"I came to realize the Darwinists are afraid."



"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed."

And for those who accuse anyone who doesn't think like they do of "theocracy" and "snake-oil creationism," look again. Learn about all the bona fide scientists who have been and are being blacklisted for "following all the evidence wherever it leads."

"Diversity" at most of today's colleges and research facilities apparently almost never includes "diversity of thought and research."

But that won't stop the terminally "politically-correct" from still throwing the "God charge" at us. I doubt they'll even watch the entire trailer. Their minds are closed--er--made up already.

Finally, a counterpunch for the likes of Michael Moore.

Ben Stein, you ROCK.


UPDATE: Apparently one of the movie's interviewed professors wishes he didn't say what he was recorded as saying in the movie.

These two commenters at that post echoed what I would have added to the discussion:

John Says:

February 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Intelligent design or not, Darwinism is scientifically flawed, it is misclassified as a hypothesis and is really nothing more than a proposition with little to no evidence based on unbiased scientific fact. Natural selection, which is provable, is far different from evolution, which has yet to be proven. One cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. Darwinists tend to reject any possibility of being shown false. They are in fact just as dogmatic as their creationist counterparts. There is another answer, and it is the duty of the scientific community to relentlessly pursue the truth, even if that truth is politically, morally or socially unacceptable, or conversely even if that truth is politically, morally and socially acceptable. I applaud Ben for this Movie, it brings to light the discrimination that the scientific community has forced upon those of us who seek the truth no matter what that truth turns out to be.

Frank Says:

February 21st, 2008 at 12:38 am
I have also heard far too many repetitions of the mantra that there is a mountain of evidence against ID and none supporting it. It is pretty much the other way around.

One of the causes of this confusion is the fact that people equate Creationism with ID. How then, do they explain those of us who do not believe in Creationism but we do feel that ID best explains the origin, the diversity and the ongoing existence of life? I can tell you this, ID is NOT religious, whether religious groups want to jump on the bandwagon or not.

Read Owen’s posts (any of them) and find me one word regarding religion, the Bible or God and not science. That is a challenge to any of you who continue to perpetuate the lie that ID is theistic.

Another myth is that ID opposes evolution. It does not, although some question MACROevolution, I see this as a fringe, not mainstream ID.

As far as evidence goes, here is how I see the three major theories:

Creationism = There is practically no corraborating evidence to the Bible’s explanation(s) of life’s origin.

Evolution by Random Chance = Minimal evidence and even less logic. This has been shown repeatedly to be mathematically impossible at countless points. Doesn’t account for life’s origins, DNA or consciousness.

Evolution by Intelligent Design = Overwhelmingly supported by the scientific and mathematic evidence. The one and only flaw is a biggie: If it was designed, then who did it?

The following linked comments also shed some interesting light on the subject, including the apparently poorly-founded complaint by this and other Darwinist professors, including a link to this American Spectator article by someone who actually screened the movie:

What I had not expected was that the film would take the war to the enemy. Ben Stein pays a call on leading Darwinians, among them Oxford's Richard Dawkins, William Provine of Cornell, and P.Z. Myers of the University of Minnesota. Dawkins and others later complained that they hadn't been warned that the movie would be unsympathetic to their cause. In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.

The double irony is that Dawkins's second encounter with Ben Stein is perhaps the high point of the film. Dawkins, speaking with refreshing frankness, comes across as not in the slightest bit confused or caught off guard. He allows that science knows nothing about the origin of life, and that, yes, the Darwinian message is antithetical to religion. He surprises us, too, by allowing that if life really was designed, the designing must have been done by intelligent beings elsewhere in the cosmos who themselves evolved by naturalistic means. Their designs were then somehow transported down to Earth. (Francis Crick of DNA fame took the same view in the 1980s.)

This last comment (perhaps others) lays out the entire crux, the end-all justification Darwinists believe they have for equating the scientific theory of Intelligent Design with the erroneous Creationism: because one errant, woefully-mistaken group of people tried to force Creationism on its town's students in the classroom and a judge called them on it. ONE bad decision by ONE misguided group of people! That's all it takes to "prove" that ID=Creationism, folks! Wow, isn't it funny how that doesn't work for oh, anything else in the world...?

Come to think of it, these Darwinist professors can't be very bright in one respect: if they'd done an ounce of homework, they'd have known Ben Stein is a publicly pro-life person. That alone should have tipped them off that they were not cut from the same cloth as Mr. Stein. That alone should have set off their "Politically-Incorrect-O-Meters."