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

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | October 5, 2007

[monomaniac]

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

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Coming to Theatres in February 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Turret Gunner A20]

re: # 10

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

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

[boop]

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

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

[Turbo Pig]

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

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

[damondonion]

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

[HerrBlucher]

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

Me too. Looking forward to seeing it.

[beefree]

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

[isrul]

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

[scarface367]

And your well reasoned arguments for this assertion are?

[Coyoteman]

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

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

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

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

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

Especially when neither of these claims is true?

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

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

[beefree]

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

[Coyoteman]

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

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

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

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

[beefree]

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

[TASMANIANRED]

Silencing criticism with anything except evidence is contrary to science.

The evidence leads where it leads.

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

[Coyoteman]

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

Not by Darwin.

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

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

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

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

[beefree]

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

[NicknamedBob]

"It was used to justify slavery."

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Coyoteman]

Silencing criticism with anything except evidence is contrary to science.

The evidence leads where it leads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[beefree]

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

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

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

[Coyoteman]

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

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

[NicknamedBob]

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

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

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

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

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

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