Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Template:Talkbottom

Delete this paragraph?

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.[10] The evidence that this scientific theory is responsible for social problems does not exist[12] and within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[13] and intelligent design is not considered to be valid science,[14][15][16] but is viewed as creationism.[17]

I think we should delete this paragraph from the intro, it's information is already covered in two other places on the article and the second part of it just seems to be somebody saying PS Intelligent design is wrong creating a rather akward paragraph in my opinion. Anybody agree with me? Cryo921 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, of course the intro repeats things in the body. We are required to by WP:LEAD.--Filll (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is repeated in the intro as well. Cryo921 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote it to clean it up some weeks ago. However, from repeated attacks by others, and frantic movement of material and additions and subtractions, it might be choppier than it was. However, let me look at it and see ok?--Filll (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the only repetition I see is required to satisfy WP:LEAD.--Filll (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"and blames the theory for a range of alleged societal ills" second part of second sentenceis were it is repeated in the intro Also shouldn't we remove the alleged? Cryo921 (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Points have to be introduced in context to avoid giving undue weight to the claims presented in the film, and "alleged" is a concise way of not endorsing the view that, for example, planned parenthood is a societal ill. If the first paragraph was expanded to make it clear that the link from evolution theory to these "ills" is an extreme minority view among experts, and that evolution is accepted by consensus on the evidence rather than the alleged coercion, the third paragraph could usefully be incorporated in the Claims presented in the film section, and the description of the point in the Reviews section summarised more briefly. .. dave souza, talk 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why it's called a "documentary film." It is actually a propaganda film in "documentary-style," quite easily fitting the Wikipedia definition of having been "produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content." Whether or not it's deliberately misleading could be disputed, that it is misleading cannot be.

Why do the producers of this propaganda piece get to have their distortions labeled as "documentary," when it's clearly a misleading bit of advocacy?

Glen Davidson (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Glen Davidson http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic

Hi Glen, best to post at the foot of the page if you want to introduce a new section, and by the way the link to your article on Consciousness as electric field interactions is rather off topic here. Anyway, the point was discussed earlier and while some see a case for not dignifying the film with the title "documentary", that's a type of film rather than a comment on the truthfulness or content of the film. The classic case being The Triumph of the Will, which is an excellent documentary not highly valued for truthfulness or objectivity. .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave, thanks for the response. Obviously I don't know much about these things, and put my remarks under other remarks regarding the first paragraph because it's called a "documentary" in the first paragraph (my webpage has contact information and identifies me, on the other issue--otherwise I'd virtually be anonymous). I appreciate the link to the "documentary," Triumph of the Will, yet I'm confused about the purpose of doing so, since at the time of this writing it is clearly identified by Wikipedia as a "propaganda film," not simply as a "documentary." So I'm still left wondering why Expelled is identified as a documentary when similarly misleading movies are identified as "propaganda films." Glen Davidson (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It really only is a documentary in the sense of Michael Moore documentaries. We discussed it at length, and just decided to give in and classify it as a documentary as a compromise.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs plot section

The articles needs to be NPOV. One way is to have a neutral description of the plot. Later sections can analyze the film.

Keeping all what was written but just rearranging the paragraphs, a plot section can be made. It could be:

This section can be re-written but these sentences (none of which I wrote) are factual statements with as little commentary as possible. This is what we need for the article. Analysis can be done in later sections. I am much more interested in presenting a section about facts (what the film's plot is) rather than others who are arguing for or against intelligent design.

I can't think of why anyone would be opposed to a neutral, factually written plot summary except if one is opposed to the film and wants completely negative commentary. If there is a reason why a neutral, facutually written plot summary is not allowed, please say so. Nearly all other films have such a section.

Plot (or summary of film)

The film states "that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God."

Richard Sternberg is the prominent figure in the Sternberg peer review controversy which arose when, having served as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and submitting his resignation in the previous year, he arranged for his last issue to include publication of a paper by leading intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer. The review procedure was questioned and the journal subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.

The astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, co-wrote the book The Privileged Planet promoting intelligent design claims. After the normal review of aspects such as his record of scientific publications which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty, he was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the department were not granted tenure. The Discovery Institute then launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination.

Biologist Caroline Crocker was barred by George Mason University from teaching a Cell Biology class over her introduction of intelligent design into it, and her contract at that university was not renewed.

The film also includes interviews with scientists who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.

Fairchoice (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I suspect you do not understand WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD and iit might be valuable for you to review those, as well as what I posted on your talk page. In case you missed it, here is why we do not lump all criticism into a "criticism ghetto":

This is often frowned upon according to the policies and principles of Wikipedia.

For example, from [1]: Examples that may warrant attention include "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Template:Criticism-section).

If you want to change WP policy, you are in the wrong place. If you want to change consensus, you are probably not going about it in a constructive way. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See MOS:FILM. I only want to follow the Manual of Style. We NEED a plot section. Even if we waterdown the plot section and simply list the actors and the scenes and leave out what the actors advocate, we need a plot section.Fairchoice (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible watered down plot section

The film states "that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." The film states that educators and scientists who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have been unfairly ridiculed, presenting cases such as an application to be granted tenure being refused and a biology teacher having to leave the university, and describes this as due to a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God."

Richard Sternberg having served as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington arranged for his last issue to include publication of a paper by leading intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer. The review procedure was questioned and the journal subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.

The astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, co-wrote the book The Privileged Planet promoting intelligent design claims. He was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." The Discovery Institute then launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination.

Biologist Caroline Crocker was barred by George Mason University from teaching a Cell Biology class over her introduction of intelligent design into it, and her contract at that university was not renewed.

The film also includes interviews with scientists who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.

WP MOS:FILM

Reproduced below (shortened):
Article body The following are the standard article components of Wikipedia film articles.

Lead section

The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film.

Plot

The plot section is made self-contained

Background/Production

Included here should be a history of the film's background and development,

Cast and crew information

Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose. I tried to put in the correct hyperlink for the writer of this film in the cast and crew section. But since then it has been removed. This clearly reflects bias, not a desire to provide others with information about this film.

---

This is not a storybook. It's a doco. A plot section would not necessarily be appropriate. Additionally it would be almost impossible as the film has not yet been released. Material covered in the film is appropriately divided into People and Claims presented in the film. These have been taken from press releases and reviews available regarding the film. Once full viewing or synopsis reviews are available to editors an overview of the film section may be appropriate.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Distribution

The distribution section should detail any notable information about the film's releases in cinema, on video, and on TV.

Reception

Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers. Fairchoice (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Is this a "Claim presented in the film" as signified by the section?

The below appears in the section "Claims presented in the film." As much as I might agree with it, it sounds like a rebuttal to a claim made in the film, not an actual claim. Someone went to a lot of effort to footnote all this but it's getting away from the purpose of the article.

However, at this time, intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Contrary to charges that evolution is equivalent to atheism (or associated with atheism) by many promoters of intelligent design and creationism,[25] scientists commonly hold religious faiths,[1] while using the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which looks to nature to answer questions about nature and ignores supernatural explanations which are by definition "not within the scope or abilities of science."[1] Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[13][26] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God, but because it is not scientific[15] and instead is pseudoscience.[17] and therefore the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science,[27] but as creationism.[17] This position was upheld by the outcome of the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, when a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",[28] and that claims by proponents have been "refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[29]

Kuk1640 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is required for WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This block is in response to the single sentence:

The press release for the film alleges that Stein discovers "an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma" and allows no dissent from what it calls "Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection."

My first note on this is that this statement does not mention intelligent design, but is followed up with the statement "However, intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge ..." While I continue to support that NPOV requires rebuttal to the pseudoscience presented by "Expelled", I will aslo continue to reiterate that the rebuttal should be to the pseudoscience presented by "Expelled". That is unless we directly explain the pseudoscience and how it is presented, it should not be rebutted. Appropriate here following this single statement on expelled would be rebuttals to the single point - The scientific establishment has traded skepticism for dogma allowing no dissent from Darwin's theory. Eg. "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[13][26] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution."

Without presenting more information on what exactly "Expelled" presents (i.e. suggests ID is superior to evolution), points such as ID ≠ science; and ID ≈ creationism are not relevant at all and promote a coatrack-style attack on ID.

Two options: remove coatrack material; or further explain how "Expelled" attempts to promote ID as a credible (or superior) scientific alternative to evolution.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason we focus more on intelligent design than general creationism should be obvious:

• All the people interviewed in the film and for which discrimination is claimed, as far as we know, have been part of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Some of these discrimination controversies appear to have been created out of whole cloth, on purpose
• Several scientists associated with, working for or paid by the Discovery Institute are interviewed in the film
• No "regular" creationists appear in the film
• No scientists associated with other creationist organizations appear in the film
• Much more publicity for the film has been produced by the Discovery Institute than other creationist organizations
• The most recent creationist legal and political activity is by the intelligent design wing of creationism
• By far the most active in terms of writing and interviews lately has been the intelligent design wing.--Filll (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I ever post anything on this talk page and get a non non sequitor response. I never said that focus on intelligent design as opposed to generic creationism was a bad idea. I've been a supporter of that from the start?--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We've got a reliable source, the NYT, saying that it's promoting ID, and so sufficient context is needed for readers. Other sources relating to the ID promotion are coming in, and these should be considered – for a start, Jerry Pierce (January 28, 2008). "Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Texan". Baptist professors featured in new film. Retrieved 2008-02-15., Q&A: ‘Expelled’ producer Logan Craft and Q&A: ‘Expelled’s’ Robert Marks. .. dave souza, talk 18:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I put those new sources in there. It is clear that this film is at least roughly aligned with the intelligent design agenda, although they obviously have screwed it up in a few spots.--Filll (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know we have a reliable source on this matter. The problem is this material is elsewhere in the article. It is not in this section under scrutiny by this complaint. Sections should be capable of standing alone and not rely on statements from teh introduction to just zip off and carry over from. As I pointed out this particular paragraph/section leaps from Stein discovering a scientific conspiracy of dogmatic Darwinism, to ID is not a credible theory without any linkers. This information is relevant, and I really don't see it going away (and would complain if it did) but if it not introduced with any context in the appropriate places, it needs reconsideration.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

From memory, one of these sources describes Dembski as featuring in the film to present ID, not as a martyr. Will come back to this as soon as poss, but rather tied up just now. ... dave souza, talk 11:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this have relevance to the fim?

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)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:09, 27 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!?"[2] -- 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)

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

[3]. 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)