Who doesn't like Wiki's? I have one, and I'm an admin on one. Wiki's are awesome!

oh dang....meant to add this as well!

Overall, the film is more about exposing the fear of evolutionists in allowing free speech in scientific inquiry (and their accompanying tyrannical behavior) than it is an anti-evolution piece. Stein discovers an elitist scientific establishment that has exchanged science’s supposed quest for open-minded inquiry for harsh dogmatism. Freedom, “the essence of America” says Stein (a former civil rights lawyer), is easily taken away at universities, with qualified scientists expelled for not embracing evolution.

Well the reason we feel this way is quite simply because Intelligent Design (and even more so Creationisim) are NOT science. They have NO scientific fact and as such should not be taught in Science.

Debating whether or not there is a god is fine by me and something i try to encourage (so long as it's in a civil enviroment). it. To take that further and say it is fact is wrong. Are you not able to grasp this? I understand you have allegiance to the Church, but even with this you have to understand that while your beliefs have no fact that you must not classify them as Science.

I grew up during a time of economic turmoil in the area of England i lived (the North East, which suffered heavily thanks to the decline in British Industry), many peoples parents were out of work (i can't stress how high unemployment levels were in the North East), most often drank heavily, riots were common place and  life was far from as comfortable as it is now.

So it was quite easy to grow up as a child quite disillusioned, potentially, but i don't attribute this to my take on Creationisim, what this did do for me was sort of give me a realistic perspective from a very young age.

I remember being taught about Dinosaurs at school, then going to Sunday school and being told that God made the world, then man, but there were no Dinosaurs in the bible. I remember doing basic Geography and about how the Earth was formed, what stood out was probably pictures of Volcanos and lava spilling out everywhere. Any questions on the irregularities between what i was being taught in school and sunday school were obviously avoided. Which is quite easy to do for a class full of 8 year olds.

I did at one point get an answer on the Dionsaur issue, and why they weren't mentioned in the bible.

The answer i was given was something along the lines of 'That's because Dinosaurs don't really exist, the fossils being fond were put there to test our faith in god'.

I think it was at this point i started to reject the notion that Gensis actually happend. I consider myself someone who doesn't believe in any of the monolistic religions (or any religion for that matter), but this was only a recent development, for example i'm now 23 and on my 21st birthday i was given a Crucifix by mother. I never took it off up until about a year ago.

From a philosophical stand point, i wouldn't out right deny the existance of god, but when it comes to Science and the Scientific Method, there is no proof and it's wrong for anyone to try and make it Science until there is observable and measureable evidence.

There is actually a huge difference between being threatened and terrified actually, but i think i know what your getting at.

The notion of creatonisim, does not terrify me, from a personal perspective given what we know now, i just think it's wrong.

What does terrify me, is when as i said, George Bush saying we should teach Intelligent Design in science, as an example of both sides of the arguement. This terrifies me, the fact that something that has not been proven has found it's way into science. I hope this clarifies it for you. 

Out of curiosity.  Where?

Out of curiosity.  Where?

List one experiment and the results.  Just one.

No sheet, Sherlock.  You know just as well as anyone (considering that you've been told this a hundred times) that Evolution has nothing to do with origins.  Evolution never claimed to say anything about origins.  Do you not listen?  I KNOW it would make your argument really palatable if you could somehow link origin theory to evolution theory, (thereby disproving any credibility of the latter) but you can't, ok?  Stop it already.  Never the twain shall meet, ok?  You get it?  Evolution has nothing to do with origin.  Please reply that you understand this so we can all get on with everything else there is to talk about.  Hows about I repeat this another million ways.  Evolution != Origin.  Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of man at all.  Evolution isn't trying to explain origin of man.  Evolution isn't a theory about the beginnings of anything.  Evolution is a theory about genetic changes over time.  Evolution deals with development of life.  That life is presupposed before evolution starts talking about it, therefore it has nothing to do with where that life started.

Do you get it yet?  Maybe?  Please?

If you don't get it yet, then just hang an "I'm a retard" sign around your neck so the rest of us can steer clear.  If you DO get it (and I know you do, because I don't think you're a retard and those are the only two choices) then stop with the constant BS about Origin vs. Evolution.  OK!!!???

You simply will not accept that ID is not science even though it's been proven to you over and over again. So ether you don't understand it or your trying to redefine it. Take at look at Ock's post, What is "The Scientific Method?" maybe a miracle will happen.

All the people that were supposed to have been "expelled", are still working in their fields, none were fired or even blacklisted, even though some deserved to be.  

Richard Sternberg, "did not lose his office or his access to collections, he did not lose his job, he was not “fired” from the (unpaid) editorship of the journal (he had resigned six months before the publication of the Meyer article), and from the e-mails in the appendix to the Souder report, it appears that his colleagues were civil in their communications with him".

Guillermo Gonzalez, was denied tenure for failing to bring in research grants. "The average tenured faculty in the ISU physics and astronomy department brought in $1.3 million in grants during their first six years. Gonzalez brought in, at most, $200,000 during the same amount of time.

Caroline Crocker, Despite claims of being fired, Crocker was allowed to continue teaching and complete her GMU contract after the Department became aware of her ID instruction through student complaints. She was instructed to not teach about intelligent design and creation science, which was not part of the curriculum of the courses she had been hired to teach. Academic freedom does not mean the freedom to teach about anything you want, regardless of the expected content of your courses. And, far from having her academic career “come to an abrupt end”, after leaving GMU, Crocker taught at NVCC, and additionally acquired in 2006 a postdoctoral position at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD, working on T-cell signal transduction – an actual scientific investigation – suggesting that her reputation as a scientist was unaffected by the controversy over intelligent design

Robert Marks, "The worst that happened to Professor Marks was that he had to remove his web site from Baylor’s webserver. In no other way was his free speech impinged, nor have his work conditions changed in any way: he remains a Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, holding a full professorship in the School of Engineering and Computer Science. He continues to teach his courses and conduct research. Where is the harm?

Pamela Winnick wrote a book, A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion, and then didn't like the reviews it got. "Jeffrey Shallit descibes her book as “not a fair, reliable, or objective look at the battles between science and religion,” for example – but it is insupportable and absurd to characterize such criticism as blacklisting".   

Physician Michael Egnor posted an essay on an intelligent design blog in response, claiming that evolution was irrelevant to medicine and didn't like the responses he got. Welcome to the Internet Mr. Egnor.

The site I linked has the rest of it. Expelled Exposed

What I found unbelievable is them expelling people with a dissenting opinion from the screening of a movie about expelling people with a dissenting opinion.

Yea this is an honest film alright.   

No, it doesn't.  Evolution has zero to do with origin.  And look, I'm not calling you names.  You're taking them for yourself.  I told you 5 or 6 different ways what I just told you again.  What is it about it you can't understand?

Stubbyfinger,

From what I've read, Stein interviewed Sternberg, a biologist, and was told he lost his postition at Smithsonian Institution after he published a peer-reviewed artlicle that mentioned ID.

I agree. Turns out, the more scientists examine inaminate nature and living organisms, the more obvious it becomes that everything was designed..and more everything was designed for life to exist ...this "fitness" of all things together is proof of God's Creatorship...and it's by science that we are learning it.

Take the human body...specifically the laryngeal nerve as taken from a writing by Frank Sherwin.

The recurrent largygeal nerve (RLN) in man is found branching off the 10th cranial nerve in the chest cavity. The 12th cranial nerves are part of the beautifully designed autonomic nervous system that controls involuntary body processes, including digestion, heart rate, and respiration.

Now, Evolutionists claim the Creator is a bad engineer having the RLN dropping into the chest and looping around a ligament of the lundg before going back up to the larynx (voice box). Evolutionists Michael Denton states, "The recurrent laryngeal nerve loops around the aorta and back up to the  larynx instead of taking a more direct route."

Why did the Creator design the loop of the RLN which to the Eovlutionist biologist is both strange and unnecessary, basing these judgments on Darwiniam (macro-evolution). But Creation scientists and medical doctors are investigating and have several ideas. There are branches of the RLN going above and below the larynx that would allow some preservation of function if either one is severed. The RLN passes tightly under the aorta  and perhaps variation in the diameter of the aorta could alter the function of the RLN.

The evolutionists can't  explain the origin and gradual evolution of our 3 pound brain, certianly not its amazing complexity  from "simple life forms" while the Creation scientists continue to invesitgate the puzzling RLN route.  

Creation scientists have answered other so-called bad designs arguments used by Evolutionists that have since received good, scientific answers. One example is the designed thumb of the panda bear that the late SJ Gould repeatedly cited this poor, bad feature, but he ignored the fact that panda bears have been doing just fine with this supposedly inferior structure.

Richard Dawkins maintained the retina was "wired backwards". Today, we hear nothing about this alleged imperfect manner of wiring. Why? because sceintists have shown our retinas are designed exactly the way they should be in order to receive light and direct the impulses via the optic nerves to the back of the brain where they are made into images. If, the eye were designed by the way Eovlutionists like Dawkins specifications, we'd all be blind!

ID theory states that design in nature can be empirically detected. this has been shown now by those sceintists working on the inner workings of cells.  

\

It's simple, thinking for oneself is the enemy of everyone who wants to control the dialogue.  Science isn't any more immune to that fact as religion or philosophy.  When the Wright Brothers were flying in Kitty Hawk, NC, many of the leading scientists of the day were denying it was happening. 

I remember when the University of Utah announced finding a breakthrough in Cold Fusion.  The breakthrough wasn't everything they hoped it was, but the reactions from the rest of the scientific community was much more revealing than the flaws in the conclusions.

Professors from Ivy League schools in the North East US spoke out about how a mere State University in a Western State could never come up with such a finding.  Physicists scoffed at the very idea that chemists would be able to make such a breakthrough.   These were scientific arguments based on data collected and observations, these were the petty bickerings of people who were afraid they'd lose funding if someone else made such a huge breakthrough.

It isn't surprising that science has become more about politics than scientific method.  Whether in the universities, government agencies or the private sector, modern science is about collecting grants, mostly from the government.  I've often wondered how many scientists today aren't on the government dole.