?”

This is not your father’s documentary. “Expelled” rocks the house both literally and figuratively. It’s gripping, music-packed, comically wry and always entertaining. But its entertainment value is yet surpassed by its educational merit. Throughout the film, Stein boldly shines a light of honest inquiry, revealing time and again that Evolution’s Emperor has no clothes. In his trademark deadpan fashion, Stein skillfully debunks the dogmatic neo-Darwinist programming we’ve all had relentlessly rammed down our throats ever since “Big Science” went bananas over that cute little Scopes Monkey.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08040705.html

So you haven’t studied paleontology. That’s fine, most people haven’t. I will give you examples, but first you must tell me what you expect to see in a transitional fossil.

In return, once I show you a transitional fossil, I would like you to give me one example of how the fossil record disproves evolution.

Peace

Tim

This is a strawman. Theology isn’t biology. Unless a person is adequately trained in all the complexities of biology, how can he/she judge the legitimacy of the arguements in Expelled? I prefer to keep an open mind on issues I know nothing about. There are some highly trained scientists out there who differ on these questions. That fact alone tells me to suspend judgement.

One thing I think I know. Biology has no answer to how matter got from the inanimate state to the animate state. Take the single cell amoeba (the simplest living organism if I remember correctly from 10th grade biology). Someone else will have to tell me if we all evolved from the amoeba. But how did matter go from being inanimate to being a mobile, food-digesting, reproducing amoeba with its own genetic code (a state of almost unfathomable complexity)? It seems absurd to conclude that inanimate matter could form itself into a living organism. What does inanimate matter know about reproduction? Yet living organisms exist. Atheists must conclude that matter got from point A to point B with no intelligent input. But this conclusion is an act of faith on their part. As far as I know (which admittedly isn’t very far), science has no real answer to this. It seems to me this is the bottom line question.

[quote=BioCatholic footer]**Black holes are where God divided by Zero **
[/quote]

I see you mock Einstein’s general relativity (which fails to singularities at “black holes”). Let me give you a clue- you are a science establishment outsider. You are contradicting Nobel winning, repeatable seminal works (good job, btw). You disagree with at least some of the opinions of science. (unless of course you think failing at a singularity is ok for a theory, then, well…).

So, it is ok outside of your field, but not inside it?

The movie Expelled shows a case where a scientist who had a peer reviewed paper published supporting Intelligent Design was still fired – for supporting ID theory.

Hmm… which one was that? Sounds like another of Stein’s “factoids” to me.

Petrus, on your question to me about a certain post, I’ve lost the exact reference; could you tell me again?

Apparently you missed it the first time you watched the film. I would recommend that you go out to see it again.

If you haven’t yet seen the film, I’m still sure that won’t stop you from giving your opinions on it. But I’d rather not describe it to you here.

Barbarian, concerning the claim of a scientist being fired from his job for a journal article:
Hmm… which one was that? Sounds like another of Stein’s “factoids” to me.

But I’d rather not describe it to you here.

I kinda figured no one would want to defend that one. I gather you realize they lied about it, um?

Barbarian, doesn’t a factoid imply truth? That’s what* Expelled* is lacking. Look at the truth behind each of the six “martyr” cases on ExpelledExposed.com.

P.

“Factoid” was a word coined by Norman Mailer in the 60s, for something that wasn’t true, but in his opinion ought to be.

**A factoid is a spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) “fact” intended to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate public opinion. It appears in the Oxford English Dictionary[1] as “something which becomes accepted as fact, although it may not be true”, namely a speculation or an assumption. The term was coined by Norman Mailer in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe.[2] Mailer described a factoid as “facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper”, **
Wikipedia

“Expelled” isn’t the first factoid “documentary” (documentoid?). Oliver Stone’s “JFK” qualifies, as does a somewhat more obscure film on the Branch Davidians in Waco. The earliest example I know of is Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will.”

Fits perfectly no? Just enough truth in it to be maybe plausible, with a little “adjustment” to make it what they want it to be. Notice, though that no one is willing to stand behind any of them.

Wise choice.

I know the main thrust of the film about oppression of thought. However, I have seen enough people fired to know there are two sides to every story. Clinging to an accusation of discrimination is one of the first ego defense mechanisms people use, especially if they can style themselves as some sort of martyr.

Shalom all! I’ve browsed through the messages in this thread and have gotten a feel for what the main opinions of the people are. I’d like to throw in my own two kopecks into the debate.

I had not planned on going to see “Expelled”, although I was very intrigued by the commercials on TV. I changed my mind after reading this review: Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists I announced to my teen-aged daughters that we were going to see this movie that afternoon. They were less than thrilled.

I am a Roman Catholic, whose atheist ex-wife divorced him, and has raised my daughters as Unitarian-Universalists. (She felt she needed a church to shore up her case for custody, and that was the closest thing she could find to a church that didn’t actually have you believe anything.) The only thing my daughters know about Christianity and Catholicism is what their mother has told them, with me being held up as the occasional exception that proves the rule. So I’ve had to approach this “God” thing carefully.

Both daughters will be going into fields that are heavily political – one into art and journalism, the other into aeronautic science – so I presented this film as a documentary about academic freedom. (By “political” I mean there will be pressure in their fields to accept certain things as true, regardless of evidence.) It lead to some interesting discussions – my oldest daughter was surprised by several things, including the fact that I believe in evolution. I explained that ID is the closest thing to what the Church has been teaching for years, i.e., the actual “spark of life” was given by the Creator, who then used evolution as a tool. Not that He couldn’t have created the world as described in Genesis, but being subtle, chose this method. It’s why I don’t believe ID should be taught in school.

In short, this film allowed me to witness to my daughters about my faith, without their outright rejection of it as my attempt to brainwash them. Having spent some time debating issues with their mother, I know that from the way they changed the subject when I provided certain answers that I hit some marks; we will just have to see what those marks are.

As for the film itself, regardless of what some people may say, to me it is an excellent documentary on intellectual freedom. I’ve worked in universities enough to realize there are a lot of personal politics that go on in each department, and it is the rare college indeed that has not had one department or another turn into an armed camp over some arcane detail. Yet to see one particular ideology being suppressed in favor of another, so that research which may actually shore up the case for the second ideology is suppressed because no one must mention the first ideology, terrifies me. And with all due respect, drpmjhess, what should it matter what the producers told you about the thrust of the film? The documentary filmmakers I have known (usually students) have frequently told me of times where the the thrust of the original film changed as they gathered information. The central question is this:

Would you have altered your answers to questions based on your knowledge of the ultimate thrust of the film?

In other words, would the “truth” you would express be a different “truth” if you agreed with or disagreed with the filmmaker? I’m not talking about HOW you would express your truth, but would the answers you would give change depending on who you were talking to? If the answer is “NO”, then you should still not have any problem answering their questions (unless you suspected they would recut the interviews to make it appear that you were saying something you didn’t, as has happened in a number of anti-Catholic films; but that re-editing is a different issue.) If the answer is “YES”, then we have the reason this film was made.

<><

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.