Create the Controversy: "Expelled" Movie Team to Bribe Moviegoers

And there's the problem. These creationists can't handle the how unless it matches perfectly their vision of why. It isn't separate for them. I don't personally understand the need to prove your faith is right. I feel like that kind of defeats the purpose.

Is it really mindboggling, given their prior behavior? ;-)

Point taken. I was optimistically using a larger, less thick-skinned control group. ;-)

I'll let someone else take this one. I'm beat from watching the election returns.

Ok I'll ask you a question, Joe: if you come down with TB would you like a course of penicillin, or would you like a cocktail of the new antibiotics?

Because if evolution doesn't happen you'll be safe with the Penicillin and some of those new antibiotics have some side effects you'd probably rather avoid. But on the other hand if TB has evolved into a new super-resistant strain which is immune to penicillin, you may just die.

So which is it? What the Bible says about how creatures were created, or what we observe every day about how species change and evolve to meet changing conditions - like the introduction of antibiotics? I'm not being small minded, you take whichever choice makes sense to you.

Even Darwin ended up questioning his own theory. THere are holes in that theory, as well, but people today treat it as if IT was the new Bible.

Yeah...just not true. He was wrong in several ways. He never disavowed the theory although he couldn't explain the mechanisms. He also didn't know anything about DNA- which has helped explain quite a lot about how evolution works, in addition to bearing the forensic evidence that proves it happened. Think the only evidence we get from DNA is for criminal trials? Guess again.

But since you mention the Bible. Since only two (or seven) of each biblical "kind" was on the Ark, and observing that we now have millions upon millions of different species- it must be that there is some incredibly fast "micro" evolution going on these last 4000 years. How is it that we don't have new species popping up every week? There are lots of these problems. Too few alleles available to Noah's descendants for genetic variation, platypuses spontaneously appearing in Australia, oh, we can go on...

Ben Stein put it this way: According to the Darwinist view, lightning struck mud, and out came a fully equipped Boeing 747!

Ben Stein must be stupider than I thought. No such thing has ever been the "Darwinist" view. This quote illustrates a breathtaking ignorance of the subject.

Nicely fisked.

Ok I'll ask you a question, Joe: if you come down with TB would you like a course of penicillin, or would you like a cocktail of the new antibiotics?

Because if evolution doesn't happen you'll be safe with the Penicillin and some of those new antibiotics have some side effects you'd probably rather avoid. But on the other hand if TB has evolved into a new super-resistant strain which is immune to penicillin, you may just die.

When has Penicillin even been an effective treatment for TB?

--

Every change noted in a group is not evidence of evolution. That some bacteria in a group of bacteria have a resistance to [a particular antibiotic] does not mean that evolution has stepped in and created a new creature.

That some bacteria in a group of bacteria have a resistance to [a particular antibiotic] does not mean that evolution has stepped in and created a new creature.

That's true, because evolution never stepped out.

Can I just say there's no such thing as a freaking Darwinist. No one is running around trying to convert people to the church of Darwin. No one's running around quoting passages from The Origin of Species like it's scripture. People who put there stock in supported scientific theory don't really care so much about the man as his findings.

Have you accepted Hardy-Weinberg as your lord and savior?

I only accept Weinberg as my lord and savior. Hardy's just along for the ride.

Sorry this is so long... Well, obviously since I know you could come up with a thousand more articles about your belief in Darwinism to prove I'm wrong (I've had many of these online conversations before... it's just a battle of catchy insults and biased internet information), so I'll avoid that and cover some other things.

But before I do, I must say that you are absolutely wrong when you say that none of these sciences support creationism. The only reason you don't find any facts is that you only look for articles that deny creationism, and the ones that do briefly uphold the idea only do it so long as they can beautifully destroy it by the end of whatever novel, article, story, what have you.

This movie, for instance, shows MANY different cases where creationism provides a means for allowing new experimentation. Before you tune me out, I just want you to note that there is a scene in the movie where (paraphrased... :D) a very renowned scientist simply states that if he could be given money from any of the corporations that support all but creation studies (which, by the way, is in the billions of dollars a year), he believes that new experimentation could be opened and explored. NOT saying there is a God, Allah, Buddha, not trying to "brainwash" the minds of a generation, but just allowing new ideas. (An example is cited where the scientist says he has significant evidence to prove that he could perhaps be able to explore a really interesting and possible avenue to finding a cure for cancer, but is denied funding from the university and many well-known contributors, because it would mean coming from the idea of creationism, even though the goal of proving creationism is not in thought at all.)

Many people on your side of the argument assume Christians, Muslims, etc. are Bible-thumping (and Quran-thumping) hypocrites whose sole concern is to convert, convert, convert! The sad thing is that, while it is a cornerstone in the beliefs of most religions, helping the poor, sick, and widowed of the world is another cornerstone. And science could easily help find help for these kinds of people through new types of research. This movie just wishes that the so many people who have been blacklisted by corporations they work for (and yes, many, many have... the movie sites at least five examples) because they ever cited creationism for whatever purpose didn't have to suffer for that. After all, they can talk about anything else, but creationism is a no-no.

And this also goes back to you saying that, "Creationism has been found false in its claims." First of all, that is, again, a big load of crap. No one has tested "all of its claims", and furthermore, it would be impossible to test all the claims of anything, for that is why science is what it is: the pursuit to find the answers to the questions we ask. There are always news ideas and new experiments and finding, things that go against what even the greatest minds spoke of hundreds of years ago. I would like to see the article(s) that tell me that "Creationism has been found false in all its claims." That simply ridiculous. The only people given a chance to explore Creationism are the ones who wish debunk it. Others who wish to merely use it as a source to explore different fields are shut out.

Secondly, even if it had been found false in all of its claims, aren't you being incredibly closed minded by not allowing someone to explore that idea further? As troublesome as that might sound, think of the aforementioned truth above. Even the laws we have today, the ones that we think are resolute, are still open to interpretation and exploration. In fact, that is what defines America as America, its freedom for someone to explore the ideas they wish to until they get and the next man stands to take the challenge. The fact that you say that people cannot explore this idea in science, and then saying it is not science, because of Ken Miller's The Flagellum Unspun or Christopher Hutchin's God is Not Great, is simply ludicrous because it is saying that everything else has the freedom to be explored mercilessly, but not anything in support of Creationism.

Now, this movie isn't as "Creationism only" that most critics assume. It just wants to give every person the right to explore whatever they want to explore, even IN science (rightly assuming, of course, that you don't live by the motto 'Creationism can never have anything to do with science'), for the hopes that we can ALL find the answers to the questions we want about life, not the elite few who say yea and nay. And anyone who would be so bold as to say that, "They should not, however, be allowed to claim that their beliefs are science, or that they are equally explanatory to evolutionary theory, or deserve equal consideration. That sort of post-structuralist relativism has no place in science," is being so hypocritical, for that belief is so one-sided it nearly hurts.

The idea proposed allows for the two (both the Creationist side and, well, everyone else) to be able to live together, not in mortal anger and rage against each other, but to be able to commonly talk about the two AND explore the two as a science. But the simply clear one-sidedness of the situation is sad.

Two last things...

1-Djehuty, I would take whatever science says is the best to take, for I am no fool. Yes, animals and humans adapt to their environments and internal conditions. Bacteria mutates and changes strains, and in this, Darwin was correct. (OH MY GOD! HE DIDN'T JUST SAY THAT!) But existence certainly didn't come here from the the chance lightning strike of mud or the forming on the back of a crystal, and even though that "delves too far into abiogenesis", I am not content to argue evolution without arguing the origin of life because arguing for one inherently argues for the other.

2-I'm sorry to say I didn't explain the movie ticket situation in greater detail before, and because of that many were able to make snappy but naive comments. Every single movie in the movie industry does statistics for the movies that are about to come out. By audience statistics, I mean by what number of audience members would elicit what kind of result financially. As was explained after this movie, the unique financial situation of this film is such that it doesn't have to rake in that much money (that being close to $10 million, not a lot in the documentary film world considering Fahrenheit 9-11 made over $100 million) to break even. Meaning, once it gains a certain amount, a very high majority of the money goes back into the pockets of the producers and director, SO much more than nearly 99% of average theater-released films allow for. And, seeing how this issue is so prevalent, and how much the producers care for the topic (as anyone would, even if it was a film promoting Darwinism), they have the financial ability to buy students tickets in the hopes of getting their families to see it and spread the news, a simple and overused marketing trick. And, just so you know, this movie is going to be such a big deal that they already realize that many many people, of whatever beliefs, are gonna want to come see this movie just for its hype. So the fact that you say they would "bribe" people to see it is very naive. I realize what it could look like, but considering the socioeconomic factors, I think that "bribing" people is not even a factor in their minds.

Here's a question, Joe, would you consider yourself an Old Earth creationist or a Young Earth creationist?

Just to touch upon a few erroneous implications in your comment:

The only reason you don't find any facts is that you only look for articles that deny creationism, and the ones that do briefly uphold the idea only do it so long as they can beautifully destroy it by the end of whatever novel, article, story, what have you.

Find some peer-reviewed, scientific counterarticles. Go on, I'll wait.

helping the poor, sick, and widowed of the world is another cornerstone. And science could easily help find help for these kinds of people through new types of research.

Man, if only creationist research were allowed, we could actually have things like antibiotics, environmentally resilient crops and cheap, innovative irrigation systems. Oh wait.

"Creationism has been found false in its claims." First of all, that is, again, a big load of crap. No one has tested "all of its claims"

spiffie's original statement was: To the extent that creationism can be tested, it has been found false in its claims. This is your rhetoric. This is your rhetoric without reading comprehension.

It just wants to give every person the right to explore whatever they want to explore, even IN science (rightly assuming, of course, that you don't live by the motto 'Creationism can never have anything to do with science')

"Rightly assuming"? And you presume to pathetically lecture about the mutability of scientific thought. The basic tenets of creationism are at odds with science, because they are not testable through observation or experimentation, in any imaginable way. "There is some sort of mystical being that created everything and affects stuff" is not a hypothetically falsifiable statement.

The theory of gravity can be falsified by observing an apple falling upwards without any other detacble forces at work. The theory of evolution can be falsified if you find a fossil rabbit in a verifiably pristine Pre-Cambrian rock layer.

Feel free to show me how it's even conceivably possible to falsify creationism. Go on, I'll wait.

The simple fact is that creationism splits its time between rolling around in the cesspool of human ignorance and squeezing itself into the gaps of human knowledge.

And anyone who would be so bold as to say that, "They should not, however, be allowed to claim that their beliefs are science, or that they are equally explanatory to evolutionary theory, or deserve equal consideration. That sort of post-structuralist relativism has no place in science," is being so hypocritical, for that belief is so one-sided it nearly hurts.

Ah yes, pardon me for thinking that science is, in any way, anything narrower then "any sort of random idea people can dream up about stuff." That's like, so hypocritical, kids.

But existence certainly didn't come here from the the chance lightning strike of mud or the forming on the back of a crystal, and even though that "delves too far into abiogenesis", I am not content to argue evolution without arguing the origin of life because arguing for one inherently argues for the other.

Sorry, but pompously declaring 'evolution includes the origin of life" doesn't make it true. Can you discuss geology without bringing in the beginning of the Universe? I know I can't, because I'm not content with arguing how our planet changes without arguing where our planet, and the rest of the Universe, came from.

Further, you seem very confident in your assertion that existence, like, just didn't do that, dude. Care to back that up with any evidence? For now, it's simply empty bluster -- the swagger of a man using theatre to compensate for ignorance. How ironic, considering the item you're trying to defend.

Joe we're arguing about evolution

evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. This process causes populations of organisms to change over time

And now you've changed the topic to the origin of life? Just one other thing - Buddhists don't think Buddha is a god.

Thanks.

1. The predominant scientific theory as to the process that created the Universe is the Big Bang Theory. As for why, I'll leave that for the philosophers to dream up.

2. The prevailing scientific theories can't adequately be explained in a comment, so I refer you to Wikipedia for more detailed information. (Universe, Earth)

3. I personally don't think there must be a specific philosophical reason, if that's what you're looking for. The conditions on Earth (distance from Sun, ozone layer, magnetosphere, water, etc.) are apparently conducive to our form of life. I think it's extremely likely that life also exists outside of Earth. There is simply a mindboggling number of stars out there, and fathomably a similarly mindboggling number of planetary systems. It seems very unlikely that Earth is the only planet with life. [I hope... unless they're intent on invasion, and we don't have Jeff Goldblum to protect us. ;-)]

Jack
Over the years, I have read several books about the 'big bang' theory. And I have read several books by Carl Sagan (billions of stars and billions of galaxies). If the big bang theories keep evolving (or updated, if you prefer that terminology), we will get closer to a scientifically supported explanation. My guess is that these updates will continue for centuries to come.

Because the universe is so huge (even one galaxy size is measured in thousands of light-years) that a culture which evolved enough to travel in space would, most likely, not be intent on invasion. Travel times from one solar system to another would be, probably, measured in dozens of years. Within one solar system, it is unlikely that two planets would be of similar distance from the sun and evolve life.

But....I still have to wonder, whatever the process which created this universe, where is the evidence that there was, in fact, a reason or goal to its creation. The religious folk don't seem to have zeroed on the immensity of the universe and incorporated such facts into their dogma.

If the big bang theories keep evolving (or updated, if you prefer that terminology), we will get closer to a scientifically supported explanation. My guess is that these updates will continue for centuries to come.

Yeah, I have to wonder whether the evolution of scientific theories, if benchmarked against some "True Explanation," approach it asymptotically.

Because the universe is so huge (even one galaxy size is measured in thousands of light-years) that a culture which evolved enough to travel in space would, most likely, not be intent on invasion.

While I agree that sci-fi conventions are probably too heavily skewed toward evil superintelligent space invaders, technological advancement and expansion doesn't necessarily lead to a pacifist society. The Roman Empire was the most advanced of its time, and not only did it focus very much on invasion and conquest, but also imploded due to social instability derived from such conquest.

But....I still have to wonder, whatever the process which created this universe, where is the evidence that there was, in fact, a reason or goal to its creation.

Or, to put it more broadly, whether there was a reason or goal to its creation at all.

The religious folk don't seem to have zeroed on the immensity of the universe and incorporated such facts into their dogma.

I've always been curious about how many religious people so easily reconcile social ideas of humility with thinking that the cosmic creator of all existence carries on a caring rapport with us and considers us the pinnacle of creation.

The contradiction seems rather strange.

Oh
Dare I ask it??? Is there money to be made in religiosity???

Dare I ask it??? Is there money to be made in religiosity???

Nooooo, how can you think that?!

Everyone knows that tithes go straight to God. ;-)

LOL
Of course, where else could it go???

How specifically does evolution theory address the origin of life?

Seriously? How many times have we covered this with you now? Eight? Ten? You should know the answer by now.

How specifically does evolution theory address the origin of life?

Seriously? How many times have we covered this with you now? Eight? Ten? You should know the answer by now.

Seriously? spiffie?

I was addressing my question to Jack Huang, since he was the one who claimed that evolution theory included an origin of life, but I welcome your two cents worth. Please apply at least a penny's worth of information.

To my knowledge, there is much speculation by scientists and non-scientists of various possibilities including even exogenesis or panspermia, but nothing even approximating a theory. If evolution theory has solved this puzzle, please enlighten us.

Can I just point out, by the way, that creation "theory" does not help us with the origin of life either. It's answer is "by magic in 6 days, 6000 years ago." We know that's wrong since we have all sorts of evidence pointing back further, and in any case saying "by magic" doesn't help in the slightest. It's too crazy to even talk about sensibly.

That's no attack on religion. It's an attack on attempting to substitute religion for science.

I was addressing my question to Jack Huang, since he was the one who claimed that evolution theory included an origin of life

I suggest you reread what Jack wrote.

So you don't really have any information supporting your contention that evolution theory includes an origin of life explanation.

Thanks. It would be simpler to just say you were wrong.

Perhaps I misread Jack's comment on 6.13 where he said he couldn't discuss geology without discussing the origin of the universe which implied he couldn't discuss evolution without discussing the origin of life.

I did not misread spiffie's comment on 8.1 .

spiffie should provide the information where evolution explains the origin of life if he wishes to make that claim.

It would be simple if Jack were to say "That is not what I was saying".

It would be simple if spiffie were to say something about the question rather than:

Seriously? How many times have we covered this with you now? Eight? Ten? You should know the answer by now.

It is really not simple when four or five people jump on a comment absent the person who was questioned answering.

But of course, discussion of evolution issues will not be allowed to be civil. That might result in progress.

I was addressing my question to Jack Huang, since he was the one who claimed that evolution theory included an origin of life

jpark, you missed the sarcasm.

It can be subtle sometimes, I know.

But of course, discussion of evolution issues will not be allowed to be civil. That might result in progress.

Man, and you just can't stand that, now can you? I agree: it's much better to stonewall with immutable ignorance.

(By the way, that was sarcasm, too.)

To clarify, since you seem to be totally confused on this point, I did not claim that.

I wouldn't. Not even mine.

Djehuty

Not ours! She would have to be hot ........ I didn't say any colonoscopy

Must... not... post.... *extremely* NSFW link.....

[grabs hand and physically removes it from the keyboard]

.... argh!!!

She would have to be hot ........ I didn't say any colonoscopy

...

All that pops into my head is chill using the pickup line "Hey baby, I see you've got some hot bowels."

Djehuty, don't you even think about perpetuating that Internet meme.

Nah, not that one Jack. Some things can't be unseen. And Chill said "hot" right?

The points I made, by the way, are mostly in line with those made in the movie, so it may help to see the movie, for I can't give you all the evidence you so eagerly desire.

Essentially, all you've said is that "evolution and the Big, Bad Science Establishment is evil for not entertaining all sorts of religious ideas that desperately wish to pretend to have scientific credibility. It's so unfair for science to have standards they can't bend for my pet beliefs!"

You call it naive, and you can feel free to insult me for it; I call it faith.

Hey, having faith is fine. Just don't pretend that your faith is science or marginally justifiable using science, especially if you wish to cower beyond "but it's my faith" as some blanket dodge of criticism. That's the pathetically ignorant and arrogant part.

protective of their precious funding

@!$%#, is that what all this fuss is about? You mean, if we reigned in our asinine government and got them to stop giving the stolen money to evilootionists, you guys would stop pretending your religion is science?

we will conduct new types of experiments with that in mind.

Such as? What sort of experiment could you conduct to prove that one of the competing and conflicting creation myths is valid?

Sounds like it's living down to expectations. Did they keep the copyrighted footage and music they stole?

There is enough publicly available information out there for anyone who cares to investigate to do a little digging and find out the truth.

That would probably be generous assumption about the target audience for this film.

But to plug it again for those who might look, and raise it up the search results: Expelled.

If Stein could have found even ONE person who legitimately had been stifled for preaching ID on the science dime, he would NOT have had to misrepresent this case.

True. Isn't it interesting when those screaming about how much they're being persecuted are the ones most likely to persecute others?

Here are some people who have been intimidated, threatened, and have lost their jobs for teaching evolution. I wonder how many death threats ID proponents have gotten?