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/

[Aquinasfan]

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.

They can't help proving "Expelled"'s case. Pass the popcorn. This is going to be fun.

[Aquinasfan]

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

It will be done fairly and the freaks will scream foul over it.

Never let the freaks determine your agenda. ;-)

[Aquinasfan]

Ah yes, trot out the pathetic Darwin is responsible for all the world's evils nonsense. Why don't you just go ahead and blame Darwin for traffic jams, elevator music and the Broncos piss poor performance while your at it. It's only slightly less stupid to do so.

Communism is "dialectical materialism."

Dialectical materialism was first elaborated by Lenin in Materialism and Empiriocriticism (1908) around three axes: the "materialist inversion" of Hegelian dialectics, the historicity of ethical principles ordered to class struggle and the convergence of "laws of evolution" in physics (Helmholtz), biology (Darwin) and in political economics (Marx).

Evolutionary theory was imposed upon every child who languished in the communist schoolag archipelago.

Russian school children have since been liberated. It's time American children were liberated as well.

[Aquinasfan]

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

The black legend of Galileo (did you know that a cardinal and a bishop were funding Copernicus' research into heliocentrism contemporaneously?) is much like the black legend of the Spanish Inquisition, except that the former was more the work of Rationalists, while the latter was more the work of Protestants.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Fortunately, science is not governed by federal judges. Or at least truth isn’t.

Unfortunately, if there is a God, we are fooling ourselves if we ignore it.

You can spend a lot of time figuring out what caused the rise of a strange metallic artifact on the moon, if you refuse to believe that man flew it there and left it behind.

If the pencil is on the floor, you can postulate that it rolled off the table and gravity pulled it to the floor. But if I just placed it there, and you refuse to consider a creative act, you will never figure out that the pencil is pointing to where I hid the chocolate chip cookies.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Once you give up on the idea of God, what other choice do you have? You have to come up with SOME explanation of why we are all here, and how it all came about.

If you can’t acknowledge the obvious and correct answer, you HAVE to come up with some sort of “scientific” explanation for it.

So I wouldn’t be so hard on evolutionists. Imagine trying to explain Stonehenge if you were required to ignore evidence of life on earth in doing so.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The “Top Ten” list of no-no’s, according to God, contains the biggies, however, delivered with burning bush.

The 10 commandments were not delivered with, or by, a burning bush. When you mock someone's religion, you should get the facts straight.

[Just mythoughts]

Must be hidden in DNA to cause alllll this anti-God uproar!!!

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Is the planet big enough for two sentient species?

Wouldn’t one try to eliminate the other — as humans supposedly eliminated the Neanderthals? (Or others — as in NicknamedBob’s #47)

[BobS]

"Have you perhaps indelicately forgotten about the Neanderthals? And others?"

I work with a few Neanderthals. There are women ones too. Those are the ones you can snap their bra strap from behind on their birthday and carry on joking really loudly. Everybody knows each other for years and are friends.

We had a sexual harassment meeting a few weeks ago that disintegrated into a story-telling and joking fiasco:) We are all around 40 and above. I did have more important things going on than to sit around and BS like that.

[highlander_UW]

That was my thought...the more noise they make, the more attention is going to be drawn to the film. Now that I read of their complaints I will probably go see the film...that and I like Ben Stein.

[TASMANIANRED]

“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.”

Actually there would be no chemistry or physics without alchemy.

There would be no astronomy without astrology.

Science would not be here if it weren’t for religion....Science had it’s foundation in the firm belief that a benevolent God made an orderly world for his creatures and the creatures could discover these laws.

Science has disowned it’s roots.

Now back to evidence...

I am not an evolution denier..I’ve stated nothing about it.

What I am is a strong supporter of science but not science as it exists today.

Science has become little more than the political action wing of a certain Marxist ideology...The Global warming branch of the ecofreaks have no difficulty fabricating evidence...Certain of them have demanded trials for dissenters.

How does science gain by corruption...how does science gain by silencing dissent?

The ID crew cannot harm real science...The PC crowd certainly can.

[Coyoteman]

how does science gain by silencing dissent?

There is a vast difference between scientific dissent and the nonsense being passed off as science by IDers. Scientific dissent relies on scientific evidence, and the debate is conducted in technical conferences and scientific journals. ID relies on religious belief masquerading as science. It is pushed not in scientific journals but in newspaper articles, blogs, and other non-scientific venues.

But let me ask you, how much time would you like spent on ID in high school science classes? And would you like that time spent dissecting it, teaching it as legitimate science, or teaching it as TRVTH which overrides science?

The ID crew cannot harm real science...

Their goal is to destroy "materialism" which is their code word for everything that they don't agree with. It is all laid out in the Wedge Strategy. Their first targets are evolution and trust in the scientific method, and they are pursuing these targets with lawyers and PR flacks, as well as creationists who also happen to be scientists. Those individuals have already abandoned the scientific method in favor of apologetics and proselytizing.

You suggest that "the ID crew cannot harm real science" but that is exactly their goal. They had a real setback with the Dover decision, but they'll just file the serial numbers a little and try again, just as they did after the Edwards decision in the 1980s.

[timydnuc]

My mother had a good friend from high school that was an "agnostic" all her life. Her name was Ruthie. My mother was a devout catholic and used to debate Ruthie about religion now and again but they remained friends until Ruthie died of cancer at a young age. When we went to the funeral mamma prayed for her and drug us kids to view the body. Ruthie was always dressed shabbily and excused it to other folks as being the way an intellectual (she was a school teacher) dressed. Well, there she lay in a beautiful dress, hair done and make up on.

My mom, with a tear in her eye leaned down to us boys, trying to hold back a laugh, she said "look at Ruthie, all dressed up and no place to go". I started laughing, so I put my head in my hands and got out of there as fast as I could. Turns out they thought I was sobbing.

[TASMANIANRED]

How is the Wedge Strategy any different than Dawkins and his merry band of atheists wanting to destroy all religion....

For the vast majority of human history humans have believed in God....

Other than a few minor examples where did belief in a God impair science at all.

The some of the secrets of the atom were unlocked...Physics research went on. Periodic table still got codified..

I’ve never advocated for ID being taught in schools...you just jumped to that conclusion...

Science has cheerfully jumped into bed with the leftist/humanist/atheist cabal which is poised to do it irreparable damage...but they target the ID’ers which can do them none.

Science needs religion...

Science needs the moral guidance of religion...

With science all things are possible without knowing when to stop..and what not to try.

With Science as the ultimate good you have the horrors of scientific experimentation of both the Nazi’s and the Japanese in WWII.

I am assuming you have strongly conservative leanings....

In 100 words or less without resorting to Morality why is murder wrong?...

[Coyoteman]

How is the Wedge Strategy any different than Dawkins and his merry band of atheists wanting to destroy all religion....

Not so much different; Dawkins is being an idiot. And the IDers and their attempt to destroy science???

Other than a few minor examples where did belief in a God impair science at all.

The Middle Ages and current Muslim nations to name just two examples.

Science really took off with the enlightenment. I see ID as an attempt to return to earlier times, as stated in the Wedge Strategy:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions [emphasis added].

[NicknamedBob]

"Is the planet big enough for two sentient species? Wouldn’t one try to eliminate the other — as humans supposedly eliminated the Neanderthals?"

Not necessarily. One problem regarding the Neanderthals is that they supposedly occupied the same ecological niche.

Perceive the world today. We are "partnered up" with any number of species. Elephants, horses, cormorants, canines of all varieties, even hawks and selected species of rodents. Many of these are "working relationships" in which each species gains something from the relationship. Even common domestication can be viewed that way.

But this does not address sentience. It merely emphasises that dissimilar species can get along, by each working in a specific ecological niche.

Some who work closely with very intelligent animals, even including some of our pets, will aver that the animals often exhibit every characteristic of sentience. This is not my argument. But evidence can be gathered that we have it in us to cooperate with other species.

Let us consider a hypothetical. Suppose we finally crack the language barrier that separates us from "dolphins", the cetacean variety of mammal so comfortably at home in the sea.

It is clear that a form of trade could be developed, from providing safe shelter for the raising of young, to exotic forms of communication such creatures could use. We would benefit from their ability to navigate the oceans in three dimensions, perhaps herding fish for our mutual species to harvest.

It can be seen that this would be an easy and comfortable arrangement, with neither species having either the capability or the inclination to harm the other. Primarily this is a result of our ecological niches not being in direct conflict.

I really don't see a problem, and we should perhaps hope that it is so, for eventually we may encounter another species just a little too reminiscent of our own former bloodthirsty selves.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Thanks for the very thoughtful response. You make a convincing case.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“And follow that with a link to an article where scientists mutate an existing bacteria into another bacteria? That’s not creation. That’s mutation.”

It’s not creation in the sense of creating life. It is creation in the sense of design. The designers controlled the "mutation" -- that's quite different from (say) irradating cells to cause random mutations. Just about everything “new” made today is a “mutation” of a pre-existing product, or products.

Consider, for example, the iPhone. It’s essentially a recombination of design “DNA” from older cell phones, iPods (a mutation of older MP3 players), cameras, and computers — yet no one would deny the designers were intelligent. The components didn’t just scramble themselves and evolve into the iPhone.

BTW, I’m not trying to argue the case for ID. I never claimed that it was, in any way, proven with regard to all the natural species in existence — it most certainly hasn’t been proven. However, it now seems obvious to me that ID is not a complete impossibility — not when even creatures of finite intelligence can redesign a life-form.

[TASMANIANRED]

Muddying the waters a bit.

Middle ages did just fine with science considering the knowledge base at the time..

Current Islam is a case apart...They are a death cult that has virtually nothing to do with the discussion at hand.