MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Expelled: The Movie You Have to See

April 15th, 2008 Visited 4581 times, 1 so far today

Expelled 250x250_ai Have you heard about this movie yet?

I started seeing ads for this movie show up at my site, but I had no idea what it was about. It turns out that Ben Stein has created a movie that documents how professors that choose not to believe in Evolution are systematically denied access to teaching positions, research positions, etc.?

This is from Ken Ham:

As you know, Darwinists have been expelling any hint of creation or intelligent design from public schools and research institutions. Now, many of them are expelling people from their academic posts in a desperate attempt to defend their evolutionary worldview. The upcoming film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters on April 18.

Already a highly controversial film, its host Ben Stein (whom I met last month) is on a personal quest to discover more about the topic of origins and to expose the ruthlessness of many evolutionists. Even though Stein is not a creationist and is not a Christian, he presents the evidence of intelligent design we see in the world and exposes the censorship efforts of leading evolutionists. I encourage you to visit www.GetEXPELLED.com right now and discover more about this excellent, entertaining, and enlightening film. I’ve seen it twice now, including at a special preview screening at our Creation Museum. You need to see how our education system is expelling freedom of speech—and then you should do something about it.

“For a theater listing, go to:

www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php

If you don’t see your local theater listed, call the manager and say you want to watch Expelled. Please be a “creation evangelist.” Let your family and friends know about this film, and then direct them to our website where they can find out more about the gospel message.

Right now it’s not offered in my area, but I’m definitely interested to see this movie!

Comments

68 Comments

RSS
  • onein6billion says on: May 12, 2008 at 7:36 pm

     

    No dissenting comments allowed on “loose morality”?

    “It does not, directly, address consequences or rewards.”

    Why not? Maybe a two-year-old does things without thinking about the consequences, but we expect more from a three-year-old.

    “God created a moral standard, and regardless of whatever standard man comes up with, if it does not match God’s it is flawed.”

    Which “God”? Yours? Islams? Buddha?

    “Since it’s man that can come up with a moral standard arbitrarily, something that is right for one man maybe wrong for another man. This leads to chaos.”

    Riiight. Our laws are not properly enforced and therefore we have “chaos”. I don’t think so. Explain to me why a professor was fired when he refused to explain his reasons for a divorce. Seems awfully arbitrary to me.

    “Because morality is whatever a group thinks it should be.”

    Unless, of course, some Supreme Court overrules that law as unconstitutional. Now what do you do? Set up a theocracy?

  • MInTheGap says on: May 13, 2008 at 10:10 am

     

    @onein6billion: Loose Morality‘s comments are closed – and there are no comments either in the affirmative or in the negative for a reason. You would have had to have read Be Back Soon in order to understand why the comments are closed. I need space to layout the extent of my beliefs on the topic without diving into the minutia at every turn.

    That is also the reason that I’m not going to respond to the rest of your comment– have a nice day. 🙂

  • onein6billion says on: May 17, 2008 at 10:04 am

     

    It appears that Expelled has completely disappeared after 4 weeks. Total theater revenue in 4 weeks was about 1/2 of what they were hoping for for the first weekend.

  • onein6billion says on: June 10, 2008 at 11:55 am

     

    “Loose Morality’s comments are closed – and there are no comments either in the affirmative or in the negative for a reason.”

    Nah – there’s no good reason except that you are not interested in trying to defend yet another of your silly rantings.

  • MInTheGap says on: June 12, 2008 at 3:51 pm

     

    @onein6billion: I’ve opened up the comments, because I believe that I’ve moved on from that thread. But feel free to comment.

  • onein6billion says on: July 1, 2008 at 11:23 pm

     

    Latest news – the benighted state of Louisiana and its creationist legislators and governor has passed a “you can teach the controversy” law. So some poor school board can have another Dover decision one of these days.

    Ben Stein was advocating this, but I bet he won’t offer to help pay the school board’s losing court costs.

  • MInTheGap says on: July 2, 2008 at 8:38 am

     

    @onein6billion: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe in the Dover case the local school board was taken to state court, and in this case the state authorized “teaching the controversy”, so the school would probably not lose this case.

    Seems to me like we’re talking apples and oranges.

  • onein6billion says on: July 24, 2008 at 8:37 pm

     

    “Correct me if I’m wrong”

    You are wrong.

    “I believe in the Dover case the local school board was taken to state court”

    No, Judge Jones was a Federal judge in a Federal court. The question was a first amendment constitutional “separation of church and state” question.

    “in this case”

    In which case, Dover or Louisiana? Of course in Dover it was the local school board that tried to promote “intelligent design”. But in Louisiana the state legislature has passed a “freedom to teach the controversy” law (almost identical to attempts in other legislatures promoted by the “Discovery Institute” and Ben Stein). It even has a silly clause saying this law shall not be used to promote creationism! Hilarious.

    “the state authorized “teaching the controversy”, so the school would probably not lose this case.”

    There is no case until some real school actually tries to teach the controversy. Then there would have to be someone in that school district that actually cares enough to file a lawsuit. It is most likely that such a lawsuit would be filed in a Federal court since it is a federal constitutional question. Then the Federal judge should apply the Supreme Court “tests” to determine whether or not the actual actions of this teacher in that school violate that “separation of church and state” clause. Of course the obvious purpose of “teach the controversy” is “evolution is wrong, therefore creationism is right”. The actual motivations of the state legislature and the teacher and the local school board are relevant. I believe that the religious motivations are clear enough that even a Louisiana Federal judge could rule against the teacher/school board.

    “Seems to me like we’re talking apples and oranges.”

    Seems to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

  • MInTheGap says on: July 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm

     

    @onein6billion: You’re right– it was taken to federal court. And you’re wrong– there’s no “separation of church and state” in the first amendment. The First Amendment states that:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)

    There was no act of Congress here, therefore the First Amendment doesn’t apply– regardless of the ruling or what the judge thinks. Unless you’re wanting to discuss the plain reading of the text?

    Your following sentences make for amusing reading.

    No, Dover’s school board did not try to promote intelligent design. They added the following to their science curriculum:

    Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.

    It manifested itself as a sticker on the front page of science textbooks that teachers refused to read. However, the plain English of this statement says that they were interested in presenting all the information, instead of just the information aligned to a particular worldview.

    This is the exact opposite of what you are saying because right now the monopoly belongs to Evolution, which must be taught in schools without criticism and as fact. Which is exactly what the problem is here.

    I know you’re not one to get hung up on the details– you’re pretty sloppy with them. And I’d stay out of the Constitutional realm. I mean, I don’t need a lecture on how things get to the federal court and make their way up to the Supreme Court. I mean, are you able to delineate the “tests” that determine whether or not the non-existent principle principle of the “Separation of Church and State” has been violated?

    Do you know that they contradict each other and are not uniformly used?

    Again with the English– man, you should read your own stuff. So far, I’ve read that people have said that they want to teach the facts and make kids decide. The only people advocating for only one position to be taught as absolute truth are you and your friends the Evolutionists. It’s you that won’t allow people to say that there may be another way. It’s you and your friends that are afraid of open debate. And it’s you and your league that are scared that if people teach that there are gaps in Evolution and that Evolutionists can interpret facts incorrectly more times than not that they might see past the smoke screen.

    The reality is that Darwin came up with a theory that even he credited to a Creator in the Origin of Species that secular humanism ran with, and then decided to teach to children because it absolved them of their duty to a Creator. I can’t help that you’re a monopoly that will soon crumble, or that you believe in a lie, but I can hope to spread light on the subject.

  • onein6billion says on: July 25, 2008 at 9:16 pm

     

    “Dover’s school board did not try to promote intelligent design.”
    “made aware of … other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.”

    They wanted to make students “aware of” intelligent design without “promoting” it? Well, the Federal judge saw right through that ploy!

    “I’ve read that people have said that…”

    Of course that’s what they “say”. But their religious motivations are obvious.

    “…they want to teach the facts…”

    Riiight. And who gets to decide what “facts” to teach? A Creationist Dover School Board? A Creationist Texas State Board of Education?

    “…and make kids decide.”

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. Even 9th grade teachers are not qualified to “decide”, much less 14-year-old students.

    “It’s you that won’t allow people to say that there may be another way.”

    Absolutely correct as it applies to a 9th grade public high school biology class. The “other way” is obviously religious and has nothing to do with science. That’s why a Republican judge ruled against it.

    “It’s you and your friends that are afraid of open debate.”

    Absolutely incorrect. But “open debate” should not take place in a 9th grade biology class. “Open debate” has been taking place for 20+ years. And all the creationists have to show for it is a Supreme Court defeat, a Federal court defeat, a $27 million Creationist “Museum” of lies, a really despicable movie, and an unconstitutional “teach the controversy” Louisiana law passed by Creationist legislators and signed by a Creationist governor.

    “you’re a monopoly that will soon crumble”

    LOL. Have you seen the web page that documents all of the quotations of the “demise” of evolution over the last 100+ years? Quite hilarious.

    “that you believe in a lie”

    Tell it to a jillion biological scientists.

  • MInTheGap says on: July 26, 2008 at 3:48 pm

     

    @onein6billion: I will grant you that this particular school board may have disagreed with evolution, but the ruling that was made was not biased against evolution as much as it stated that evolution should not be preached as Gospel.

    Facts do not have a bias– they are what they are. The fact is, the sky is blue because of the refraction of the sun’s light through the atmosphere. The fact is, grass is green because of chlorophyll in them which helps them to grow. The fact is that I inhale and use Oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.

    These are facts. I would go so far as to say that “The date given by Carbon-16 for this rock is 32,000 years” is a fact. However, when I then say “So, this rock is 32,000 years old” I’ve crossed the line.

    Just like if you looked at my posts. A majority of my posts I write ahead of time– it’s the nature of my schedule that I cannot be online all day to write posts, so I tend to write them in bulk and schedule them. So, you’d be right if you said “This post is dated July 24, 2008” but you’d be wrong to assume that I wrote it then– those that I wrote on that date are a few days older than that.

    So, you need to get your mind wrapped around the idea that there are facts, and then there are interpretations of facts. Teaching facts should be the desire of any science teacher– or most other teachers for that matter. Teaching interpretations of the facts should either take into account those hypothesis that have not been invalidated by the facts.

    Should kids decide? I can see your point– they’re hardly equipped to decide what worldview they will attach themselves to at that point. Which makes preaching evolution as gospel from the school pulpit all the worse. I mean, teaching facts, that’s great. But teaching them that they grew from a monkey with no facts to back that up– that’s just filling their minds with faith based nonsense.

    “Hey, you’re no better than an animal, but we expect you to behave, get good grades and contribute to society.” Right, I can believe that one. Stick to the facts. Keep your religion to yourself.

    And I’m not going to get into the illogical use of an imaginary number like “jillion” when you expect to have a rational discussion. I mean, you already said that the number of biological scientists were much less than the number of 9th grade scientist teachers– so you have to resort to an imaginary number to bolster your argument. How weak and foolish.

    I mean, if you start looking at the fact that Darwin’s theory is only a few hundred years old, and that for at least 10,000 years before that every scientist believed in creation by a Deity (and looking at it through your time-line, we would be talking millions of years of scientists!). You’re vastly outnumbered.

    But that’s what you get when you use such silly, flimsy reasoning.

  • onein6billion says on: July 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm

     

    “the ruling that was made was not biased against evolution as much as it stated that evolution should not be preached as Gospel.”

    Was I supposed to understand what this sentence meant? The ruling had nothing really to say about evolution – the ruling was against “intelligent design”. But a lot of “intelligent design” is “evolution is wrong, therefore intelligent design is right”. So there were some “objections” to evolution and those “objections” were found to be without any basis in fact.

    “because of the refraction of the sun’s light”

    Incorrect explanation.

    “The date given by Carbon-16”

    Oxygen is 16, 17, 18, Carbon is 12, 13, 14. The dating test is called Carbon-14. And rocks are much too old to be dated by Carbon-14.

    “However, when I then say “So, this rock is 32,000 years old” I’ve crossed the line.”

    What line is that? The line between a “fact” and a “scientific conclusion”? No scientist would see any “line” there. Only someone with a religious viewpoint?

    “then there are interpretations of facts”

    Yes. And when a thousand scientists get together and agree on such an interpretation, they call it a “scientific fact” and include it in the textbooks for high school students. Such as “moon rocks are 4 billion years old” and “evolution explains the diversity of life on this Earth”.

    “you’re no better than an animal”

    Now YOU have crossed the line – the line between scientific truth and trying to use that truth to influence morality. I’ll bet that if a high school teacher explicitly said “you’re no better than an animal”, he would get into big trouble.

    “we expect you to behave, get good grades and contribute to society.”

    Yes, we do. And if you don’t, there will likely be consequences in this life. There is no need to worry about fearing some consequences after you are dead.

    So how should I have responded to:

    “that you believe in a lie”

    You have your opinion and I have my opinion and they certainly seem to conflict. And you certainly don’t seem to be interested in actually learning anything about evolution. So I chose to try an “argument from authority”. Such an argument is only as strong as the authority. So do you wish to place your multitude of high school teachers against my very large number of trained biological scientists for reference as better authority?

  • MInTheGap says on: July 28, 2008 at 9:43 am

     

    @onein6billion: I’m sorry if English escapes you– perhaps I can shed some light on it. The ruling of the school board did not say “You shall not preach Evolution”, it stated that “You must present Evolution with facts for and against it.” Basically, it was an attempt by the school board to state that Evolution is a Scientist conclusion of what happened historically, but it has many holes, all of which should be known. The fact that there are growing numbers of scientists that disagree fuels this ruling.

    The ruling of the judge was against the ruling of the Dover School board. Ruling perhaps is the word that threw you off.

    You’re right– Carbon 14. Forgive me for not looking things up when trying to make a philosophical point. And you’re right– the half life of Carbon-14 is much too short for the calculations that Scientists use. Funny that it was “the dating mechanism” for so long.

    Obviously you don’t understand logic, jumping to conclusions, and how time works. When I say a test resulted in a given figure, that’s a fact. When I make a conclusion based on the fact that’s an interpretation. The rock may read 32,000 years old on any one test. It might read 31,000 on a different test. And each of these tests are based on a uniformity principle that we know for a fact that the rock decayed at a given rate over time without question.

    The only problem is that we’re making the assumption that it did, since we don’t even have good records for weather, let alone rock decay, back a few hundred years. We also don’t know the condition of the Earth when it came into existence, or what level of decay it may have had then.

    There are too many unknowns going back into the past to be certain about anything, so there is an element of faith in play. And that’s just the problem here. Scientists have a degree of faith in their models and in uniformity that is not warranted given the documentary evidence available. And yet they cling to that faith as truth for whatever reason they desire. And have to have a monopoly of their own opinion in the classrooms.

    If it were the other way around, you’d want the facts out just the same. It’s simply because of your current monopoly and refusal to see anything other than your worldview.

    And it must be so frustrating from your point of view. I mean, not only do you have the pesky Creationists building their museum with their own money (you thought that you had that market cornered since you used government and the people’s money to build something the people don’t agree with), and then the irritating Intelligent Design people that took God out so there could be the discussion about a Designer without talking about God, but you constantly get egg all over your face each and every day.

    I mean, Haekel’s embryos? The Java Man? Piltdown Man? Why is it that every claim at a missing link that makes front page news follows up with disclaimer buried in the same magazine a few weeks later saying how such and such discovery that was meant to “prove Evolution once and for all” was either a fraud or not what it claimed to be.

    And then you can’t even get your story straight on whether there was a catastrophe or not– I mean, everything was the same, and then there were asteroids that did something to the earth. There can be a global flood on Mars, but not on Earth. I mean, the contortions you have to go through.

    And then there’s the eye, bombardier beetle, and other things that are irreducibly complex, and you have to come up with contorted reasons for why things are that way.

    And let’s not get into the confidence infused into scientists when they can’t accurately predict the weather, call for global warming while Alaska is experiencing the coldest summer on record, and doctors decide antibiotics aren’t so cool after all.

    And then, even Newsweek can’t keep the story straight. On the topic of Food Allergies, an article referenced the design of the intestinal tract and the immune system, but if we evolved there was no design. It was random chance and natural selection that resulted in the intricate systems of the body. Someone should call them.

    If anything, the whole science industry is a mess. You wonder why so many people continue to believe in Adam and Eve and that the world was created, but if you actually looked at science and it’s many retractions and the egg it wears all over it’s face (and this has been way before modern times with scientists that believed they could turn lead into gold and that the earth was flat), you wonder why we view you and laugh.

    Evolution is like a whining kid, overprotective of what it thinks it knows. If Evolution is true it has nothing to fear from having its flaws exposed and alternative theories expounded on. It will stand as the most probably theory if it is such.

    Continuing on– You’ve got yourself in quite a pickle with saying that a person is better than an animal. How would you come about this logically?

    How about I take a stab at it? If I descended from a monkey, then I am nothing more than a “better monkey”. So at some point I was a “less-better monkey”, right?

    So, what value do transitions get? I mean, some aborigines were considered less evolved– do they get less value? Would a neanderthal get less value?

    Hitler thought that the most evolved race was White Caucasians with Blond Hair and Blue Eyes. If he’s right, should they get extra special treatment? Should they get deference because of their superior genes?

    How about all of the high school teens that have done horrible things because they figured that we’re all just animals anyway?

    Lastly, I find it amusing that you characterize those Scientists that believe in Creation as “high school teachers”. Since many of them have PhD’s or were considered the fathers of Modern Science this seems amusing at best.

    And then, the part that really gave me a good laugh was when you mentioned “large number of trained biological scientists”. And their training is the exact subject. If I get a bunch of people in the room and brainwash them to think that there’s only one Computer language “C#” out there and then teach them how to use it, do you think that they will acknowledge that people can actually get things done in PHP?

    Nah, they’ll be as brainwashed to think that Microsoft is the only Gospel and preach the same. Believe me, I’ve read it.

    How many of your “very large number” have seen a transitional fossil, have been around long enough to verify a large degree of uniformity, or have witnessed the change from lifeless to life?

    I’m guessing that that number is statistically insignificant.

  • onein6billion says on: July 29, 2008 at 7:02 pm

     

    You have demonstrated your invincible ignorance. I will not waste any more time demolishing your assertions as though they were really arguments.

  • MInTheGap says on: July 29, 2008 at 10:16 pm

     

    @onein6billion: That you think that you “demolished your assertions” is hilarious. Thanks for the time you spent and for showing us just how you think. I hope you someday are open minded enough to see that your “truth” is not all it claims to be.

  • onein6billion says on: August 6, 2008 at 11:50 am

     

    Don’t watch the three new History Channel shows – Eyes, Guts, Jaws. They treat evolution as an obvious fact.

  • onein6billion says on: August 14, 2008 at 9:13 pm

     

    http://www.counterbalance.net/.....frame.html

  • onein6billion says on: January 17, 2011 at 8:01 pm

     

    Well, it’s now been more than 2 1/2 years and Expelled the silly movie has sunk without a trace. And the 8th grade science teacher (Freshwater) has been voted 4-1 as rejected due to improper Christian teachings in his science classroom.

    “Evolution is like a whining kid, overprotective of what it thinks it knows.”

    Science is what it is – the best way of understanding reality. Religion thinks it knows something and it is simply incorrect – religion has no way of knowing anything – it’s all just opinions.

    “If I get a bunch of people in the room and brainwash them …”

    Your characterization of biological research scientists is quite ignorant. Who will make next year’s flu vaccine?

    “Thanks for the time you spent and for showing us just how you think.”

    You’re welcome. You should try talking to a real scientist some day.

    “I hope you someday are open minded enough to see that your “truth” is not all it claims to be.”

    Hilarious. Your opinion is ridiculous.

MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

%d bloggers like this: