Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Template:Talkbottom

Kevin Miller's imdb data

Tried to add it but couldn't quite figure out how to make the hyper-link work. Note: Credit for writing this film has been wrongfully attributed to Kevin Miller the conservative talk show host. That's the wrong guy. The person who wrote this film is Kevin Miller the screenwriter. His personal web site is www.kevinmillerxi.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millstone99 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If he is not prominent enough to have a Wikipedia article, I think we will not link to him. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Millstone99 it would be nice of you to let the other editors here know that you are in fact Kevin Miller who has an interest in the movie. You'd also be wise to let the editors of the Ben Stein article know you have a vested interest there as well. And by looking at your edits is it safe to assume you've matured some and won't be vandalizing th Richard Dawkins article anymore? And please stop link spamming your blog, it's not what Wiki is about. Thank you Angry Christian (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this have relevance to the fim?

Increasingly off-topic thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This statement from the article doesn't have much to do with the film. Therefore it should be removed. It also doesn't flow well. Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.[10][11] Saksjn (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Perhaps it should be reworded, but the point is valid. What is going on with this movie, as near as we can tell from the promotional material and reviews, is that there is some claim that those terrible scientists, those evil satan worshippers, are conspiring to keep religion out of the classrooms and laboratories. However, this is actually in accord with US law, like it or not. Also, none of the cases brought up in the film actually have anything to do with discrimination against scientists for their religious beliefs, although it is pitched that way. But it is relevant to point out that in fact it would be against the law to allow what the filmmakers are screaming to be allowed to do; promote one narrow religious sect's views, constituting about 5 or 10% of the US religious views using taxpayer money at the expense of the other tens of thousand Christian sects and other 5000+ religions on the face of the earth. It is like saying, I demand the right to force you to be a Muslim using the power of the state (police powers and taxing powers) and basically force you to be a Muslim at gunpoint. Doesn't sound too appetizing? Well it shouldn't. And it is exactly the agenda the people behind this film are pushing. No wonder people compare them to the Taliban.--Filll (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Frankly, I think that we should get back to teaching and quit preaching to our children. Telling our kids "these are the facts we have, this is the process we follow, and this is what our results are" is great, but "IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US YOU ARE A STUPID UNSCIENTIFIC IDIOT," quite frankly, is not. Our science classrooms should be about the scientific process, not about what they should and should not believe. Science, in my opinion, has always been about asking questions and performing experiments to attempt to answer those questions. It has never been about blindly following the crowd, even if the crowd is fellow scientists. A person who creates experiments and uses them to confirm the validity of a claim is much more a scientist than a person who never performs experiments and simply argues endlessly about the philosophy of science.  —CobraA1 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Of course, our classes should teach the scientific process and the current understanding of mainstream science. Our classes should not be about promoting some religious view and branding it as science. Intelligent design does no experiments and just argues about the philosophy of science, which is what is wrong with it frankly. It is not science; it is just nonsense and a waste of time. And also, the classrooms in the US have to follow US law, whether the people who made this film like it or not. They do have a tendency to dodge that little part. Intelligent design is illegal to teach. So...--Filll (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC) It is highly relevant. A federal court of law ruled that ID is religion masquerading as science. Angry Christian (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Relevant to what? Describing "Expelled"? not really. Describing the controversy directly surrounding "Expelled"? again, no. Providing additional context describing the political climate around the evo-creo wars in the USA? Possibly. But as the original poster in this section says, it doesn't flow well. It does not substantially contribute to the reader's further understanding of issues directly involving "Expelled" and needs reworking or removal. One possible opportunity for inclusion may be use commentary highlighting "Expelled" and its producers complete ignorance/omission of such details while promoting ID.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) As I said, maybe the wording could be better. But it is relevant.--Filll (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC) So if asking questions about science and testing the theories is what were supposed to do... Why is ID so evil? Saksjn (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Who says ID is evil? Dude, please spare us the DI inspired nonsense. Thanks in advance for not insulting our intelligence. Ben Stein's propaganda piece is crafted for the uninformed and not the editors of this article. "Big science" is scheming to take over the world, remember? And the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not asking idiotic questions suggesting people think ID is evil. Good grief. My question is this - how long until Ben makes a movie that glorifies HIV denial. Angry Christian (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)\ This page is not for debating the subject, but improving the article, as AC notes. However, let me enlighten you just a bit. There is no problem with asking questions about science and testing the theories. None. And that is what science does; asks questions and tests theories. And when theories are rejected after testing, then they are no longer accepted, and are not taught, especially to high school students or junior high school students. "Intelligent design" was a theory that was tested 200 years ago in its initial form. And it failed the testing. And so it was rejected. Now in its present incarnation, as intelligent design has been "reborn", the two main ideas of intelligent design (irreducible complexity and specified complexity) have been tested, and failed again, and rejected again. First by the scientific community. And now by the courts as well. I'm sorry - which experiments documented these failures?  —CobraA1 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Look into the details of the Dover trial where immense amounts of evidence against irreducible complexity were presented. Literally the results of hundreds if not thousands of experiments. Hundreds of books and papers on the subject. Look into the scholarly reviews of Dembski's work, where the holes are exposed in specified complexity. Even the mathematicians and scientists whose results Dembski used in his work have denounced Dembski's attempts. This is all readily available if you are willing to do a little research. And Wikipedia can get you started on doing this research, which is what an encyclopedia should do; point out a few places to start learning about this. Watch the NOVA video Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial for an easy introduction to some of this. It is available online.--Filll (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Presumably by "its initial form" he's talking about young earth creationism, which has been debunked many, many times over, as described at length in our Age of the universe and Age of the Earth articles. Raul654 (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I'm aware of "debunking circles" where both sides "debunk" the other side endlessly. Usually it accomplishes nothing.  —CobraA1 09:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Swing and a miss. In order for there to be a debunking circle, there has to be a debunking of the well-accepted framework modern cosmology is built upon. There is not. The IDists and their creationist kin have not published one single peer-reviewed paper (Mr. Sternberg's subversion of the peer-review process not withstanding). As for what it accomplishes, for people who are paying attention and actually wish to get to the bottom of the facts, it allows them to see that once side has all the evidence, and one side has none. This is, by the way, debating these issues and getting to some objective, provable truth is the essence of the scientific method (you know, that thing you rather hypocritically tried to lecture us on a few days ago). I hope that clears things up for you. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC) And you want us to teach failed rejected theories? What about astrology and phlogisten and caloric theory and the ether theory? There are thousands upon thousands of failed rejected theories. You might hear about them in a history of science class, but not in a science class which teaches current accepted theories, not failed theories. And certainly not for high school students since it is challenging enough just to teach them anything at all, let alone teach them rejected failed theories in addition to current theories. So, learn a bit about things before you rant and rave so much. And this page is not the place for your rants; thanks. Go to a debating website if you want to, but not here.--Filll (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC) The biological theory of evolution itself refutes the "once rejected, always rejected" argument. At first, many people believed that life could come from non-life, known as "spontaneous generation." Lois Pasteur showed this to be untrue. Now, the idea that life can come from non-life has popped up again in a different form, and it is believed that all organisms have a common ancestor or a small set of common ancestors, which ultimately had their origins in non-living chemicals. It is not a scientific law that a theory cannot be rejected and picked up later (often in a different form). Many theories have reversed more than once as new information is gained.  —CobraA1 09:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC) This is an incoherent and historically invalid argument. As you said above, theories get tested. ID is a theological position, unsupported by science. What improvements are you proposing for the article? .. dave souza, talk 12:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC) I didn't mention ID. And this argument doesn't contribute to the article, so I'll drop the subject.  —CobraA1 18:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Not true. The same scientific evidence used for the theory of evolution is also easily used for the theory of intelligent design. For example, many animals have similar bone structures. This could either be evidence of a macro-evolutionary past, or of a designer who used the same materials to build these animals (different cars also use the same or similar design systems, but all cars aren't identical. A Dodge Ram is a Dodge Ram.). Now, this is not contributing to the article, so you guys need to stop arguing about it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, is not a place to preach your view, and thus this is not the proper place to debate evolution vs. intelligent design. (ApJ (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)) "And certainly not for high school students since it is challenging enough just to teach them anything at all, let alone teach them rejected failed theories in addition to current theories." So now you're insulting high school students? I honestly can see your reasoning behind the statement but... Please man, NO STEREOTYPING! Saksjn (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Intelligent design is illegal to teach." The movie is not about getting ID into schools. Its about protecting the first ammendment rights of anyone who dissents from the main stream of science. Teachers and scientist can get in trouble just for saying that they doubt the theory of evolution, not that they support ID. That's a violation of the first ammendment! Saksjn (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Also, none of the cases brought up in the film actually have anything to do with discrimination against scientists for their religious beliefs, although it is pitched that way." I have friends in college right now. Their proffesors will literally ask for Christians to stand up. They then tell them that there job is to make sure my friends leave college as atheists. I pretty sure that's a violation of the 1'st ammendment. The first ammendment is often used to fight christians. Well...it can also protect them. Saksjn (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Fascinating claims, Saksjn. I have atheist friends in college and they routinely witness christian professors dashing the brains from infants and eating them whole while listening to Rush Limbaugh and force poor atheist students to watch while playing Yatzee nude! Weirdist stuff you've ever seen. These college professors say it;s their job to eat the brains of infants and force atheists to watch. I think, but I'm not certain, that violates at least one of the constitutional ammendments. And it's all true, I swear to zeus! In fact I hear the atheist, liberal, devil worshippers (satanic cultists) at PBS are planning a special report on it soon - "Christian college professors who eat their young and force their atheist students to watch while playing yatzee nude" THAT documentary is going to rock some boats, let me tell you! Thanks for sharing about your poor, persecuted christian pals. I wonder if any of them will graduate and go on to eat baby brains? Gosh I hope not. Angry Christian (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Whoah! I'd like to see a little evidence for that claim. So now you've taken a somewhat civilized conversation and turned it into an insult parade. I didn't belittle anyone. You, on the other hand, just personally attacked and belittled my friends, my faith, and me. But go on, you are protected by the Bill of Rights, and I can take it. Saksjn (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Saksjn, you do sound like a high school student. Or younger. And your account sounds like a tract from Jack T. Chick. Frankly, in my experience, the opposite is more likely to be true. "Christians" ranting and raving cursing and screaming at everyone else, threatening them, harassing them, spewing hatred and anger at all those who hold different beliefs (even different varieties of Christian), declaring that Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Atheists, Agnostics etc should be jailed or put to death. And claiming that no one is allowed to disagree with these "Christians" since every word they speak is the word of God and they are divinely inspired and it is good to hate hate hate hate and kill kill kill kill because they are "Christians". I have had many arguments with "Christians" who claim that "love thy neighbor as thyself" appears no place in the Christian bible, and was never a quote from Jesus. So in my personal experience, the people with a far uglier record are the "Christians".--Filll (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Saksjn, you should look at the Christine Comer article for an example of "Christians" persecuting others, even fellow Christians. Also, you personally are allowed to believe anything you like. You are not allowed to force others to believe what you believe; remember a little thing called the Inquisition? Also, this page is not for debating, but improving the article. More outbursts from you will be deleted from the page.--Filll (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC) May I suggest that this thread needs to either get back onto the topic of the article on this film, or close itself down. It has wandered way off-topic. HrafnTalkStalk 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Any "Christian" that tells you that "Love thy neighbor as thyself," is not in the Bible is crazy. Jesus said it, and it the way we should live our lives. The philosophy I follow in my life is a philosophy of treating others the way I want to be treated and accepting people for who they are. The Inquisition was evil and wrong, so were the crusades, so are abortion clinic bombings. I'm sorry if you've been hurt by Christians that attacked other religons. Unfortunately, some of us are guilty of those acts and give the rest of us a bad reputation. I personally have friends of other faiths. I have peacefully been freinds with Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and Mormons. About half of my friends are Atheistic. I know that some of us are radical extremists. Please don't allow that to become your view of all us. I have respected you guys through this whole discussion. Please, treat me with respect as well. Saksjn (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

link spam

There is no reason to link to people's blogs who participated in the film as evidence that they did in fact contribute. We already link to the Expelled website which clearly shows who wrote the film (Ben and Kevin Miller). There is no reason to link to Kevin Miller's personal blog. The article is about the movie and not the screenwriter. The fact he co=wrote the screen play is clearly evidenced on the Expelled website. To do otherwise means we'll have to link to every blog for every person who worked on the film. I don't think we want that. Angry Christian (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Advocates teaching intelligent design creationism in the science classroom

From http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981021.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&query=expelled

"I'm hoping that (schools) will at least allow in science classes someone to say, 'What if it's not Darwinism, but what if there was some intelligent designer who created the universe?"

First of all, Ben seems to not understand that "Darwinism" does not have anything to do with the universe. Cosmology is not biology Ben, if you're going to attack "big science" you should at least take an introductory science class first. Otherwise you'll look like an idiot. Secondly, it would seem Ben is in fact advocating teaching IDC in the classroom. I believe there was some debate on that subject previously. When a guy who's saying we should teach IDC in science class cannot tell the difference between "Darwinism" and cosmology is it any wonder people are hostile to seeing this nonsense taught in out public school rooms? I think it was Kevin Padian who said "ID makes you stupid" I'm thinking maybe he's on to something.

I wonder if all of Expelled is this riduculous, confusing biology with cosmology? I seem to recall Stein being interviwed and saying "Darwinism cannot answer how life began!" as if he was onto something. Animal Husbandry cannot explain how life began either, that is a different branch of science. Here is the challenge, how do we incorporate/document how petently wrong Ben is without coming off like we're hostile to him. The readership should see that Ben does not even understand fundamental biology, or prhaps he's lying and saying crazy stuff like this to fUrther his cause. I prefer thinking he's just ignorant (on matters of science) and not a liar. Maybe we can kick around some ideas of how to incorporate this in the article in a NPOV manner. Angry Christian (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know from Win Ben Stein's money he is not a complete dope. He is also a lawyer, so he has to understand why you shouldnt identify the creator etc. He also is a practicing Jew, and these intelligent design people are a front for fundamentalist jerks that want to pop Jews in the oven. He has to understand all this. He is not stupid. I am wondering if he is not just taking their money and making them look incredibly stupid by playing along with them. So I frankly have my doubts that Stein is actually believing any of this. I think it is a very very clever way to undercut these flakes.--Filll (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"and these intelligent design people are a front for fundamentalist jerks that want to pop Jews in the oven." -- can you support this? I'm not familiar with any Christian, "fundamentalist" or otherwise, that hates Jews. I'm aware that antisemitism may have been a problem in our past, but I don't think it's been something that has been an issue for a long time. Even AiG, a creationist organization, makes this statement: "I don’t know where you could get the idea that the Bible fosters anti-Semitism. You could not have studied the Bible at all to have this idea. Indeed the Bible, including the New Testament, was written by Jews. How could it be anti-Semitic!?"[1] -- if creationists, who are considered to be more extreme than the ID movement, are against antisemitism, then why should I believe the ID movement is antisemitic? Besides, what does this have to do with the article?  —CobraA1 18:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The relations between fundamentalist Christians and jews is an interesting one. Most of them still hang on to the "christ killer" pathos and don't care for Jews personally. On the other hand, these same people strongly support the existence of Israel. At first glance, this might seem incongruous. You have to realize that the reason most of them support Israel is because they feel that the end times are approaching, and the end times cannot happen if there's no Israel. They also believes that the Jews will be the first ones wiped out during the tribulation. So Filll isn't quite right, but he's in the ball-park. (Note that this group includes: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye) Raul654 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 is right on the money. Remember Dr. Bailey Smith, president of the Southern Baptists stating that God does not hear the prayers of a Jew. And Falwell stating the same thing. And Fred Phelps protesting at the holocaust museum in DC. And the statements of various evangelical and fundamentalist leaders that the AntiChrist is a Jew. And suggestions that the unsaved to be slaughtered in Left Behind: Eternal Forces include Jews. And on and on and on... They support Israel because the Jews have to be in Israel to fulfill the prophecy of the end of the world they believe, but all the Jews will then die if they remain Jewish, according to their version of the prophecy.--Filll (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see no Biblical support for hating Jews, so I'll have to disagree with them. It seems to me that the meaning of the words "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are very different from what they used to be - it used to be they had very specific meanings, which have been lost and now people throw them around without respect for what they actually used to mean. "Fundamentalist" in particular means somebody believes in the five fundamentals of Christianity, which have nothing to do with how somebody views those with the Jewish faith. Personally, I think Israel has the right to exist, but not for the same reasons. For one thing, I'm not going to advocate genocide, and I think they have a long and deep cultural history that is certainly worth preserving. In addition, is there really any reason for anybody to advocate that they cease to exist? I'd never advocate destroying a nation without a very, very good reason for doing so.  —CobraA1 11:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read Martin Luther on the subject you'll find that he gave some very influential reasons. Evangelical has long covered a wide range of opinions, both agreeing with and opposing evolution. The fundamentalists in the US initiated the anti-evolution movement in the 1920s. However, your own beliefs aren't significant in terms of this discussion page, which is about ways to improve the article. Got any proposals? . .. dave souza, talk 12:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Two points (1) This attitude exists. Educate yourself. (2)This has nothing to do with this article, except tangentially, so any further comments on this topic should be summarily deleted from this talk page.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another review

[2]. Interestingly, it discusses the dimuitive size of the Discovery Institute.--Filll (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, Tom Bethell in The American Spectator, February 19, 2008, as reviewed here with suitable responses, and a link to the original article. Yes, it's amazing how they manage to get all the ID research labs and organisation into a single office in what presumably is the disco building. ... dave souza, talk 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest Online Media Alert, for the Reviews section

We already had our first security breech [sic] and are asking YOU now for your support to stand up for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Hosted by Ben Stein, EXPELLED contains a critical message at a critical time. As an underdog in Hollywood right now, we need your support.

Recently Robert Moore, a film critic from The Orlando Sentinel pretending to be a minister, snuck into a private screening, did not sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and criticized the film the next day in his article.

Moore compared Stein, who is Jewish, to Holocaust Deniers and charge [sic] that Stein's linking of Darwinism to the Holocaust was "despicable." Stein states, "The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters."

As bizarre as it is for them to lambast a movie critic for criticising a movie (clue's in the name), their counterclaims really should be in there.137.195.68.169 (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Horrifying isn't it -- you carefully carpet-bomb a newspaper with invitations, and one of them actually turns out to be a free thinker (maybe even a, gasp, atheist). What is the world coming to? Stein is obviously a right-thinking individual who naturally expected that the only people writing for newspapers should be ministers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They do seem to be having problems with their breeches. No doubt brown ones. Links here, together with the shocking threat that an atheist may attend the film wearing a fake clerical collar.. dave souza, talk 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the quote as given at that link seems to be from an email rather than being available at another source link. The issue is discussed on Moore's blog, under a post about this discussion where the writer Kevin Miller helpfully states that "Personally, I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself. Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we?" Well said, Kevin. Anyway, on February 26, 2008 at 09:57 PM, TRAT Media posted that "..What I think is appauling is that Robert Moore would use unethical tacticts to pose as a pastor, sneak into a private screening and purposely not sign an NDA just to air his own personal opinions. .. " The horror. A movie critic airing his own opinions. As for going in drag as a pastor, the next post states:

TRAT Media? Might this be the incompetent boob who "invited" me to the screening? Yes, I was invited. They tried to uninvite me. I didn't POSE as anything. Showed up, walked in, notebook in hand, and watched. Didn't sign the secret convenant, either. And the name is ROGER Moore.
Posted by: roger l February 27, 2008 at 09:37 AM

Where will it end? .. dave souza, talk 19:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Expelled from Science. Expelled from schools. Expelled from peer review. Now expelled from Hollywood. Where will these daring never-say die renegade cutting edge researchers get expelled from next. --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (Playing the world's smallest violin)

I rather think that the only one that would matter to them is "expelled from (Religious Right) funding" of their little crusade. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On Topic Thread: Illegality of ID in schools

RE this statement in the lead: "Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes".

Filll has agreed this could do with reworking. I'm adamant that it requires it.

Firstly we need to source this to a commentator on "Expelled" who directly points to the futility/inanity of the movie's premise. Otherwise it remains off-topic and subject to calls for removal. I have little doubt on being able to find such commentary.

Secondly we need to decide if this belongs where it is, elsewhere in the lead or further in the body.

Please try and keep this thread on topic. This is not a place to discuss the First Amendment or the fairness/legality interpretations that have been made on it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs. It's normal to provide context to issues. Our first requirement is to provide something useful. While acknowledging that this is a hypertext document, we still need to provide a context, a useful narrative. We may know this topic inside out, but we aren't writing for an audience that is necessarily familiar with religious politics in the US. Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not useful until it is related to "Expelled". Otherwise it remains a slightly confusing tacked-on disclaimer. Merely informative does not provide context or usefulness.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It follows on from the referenced premise that ID / God is being excluded from the nation's classrooms, and is referenced to Moore's review:

The PBS NOVA series did a terrific piece on the court battle over intelligent design as fought in the courts in Pennsylvania, a lacerating film of finely honed facts and dagger-sharp arguments that should be shown in every school district with intel. design-dreamers running for the school board.
ID is "creation science" is "creationism" is "God dun it." Teaching that as something provable beyond faith in a science curriculum is a big reason future Nobel winners will pour out of China and India, and not Kansas. That's the reason a consensus of the world's scientists fret so much over the time they have to waste on this non-debate. Stein found a Pole and the infamous Discovery Institute to back up his attacks, even though they offer no counter theories that they can back up.

So that's the reference, the current phrasing concisely states the legal position excluding teaching ID creationism in the science curriculum. Suggestions for rephrasing welcome. .. dave souza, talk 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are probably many ways to tie this statement in and make an elegant "segue". Reviewer comments are definitely one way. A couple of those who claim discrimination were teaching, albeit at the college level. I am positive some of the promotional material for the movie mentions "classrooms". Many of the claims of "good science" made in the movie promotional materials were tested in the trial. And so on. --Filll (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the previous discussion began to veer offtopic

It should be mentioned that the teaching of religous views is illegal in US public schools. But is it illegal to question the soundness of evolution? The movie attempts to show how those that question evolution are attacked. Not just ID believers. Whoever comments next: please keep this on topic, I'm not trying to support ID here or trying to incite a conversation about the 1'st ammendment like the thread that got off topic. I'm simply suggesting this: we should state that creationism is illegal to teach, but should also state at some point in the article something about those questioning evolution, not supporting ID, are also discriminated against. We would have to phrase it very carefully so it would be NPOV. Saksjn (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS for this? And give an exact example of a sentence you want changed, with cites.--Filll (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the teaching of religious views is illegal in US public schools. - this is false. While you said that you don't want to talk about the Constition, it's rather hard to respond to what you say without pointing out that your argument is based on a complete and total misunderstanding of what the Constitution says.

Teaching religion in a theology class is fine. The Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion. To that end, teaching religion as if it were fact in a science class is unconstitutional. It's the difference between teaching about the existence of something, and advocating its beliefs. Raul654 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the legal background, as shown on the timeline of intelligent design. Legitimate scientific questioning of science is possible, but teaching 'tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects is unconstitutional. Kitzmiller pointed up the illegitimacy of the "teach the controversy" trick. . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would like an RS for "[people] questioning evolution, not supporting ID, are also discriminated against". Otherwise you are going to be ignored. Additonally, you will have to explain the relevance to "Expelled" which focuses only on one crowd, ID. It doesn't sully itself with other creationists, nor other outspoken critics of evolution.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute the contention that "those that question evolution are attacked."

• An obvious counterexample disproving this contention is Stephen Jay Gould, whose Punctuated equilibrium hypothesis "questioned" orthodox evolutionary theory. While his hypothesis was treated with healthy skepticism, he was not "attacked" for it.
• I would rather characterise what is happening as follows:

1. Science is built upon facts and logic, and so the scientific community tends to severely criticise those it views as misrepresenting facts or presenting fallacious logic.
2. The scientific community widely views ID arguments as combining misrepresented facts and fallacious logic.
3. Therefore the scientific community will generally severely criticises those who present these ID arguments.

It is not whether evolution is involved that is the determining factor, but whether the facts are fairly characterised, and the logic is rigorous.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would note that epigenetics is not traditional evolution, nor is panspermia and those who subscribe to those are not shunned or outcast. Also post modernists dispute the application of evolution to many aspects of human behavior, but yet they are not only accepted in academia, but are the mainstream. So, the entire thesis does not hold up. In fact, it is a complete load of crap.--Filll (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The scientific community also tends to criticize advocate a flat earthism, healing magnets, crystal worship. These as well as creationism/intelligent design have nothing to do with science and are anti-science. Angry Christian (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the IDists, as well as redefining science, also want to redefine "discrimination" and "attacked". The classic case being Sternberg, who kept his position and access to the Smithsonian, but suffered the shocking discrimination of having no more privileges than other unpaid research associates, and worse still some of his colleagues said things about him that weren't completely flattering. Poor wee soul. .. dave souza, talk 10:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, his colleagues were so cruel as to send private emails to each other, wondering who the hell he was (he had a habit of turning up to the Smithsonian irregularly and outside normal hours) and if he really was qualified to be hanging out with them. Naturally, Sternberg insisted on making a song and dance, which made these emails public -- after all, what's the point of making a martyr of yourself unless you can do so publicly? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is something funny about the whole Sternberg situation. He only accepts the paper after he has quit as associate editor, clearly knowing he did something against the rules. He has repeatedly declared that he opposes intelligent design and then is involved with all kinds of intelligent design activities and organizations. He now is the main case presented in a movie in which he states he was regarded as an "intellectual terrorist". A lot of grandstanding, a lot of disingenuousness, a lot of blatant lies, etc.--Filll (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This disscusion has gotten off topic, WHICH WAS NOT MY INTENT. It was probably a good idea to put it in a new section, but not in a way that makes me seem like I'm intentionally throwing gas on a fire. I'm changing the name of the thread, which is my right becasue I started the thread. Anyways, I'll look for a source for my statement, which will be difficult because my school's computers block just about everything. How about we change the statement to this, "According to the movie, even those that simply question the theory of evolution face discrimination in the scientific community." If anyone else has an idea for how it should be stated, please state it. Saksjn (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it really make that distinction? Do you have a reference to support this? Or does it simply conflate the two ideas? (I don't know, I haven't seen the movie, but I don't recall offhand that this distinction is made anywhere). Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious, you need a source for this. "I heard someone say this" isn't a reliable source. You should have found a source first - if another editor removes your unsourced addition, you should not re-insert the material. There's no emergency here - find a source. Guettarda (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, somewhere on your talk page there is a link to the Wiki guide. Read up on "Original Research" - WP:OR. I have no doubt what you're saying is true, but a claim like in a Wiki article needs to be sourced otherwise it is considered original research which we're supposed to avoid. And Guettarda is right, it's uncool to revert an unsourced claim that another editor rightfully removed. That's what the tag (that you also deleted) was there for, to let the others know that sentence does not comply with Wiki rules and is subject to deletion. And he explained his reason. If your school's network is unhelpful have a friend do the research for you and have them contribute here. I think most anyone would agree that the claim is noteworthy and belongs in the article, you or someone needs to get a source. Angry Christian (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article should be based on third party reliable sources, and using primary sources to make a point could contravene WP:NOR and WP:NPOV without outside context. "Ben Stein's Intelligent Design Movie at Jeremy Shere". Retrieved 2008-03-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) discusses the issue quite well – RS? From memory, someone notable said this was spurious as it's OK to question "Darwinism", and they do it all the time, as do their colleagues, as a normal part of science, while of course creationism and ID "question" evolution on grounds of religion and not science, but I haven't managed to find it yet. It would also have to be noted that all the examples given in the film are ID proponentsists. ... dave souza, talk 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any place you think has a transcript or something of their presentations? I'm looking to see if I can find a way to source a presentation that, to my knowledge, is not recorded or written down. Saksjn (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Not on Wikipedia. That's the very definition of original research. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Referencing non-recorded presentations may violate WP:V. Other editors have to be conceivably able to verify these sources (it doesn't mean they have to actually verify it, you just can't include any sources that can't be verified). You have not actually even attempted to mention which presentations you are talking about, where they took place, and who gave them. You are saying "some guy said it once, i think", and that simply isn't good enough. Who said it? When? and to who? please. All sources indicate this focuses only on cdesign proponentists. See the AiG response.[3] --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres several people involved in marketing and production that have been traveling across the country in a bus with the expelled logo on it. They've been visiting schools and other meeting places and have been showing the preview for the movie and been talking about the various people presented in the film. There is information on the expelled website if I remember correctly. I can't access the sight right now but I will try to when I get home. (I love weekends!) Saksjn (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your college blocks the Crossroads Expelled website? Angry Christian (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

please stop stalling. Either produce goods or wait until you can. This is pointless if all we get is vague "it's there somewhere" or "some guys in a bus with a logo". I know your high school student. And that isn't a score against you. But unless you meet the bar your commentary is likely to be disregarded as uninformed, or worse, ignorant and maliciously deceptive. (NB: not a personal attack, this is advice)--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. Saksjn (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, my school is pretty ridiculous when it comes to filters. I'm googleing right now to see if I can find anything from the presentations to use as a source. Hopefully I can find something that the filter doesn't flag as, "entertainment". Saksjn (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead in

"The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of things the film portrays as societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood, while failing to define or explain either evolution or its supposed alternative, intelligent design." Naturally, this isn't exactly a NPOV. Could someone take it out? 67.183.40.4 (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a summary of the point of view of the cite given. You'd need to take it up with the source Angry Christian (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybey we should change it to, "while, according to ______, failing to..." That would make it fit NPOV better. I do agree that the statement should probably stay in. Saksjn (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The film also blames nazism and the holocaust on evolution. Saksjn (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is accurate as near as we can tell. Some if not all of these claims are included in numerous sources. All of these claims are included in at least one source. So sorry, it stays.--Filll (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should stay, but we should add that it is according whoever reviewed it. Saksjn (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution is normally given by the inline link to the citation. If the point is disputed we'd need an verifiable source making the alternative view. .. dave souza, talk 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I add the other things it blames on evolution, or do you guys think the current list covers it pretty well? Saksjn (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The other things are dealt with in more detail in the body of the article, where they can be examined in more depth. So, in my opinion, the current statement is reasonable. .. dave souza, talk 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is a criticism being portrayed as truth. Most film articles will not do that. If anything, it needs to mention that its either a general consensus among critics (which I'm sure there will be some dissidents on the matter as time progresses), or a viewpoint of a prominent critic. Otherwise, its not neutral. 134.39.60.35 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on the Citizen Kane says that Rosebud is his sled. Perhaps we should change that article so that it too says "Most critics believe Rosebud is his sled". Then we go move onto Star Wars and change it so that it says "Most critics believe that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No Mark - are you will learn once you have been around a little longer, you can't say "critics say"...you need to reference a specific critic who believes that, otherwise you will be accused of using weasel wording. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see. It is in the trailers (two or three of them). It is in the interviews with Stein that I have heard. It is in the reviews that I have heard and read (maybe about 5). It is in the interviews with the producers I have heard (about 4 interviews). It is in the New York Times article and a few other articles discussing the film. So is this material really in the film or not? Well gee, I do not know. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some rich irony here, someone complaining that something written about Crossroads Expelled is not true. Too funny! Angry Christian (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Ben Stein himself says it fails to do so also?

And also, about the Rosebud sled example; that one's obviously less opinionated. On matters such as it failing to effectively communicate a particular message I think are quite a bit less cut and dry. Should we also include that the movie failed to give convincing arguments? Mabye, the critic just didn't get it. Maybe, the critic is biased. Unless, by clear definition they meant a dictionary type format, the only way this could work is if the movie itself explicitly states that it does not give a clear definition. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe you don't understand what Wiki is about in the first place? This is not a review of Crossroads Expelled. And quoting/summarizing verifiable sources who review the movie is quite appropriate. When Ben talks down "big science" (aka ToE) and fails to define what that is, and when Ben talks up IDC (and fails to define what that is) naturally many critics are going to scratch their head. Since this is a propaganda piece and not a documentary it's safe to say the critics are going to have Ben for a snack. I mean, Ben is advocating we teach creationism as science for crying out loud and based on his interviews he doesn't know the difference between biology and cosmology. So any critic who values rational discourse is not going to be fond of Ben's creationism piece. That is not the fault of Wiki. If you don't like what the critics say then take that up with them. Angry Christian (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I still don't understand. If a reviewer said that some movie had a horrible actor in it, or that the script was completely confusing, we certainely wouldn't take their word for it. We'd state that some reviewer(s) said this or that. If the film is a propoganda piece, it doesn't mean it won't contain ANYTHING truthful (or clear) in it. If the article simply quoted or summarized what the reviewer said, then that would be fine. But it goes beyond that and presents it as truth, and that's my contention, as it seems such a statement concerning mere definition (which an I.Dist isn't necessarily going to get wrong) is more of a matter of opinion then content. I think. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If a reviwer says a movie has bad acting, that's a value judgement - an opinion - a subjective criticism. If a reviewer points out that the movie blames evolution for naziism, the holocaust, and all that - that's a statement of fact - objective criticism. Since apparently you do not understand the difference between the two, we should probably just close this thread down as a waste of everyone's time. Raul654 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What is it precisely that you are disputing? The claim that the movie blames everything from Communism to Planned Parenthood on evolution? Or the claim that the movie does not define evolution? Or the claim that the movie does not define intelligent design? I and everyone else here fail to see what your problem actually is. --Filll (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified that. I'm disputing the assertion that it fails to clearly define, by it being not a NPOV. I won't go into the first half of the quoted sentence. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you cannot coherently and succinctly state your problem/complaint, I agree with Raul654. Waste of time for this to continue.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What? What was so unclear about what I just said? I do not think that the article should assume the critic's word for truth when the critic says the film does not clearly define certain terms, as it seems to imply. That's my problem. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V – verifiability, not truth. Your problem is you're not providing a reliable source for your claim. .. dave souza, talk 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we source it. There is no indication by any others who have commented on this review and also saw the movie that he had that part incorrect. The promotional materials or trailers do not include any coherent discussion about what intelligent design is. And I have yet to find a single intelligent design promoter or creationist who knows what evolution is. In the trailers and interviews evolution is defined incorrectly. And Stein makes such a mess of describing intelligent design in an interview with O'Reilly the Discovery Institute issued a disclaimer. And when Stein and the producers are interviewed about the film, they constantly rant and rave about god, which is antithetical to the definition the Discovery Institute puts forward, since they do not want to identify the designer to have a big tent, and for legal reasons. And we have at least two reviews that discuss panspermia and a couple of interviews as well that discuss panspermia, and they all claim that the film and filmmakers dismiss panspermia, when panspermia is part of intelligent design. So from everything I can glean, it is quite clear that this reviewer is correct. Evolution is not defined correctly, and intelligent design is also maldefined if at all. So I think we are not going to bother with a bunch of explanation about how maybe the film really does define it and this reviewer just had it wrong, and all the other evidence we have that supports this reviewer's account is also incorrect or red herrings. Naw, I think we won't bother. But thanks for playing.--Filll (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, come on, I'm a newcomer, and I'm just trying my hand at Wikipedia here. I think I saw a problem, and I brought it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.40.4 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You might consider getting a named account. When your IP changes we have no way of knowing if we're still chatting with you or someone else. And you did what you're supoosed to, you brought something up. Part of the issue was your comments weren't always clear, at least at times, which makes communication that much more difficult. Angry Christian (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, O.K. Again, sorry about the confusion, I'll try to be more clear in the future. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This information comes from both independent critics, Premise's own media releases and Stein's blog. Until any sources state "Expelled" does not do this, it is reliable information from multiple sources. It is not non-neutral to state "X blames Y for Z". It would be critical add an emotive or judgemental adjective (ie. X stupidly/inanely/risibly blames Y for Z) or a post-hoc judgement (ie. X blames Y for Z, a ridiculous assertion). Any criticism of the reliable *fact* should have in text attribution; Eg. X blames Y for Z, source A points out this "has no grounding in reality whatsoever".--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's both neutral and accurate. Neutrality in the context of WP:NPOV doesn't mean splitting the difference between two viewpoints at the expense of accurately representing either or both. WP:NPOV is far more nuanced than what you seem to think it is, you shouldn't be griping here about it if you don't have a good understanding of it. Odd nature (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

An incivil debate on civility, based upon matters long since relegated to the archive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Make sure we keep this in mind as we talk guys. Saksjn (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I'm sure everyone is keeping it in mind. What were you thinking of? .. dave souza, talk 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Mostly some of the comments by Angry Christian. See the archived debate. Saksjn (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC) We are not going to be chasing after remarks that are so old they are archived. Thisi is silly.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Saksjn, at some point you have to stop stalking me, and stop accusing me of being mean to you. You posted an absurd comment here about people being persecuted and I did the same. Ever since then you're on this "Angry Christian is not treating me nice" kick. Stop stalking me, stay off my talk page. Get a hobby, get a clue, grow up, any of those 3 suggestions would be an improvement. Just staying off my talk page would be awesome. Thank you in advance. Angry Christian (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I have several hobbies, and I can't help my age. As far as get a clue, I believe I have one, but won't ever be able to convince you of that. Unfourtunately it seems like we have similar interests and can't help but run into each other. About the archived results, the comments about christians eating babies was totally rediculous, and had know reason to be brought up. Saksjn (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Um I think you do not quite get it. Maybe it is your age.--Filll (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Quite get what? Saksjn (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC) In order to end questions on my age I'll just let you know, I'm 16 and a junior in highschool. There you go. Can we stop making it such a big deal? Saksjn (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I am older than you. Probably older than your parents. You might have 11 years of schooling. I have more than twice as much. And a bunch of graduate degrees that you probably do not even know exist. So realize when you come here to lecture us, it is like trying to lecture your teachers, or your teacher's teachers. --Filll (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Again, please stop stalking me. I've asked you three times now. Stop telling me what to do, stop accusing me of attacking you, and stay off my talk page. Thank you. Angry Christian (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC) My last comment on your talk page was before you asked me not to comment on it, sorry about it. Saksjn (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Adding a section calling on people to be civil totally out of the blue, and then using it to start an argument isn't cool. Letting yourself be provoked into this fight isn't too bright. Shall we archive this and focus on being civil, instead of lecturing each other on civility? Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC) You're probably right about not letting myself get roped into a pointless argument. I'm not even going to comment on this thread after this. For the record, I respect the degrees you have Fill, and I'm not trying to lecture you. The last thing I will say is this: I know you want me to leave because I'm a high school student and you assume I know nothing about the subject. My age has never scared me away from talking to those older than me, adults are a heck of a lot easier to talk to and generally more respectful. Besides, I learn more from you guys. ID and Evolution are two ideas I've studied independently away from school immensly. I see strength in both, I see flaws in both. I do not prescribe to one or the other entirely. When I talk here I don't try to act like I'm an expert on the subjects. We shouldn't even be talking about ID and Evolution here. The purpose of this page is to discuss the article on the movie. I'm sorry I have let myself get roped in to pointless arguments at times. So lets just archive this thread and move on to something more important. Saksjn (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC) If you "see strength" in ID then I suggest that you need to have your eyes examined. It is a vacuous argument that is contradicted by reams of scientific discoveries in the fields of complexity, emergent order and evolutionary biology. Likewise, while the Theory of Evolution, like any scientific theory, will indeed contain genuine flaws needing to be patched by further research, they will most probably not be discernible without a PhD in the subject, so any "flaws" that you think that you have seen will almost certainly have been mere creationist charades. HrafnTalkStalk 14:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Okay, I'm going back on not editing this thread again to say this: telling me I need to get my eyes checked and asserting that my doubts are based only on "creationist charades" are the kind of things that provoked me to start this thread. Saksjn (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC) And I will say this: wikipedia policy values content created on the basis of facts and opinions of genuine experts, none of which supports the views you expressed above. You can therefore expect wikipedia to be more than a little dismissive of such views. Show some genuine evidence of genuine strengths of ID or of some genuine flaws in evolution and people might take you a little more seriously. But I think you'll find that all hope of achieving the former has already been eviscerated on intelligent design & associated articles, and of the latter on objections to evolution. HrafnTalkStalk 02:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC) You have created an article reminding each other to be civil, yet you insult each other like little children. We are not here to insult and demean each other. We are here to critique, observe and "help" the article. Kookywolf (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Thank you Kookywolf. Do you know how to archive this conversation? Saksjn (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

recruiting efforts

On the Crossroads Expelled website they claim "Our goal is to stage a series of nationwide student-led debates on Neo-Darwinism and intelligent design at high schools and universities" Have they scheduled any of these intelligent design creationism "debates" yet? I haven't seen anything so far. Angry Christian (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. They list that as a goal, the chances of it actually happening are rather low. Are you considering putting this in the article? Saksjn (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is all kinds of stuff that we could put in the article. But at some point, you have to draw the line. Stuff that they plan to do, or meetings they tried to have with Baylor administration that did not happen, and so on, are probably not particularly worthwhile for an encyclopedia article. We do not need a 300 K article on this movie, which might be a complete dud and close as soon as it opens. Intelligent design crashed and burned badly as a strategy in the courts, and the subject of this movie might not quite grab the public's imagination; some academics that supposedly were discriminated against because of their views, but there is no evidence that there were discriminated against because of their views? Does not sound very exciting, to be honest.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was curious if these so-called "debates" (tent revivals?) were taking place. That could be noteworthy but I agree with Filll that if it aint happening it's not yet noteworthy and the article is already getting stretched. We'll see if these Crossroads Expelled "debates" take the country by storm. Angry Christian (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If any happen we should mention them, but only if. Saksjn (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Has any documentary on evolution been described as controversial? Be nice to take that "controversial" adjective in this article. Kookywolf (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, back in 1859 Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, was considered quite controversial. But after about 150 years of independent research by thousands of scientists around the world, it has been long and well confirmed. All evidence supports it, no evidence is against it. Thus, if you are a scientist and you are against evolution and you don’t have anything but the bible to back you up, you will be laughed at by your peers and rightly so. Science is about independently confirmable facts, not blind faith. Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Kookywolf, what does "Be nice to take that "controversial" adjective in this article" mean? Angry Christian (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The film makers themselves describe their own film as controversial, so it should probably stay. Make sure its sourced. Saksjn (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Evolution takes blind faith as well. Saksjn (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This kind of comment does not belong on this talk page Saksjn. Whether evolution is blind faith or not is irrelevant to this talk page. However, evolution depends on evidence, not blind faith. For example, the cornerstones that evolution depends on include: (1) Science itself depends on "naturalism" but this is not a matter of faith but the result of centuries of observation. If there is some evidence in the future that requires naturalism to be abandoned, then that might happen, but since the enlightenment and scientific revolution, magic and the supernatural has been excluded from science. If you do not like it, you are free to go back to living in the Dark Ages (this is what the Islamic fundamentalists want too), but you are not free to force others to join you in the Dark Ages. (2) It is assumed in science that scientific laws are the same in other parts of the universe and have not changed with time. This is again the result of observation; we have not observed anything that forces us to abandon this precept. If in the future we find evidence to the contrary, this will be changed, but there is no current need to do so. (3) Science operates under Occam's Razor. It might fail from time to time (as Einstein said, everything should be as simple as possible, but not too simple), but it has stood us in good stead for centuries. I would not call (1), (2), and (3) blind faith; they are axioms that have been forged by trial and error over hundreds of years because they are useful in making reliable predictions. Any or all of them are only tentative and can be abandoned any time that other evidence emerges. Religion on the other hand, never abandons its assumptions and claims, no matter what the evidence is. That is why religious claims about creationism are blind faith, but evolution is not the result of blind faith. Instead of just repeating nonsense some preacher has said or what you have read in some religious tract, it might help you to learn to think a bit before you just repeat this stuff "blindly". Do not bother replying to this message because we will not be hosting any debates on this page. That is not its purpose.--Filll (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me Saksjn, how many books written by legitimate evolutionary biologists have you read? As opposed to books written by engineers, itinerant religious book salesmen, minimally-educated prizefighters-turned-preachers, lawyers, theologians and moribund biochemists. Your claims appear to be based upon "blind faith" that the evidence that you're afraid of doesn't exist in the books you haven't read. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah but Filll, that's a scientific viewpoint. ID is more of a theological viewpoint, and as such we need a theologian considering, for example, how it applies to criminology. However, all a bit off-topic for this film, so something more useful below the section break.... dave souza, talk 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that, given the number of lawyers involved in the ID movement, I am disappointed that they haven't attempted to overturn the courts' reliance on methodological naturalism in terms of what evidence and arguments they'll admit. Can't you just picture an ID-lawyer claiming religious discrimination because a judge won't allow demonic possession as a defence? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> What those who attack "materialism" and "naturalism" never admit, is that our entire criminal justice system is built on materialism and naturalism. Can you imagine this exchange in court: Prosecutor: "Where did that DNA evidence showing you were at the murder scence come from, John?" John: "Well, it was put there by magic or by an angel. I was never there". Once you chuck materialism and naturalism, you lose a HUGE amount of stuff that we accept and rely on. Every creationist and ID supporter should publicly announce that they are in favor of disbanding the legal system and firing all the police and releasing all prisoners from every jail, no matter what crime they are accused of. To do otherwise proves they are hypocrites. --Filll (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No no no! They'd replace lawyers with theologians arguing whether it is God's will that the defendent goes to jail, whether the defendent was a willing or unwilling victim of demonic possession, etc. The trial would still proceed, just in a more (theistically) realistic manner. >;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the good old days, they would throw the accused into the lake to see if they would sink or float (thus letting God decide their guilt) or burn them with hot pokers to see if a blister would form (thus letting God decide the guilt) or ask a rocking stone questions about the guilt of the accused. If you read about the method of stoning under Sharia law, the accused is partially buried with hands tied and in the middle of a circle of people throwing stones. However, if they are able to get out of the hole and untie their hands and escape from the circle, this means that God has decided the accused is innocent.--Filll (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked a simple question. Do you not have the maturity to simply answer in a polite and civil manner? But thanks for the answer, anyways. Kookywolf (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Those who ask inflammatory questions should not expect to get an uninflammatory answer. Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Resource

The NCSE has produced a web page for links to resources about Expelled. So far it gives sources we've used, plus The Screengrab: Screengrab Exclusive Preview: EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED which gives another review from someone who's seen it, Encyclopedia Britannica Blog: How Low Can Ben Stein Go? (To the Maligning of Charles Darwin) which gives the views of a respectable named writer on the publicity for the film, and The New University (University of California Irvine): I.D. Rakes it in and Gets Rake in Face which is essentially an essay by a second-year English major, so not a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)