Replies

I just returned from watching this as well. If you believe the press it is about creationism vs. Darwinism. It is not. It is about academic freedom or the lack thereof.

Before you spout, watch the movie. It is thought provoking, fun and intelligent. You may not agree with its premise, but it will make you think.

The term “Intelligent Design” was coined by the Discovery Institute, a non-profit company that was incorporated specifically to get the story of Genesis taught in public schools (as specifically stated in the incorporation documents). To that end a Creationist textbook was published called Of Pandas and People.

In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.

In a similar later case, Kitzmiller vs. The Dover Area School District involving the school’s acquisition of Of Pandas and People, it was proven in court that the publishers and the people who financed the purchase lied in depositions when they stated that Intelligent Design wasn’t just another term for Creationism. They did this by showing that dozens of passages in the pre-1987 Edwards vs. Aquilard copies of the book used “Creation”, while later versions substituted “Intelligent Design” in its place.

The entire Intelligent Design movement is a dishonest, legalistic Trojan horse specifically intended to teach creationism in public school even though it is against the law.

Knowing ID’ers are liars, lawbreakers, and hypocrites.

Complete transcripts of Kitzmiller vs. Dover can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

I rarely go to see first-run movies these days, but I am planning to go see this one before it is pushed out of sight.

It seems entertaining, which is the essence of why I go to see movies.

Getting into a debate about the imponderable is a silly waste of time.

How many Scientific hypotheses in history have advanced themselves by saying that by holding to different theories one might engage in fascism and mass murderer?

How many Scientific hypotheses in history have been advanced by a group whose stated goal is the destruction of the Scientific method of empiricism?

How many Scientific hypotheses in history have put forth that the Universe is fundamentally flawed and needs the occasional intervention of an outside and unknown force in order to explain natural phenomena?

The “Incompetent Design” hypothesis is not a Scientific hypothesis it is a theological position, one that presupposes an incompetent “Designer”.

God isn't Science, but he is God. Stars form by gravity and nuclear fusion. The Bible says God made the stars. He is still making them, and I believe he is using the same means used to create them long ago. The Bible says God commanded the Oceans to bring forth life, and for the life to fill the earth. We see life changing around us by evolution through natural selection of genetic variation. I believe God is using the same means to change life that was used long ago.

This movie is built upon the dubious and incorrect premise that the truth of Science is opposition to God, and that Biology is a conspiracy to deny God. Most U.S. Scientists are people of faith.

The movie exposes Darwinism and the crushing of scientific inquiry going on in this country.

Of course it does. Just like "Sicko" exposes the health care industry and "An Inconvenient Truth" presents the undeliable facts on global warming. Anyone with an ax to grind can throw together a movie that proves their case. All they have to to is be selective in what they present.

I saw the movie as well. And, having read through this thread, the cranks have been true to form--not discussing the actual message of the movie (in fact, anything but), but entering the same mental m---urbation cycle seen time after time.
Stein points out what has been enthusiastically been supported by some even on this forum: the destruction of careers due to orthodoxy driven by a worldview. As pointed out in the movie, at the heart of the matter is a worldview trying to fit science to itself. And, that the actions/debate has very little to do with science, but metaphysics (from both sides).

And the look on Stein's face when Dawkins posits that some intelligent agent (other than a god or God) 'designed' life on earth is priceless. I could tell Dawkins got flustered. I also love the backhanded compliment about Dawkins being intelligent, but 'a bit of a reptile'.