Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Rocky

2008-10-24T00:46:07Z

Rocky: Adding in a few of the censored 11

{{userboxtop|Rocky}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User tolerancecompromisetruth}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Critical}}
{{User free software}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User Barnstar?}}
{{User Noholedonut}}
{{User Godbigbang}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}
{{User American}}
{{User guncontrol}}
{{User guns illegal}}
{{User patriot questions authority}}
{{User Liberal}}
{{User nowar}}
{{User gay rights}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User faveband|Pink Floyd}}
{{User noBush}}
{{User admires|Groucho Marx & Stanley Kubrick}}
{{User Life begins|Four months after conception}}
{{User Socrates}}
{{userboxbottom}}

{{QuoteBox|Look my lad, I took the liberty of examining that bird when I got it home, and the only reason that it had been standing there in the first place, was that it had been nailed there. --John Cleese}}
{{QuoteBox|Leave the gun, take the canolli. -- Clamenza}}
{{QuoteBox|Nag, nag, nag. Sometimes, I wish I had married the woman that I met at my bachalor party. --Peater Griffin}}
{{QuoteBox|Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Nothin', and I mean nothin' can be free. --Janis Joplin}}

I am a user on Conservapedia. I am, in fact a [[liberal]], and I would just like to point out that on the liberal page, a lot of the things that I read were in fact true. I am still a minor, so don't be too hard on me. After coming to Conservapedia, I have learned a lot however. Also, I would like to say that censorship, and that the Fairness Docterine are both stupid and annoying things that should not be in this country, or anywhere.

==Censored Eleven==

For those of you that do not know what the '''Censored Eleven''' is, it is 11 cartoons that are Looney Toons and Merry Melody cartoons that have not been alowed to be shown on TV since the late 1960's. This is because of the overly racist content in them. However, I hate censorship. I also think that by trying to take these cartoons off the market, we are trying to say that racism did not happen, which, I believe, is almost as bad as condoning it. So, here are the cartoons. Some of them are in the public domain. The ones that I have found on youtube have links to them.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDCNQoeBLvk Hittin' the Trail for Hallelujah Land] - A basic copy of both Walt Disney's "Steamboat Willie" and "The Skeleton Dance". Also, some of the characters look the same. For instance, ''Piggy'' looks a lot like ''Mickey Mouse''.
#. Sunday Go to Meetin' Time - I am trying to see this one
#. Clean Pastures - This was controversal from the begining because the censors thought that it was in violation of the Hays Code, a code which stated what could be in movies and what could not be (enacted 1930, scrapped 1968), thought that it made a mockery of religion.
#. Uncle Tom's Bungalow - This is another one that I am still trying to see.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt---f83q7g Jungle Jitters] - This film is in the public domain.
#. The Isle of Pongo Pongo - This one I know absolutly nothing about.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk36qmiVBWw&NR=1 All This and Rabbit Stew] - This cartoon features Bugs Bunny as he tricks a black person and wins his clothes. This is also in the public domain.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqb85Krkrrs&feature=related Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs] - A parody of "Snow White and the Seven Dawrfs", this film is, despite the racist content, generally considered a masterpiece. This film is a draw at small audience showings and film festavals.
#. [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7536008978010161521&q=tin+pan+alley+cats&ei=C591SP_hOIT-qgL4pLjOBg&hl=en Tin Pan Alley Cats] - This is generally bootlegged and generally put up on sites and then taken down for copyright reasons. Clips that were restored were featured as supplamentry material in the ''Looney Toons Golden Collection Volume 2 DVD''.
#. Angel Puss - This is the only Looney Toons cartoon to be part of the censored eleven.
#. Goldilocks and the Jivin' Bears - I don't know anything about this one either.

Although these are the only ones on the censored 11 list, there have been many more that have been taken out of circulation since this list has been created. Also, many of these have not appeared on DVD often. Here is the list.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEiU6GpvJf0 Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips] - This makes fun of Japanese people because it was made shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The release was protested by Japanese rights groups when it was schedualed to be released in 1991. The title refers to "nip" meaning bite and "Nip" being a racial slur for a Japanese person.
#. Confederacy Honey - This is a parody of the film "Gone With The Wind". This is the first to show Inky, who is a slave holding Elmer Fudd's horse. Inky is also in "All This and Rabbit Stew".
#. Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat - This is a Universal film. Although it shows what was, for the time, unusual to show desierable African American women, now a days, it is considered racist for showing black people as lazy and irresponsible. This is in the public domain.
#. Uncle Tom's Cabana - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. Half-Pint Pygmy - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxHfwhckcs&feature=related Making Stars] - This is a Fletcher Studios cartoon starring Betty Boop. This shows many steriotypes.

Please note, these cartoons do have very racist content in them. So, viewer descretion is advised.

==Basic View Of God==

I think that God is absolutly awesome. However, I also think that I should not force God upon anyone in order to get them to convert. Ferthermore, I think that we use God as a concept to measure our pain. For example (here is a classic), praying to God before a test that we did not study for in hopes of doing well. Then, we simply do not pray to God again until the next test. That bugs me.

==Basic View Of The Bible==

It is a good book. It's a great read. However, I also think that things should be taken in there contextually. For instance, I belive in the theory of evolution because creationism believes that the earth has been around for 6,000 years. However, they have found fossils that are 3.5 billion years old of humans with ape-like characteristics.

Although I do believe that a lot of the things in the bible are true (such as Jesus being the savior of man (I am, after all, a Catholic)), I also think that it should be read contextually. This is what was tought in my theology class and in my biology class, we are learning about evolution.

==Basic View Of The United States==

Great place to live. I love this country (and I'm not just saying that because I know that I will get a lot of complaints that I am anti-American because I am a liberal). However, I think that there are problems with this country as well. For instance, we are currently fighting a war. However, a few years ago, Congress was talking about same-sex marrage. Now, I have no problem with couples of the same-sex getting married, however, there is a war going on, and, before we focus on red herrings such as that, we should focus on rebuilding the country we have destroyed and getting our troops home safely.

==Pages Worked On==

*[[Amused To Death]]-Creator
*[[Aqualung]]-Creator
*[[What God Wants]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[Monty Python]]-Minor Edit
*[[Essay: Religion]]-Writer
*[[Perfect Sense]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[The Wall]]-Creator
*[[Sympathy for the Devil]]-Creator
*[[Rocky Horror Picture Show]]-Edits
*[[Is atheism a religion]]-Starter
*[[Should gay marrage be allowed?]]-Starter
*[[Finding A Topic]]-Writer
*[[Concept album]]-Creator
*[[Reefer Madness]]-Creator
*[[Debate:Is War Murder?]]-Starter
*[[Essay:Raul Kensington's Backstory]]-Serial

I would just like to say thank you to all of the people that changed and will continue to change the mistakes on my pages. I really apprechiate it.

==Question Of The Week==

This is subject to change weekly. Please send your answer to me by email and, if I recieve it, I will send you back a conformaton email. Please mark the subject as "Question Of The Week Response". Also, please not only answer the question, but also, explain why you think that. This is your time to be creative, so please, do so. Speak the truth as well, because I do not know your name.

This week's question of the week is:

What is your definition of the truth and why?

===How To Send An Email===

See the long column on the left. Keep going down until you get to that bottom subheading. Somewhere in there, it should say "Email this user". Click on that, and you should be able to email me. Remember, keep your answers as detailed as possible.

===About Last Week's Question===

Last week's question was "Is George W. Bush a great presedent?" We came down to the conclusion that Bush is a good president for the way that he has handled things such as Same-Sex Marrage and the Iraq War. 
 
I would like to thank everyone that participated in this, and I hope that you will answer next week's question.

User:Rocky

2008-10-24T00:35:29Z

Rocky:

{{userboxtop|Rocky}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User tolerancecompromisetruth}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Critical}}
{{User free software}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User Barnstar?}}
{{User Noholedonut}}
{{User Godbigbang}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}
{{User American}}
{{User guncontrol}}
{{User guns illegal}}
{{User patriot questions authority}}
{{User Liberal}}
{{User nowar}}
{{User gay rights}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User faveband|Pink Floyd}}
{{User noBush}}
{{User admires|Groucho Marx & Stanley Kubrick}}
{{User Life begins|Four months after conception}}
{{User Socrates}}
{{userboxbottom}}

{{QuoteBox|Look my lad, I took the liberty of examining that bird when I got it home, and the only reason that it had been standing there in the first place, was that it had been nailed there. --John Cleese}}
{{QuoteBox|Leave the gun, take the canolli. -- Clamenza}}
{{QuoteBox|Nag, nag, nag. Sometimes, I wish I had married the woman that I met at my bachalor party. --Peater Griffin}}
{{QuoteBox|Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Nothin', and I mean nothin' can be free. --Janis Joplin}}

I am a user on Conservapedia. I am, in fact a [[liberal]], and I would just like to point out that on the liberal page, a lot of the things that I read were in fact true. I am still a minor, so don't be too hard on me. After coming to Conservapedia, I have learned a lot however. Also, I would like to say that censorship, and that the Fairness Docterine are both stupid and annoying things that should not be in this country, or anywhere.

==Censored Eleven==

For those of you that do not know what the '''Censored Eleven''' is, it is 11 cartoons that are Looney Toons and Merry Melody cartoons that have not been alowed to be shown on TV since the late 1960's. This is because of the overly racist content in them. However, I hate censorship. I also think that by trying to take these cartoons off the market, we are trying to say that racism did not happen, which, I believe, is almost as bad as condoning it. So, here are the cartoons. Some of them are in the public domain. The ones that I have found on youtube have links to them.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDCNQoeBLvk Hittin' the Trail for Hallelujah Land] - A basic copy of both Walt Disney's "Steamboat Willie" and "The Skeleton Dance". Also, some of the characters look the same. For instance, ''Piggy'' looks a lot like ''Mickey Mouse''.
#. Sunday Go to Meetin' Time - I am trying to see this one
#. Clean Pastures - This was controversal from the begining because the censors thought that it was in violation of the Hays Code, a code which stated what could be in movies and what could not be (enacted 1930, scrapped 1968), thought that it made a mockery of religion.
#. Uncle Tom's Bungalow - This is another one that I am still trying to see.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt---f83q7g Jungle Jitters] - This film is in the public domain.
#. The Isle of Pongo Pongo - This one I know absolutly nothing about.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk36qmiVBWw&NR=1 All This and Rabbit Stew] - This cartoon features Bugs Bunny as he tricks a black person and wins his clothes. This is also in the public domain.
#. Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs - A parody of "Snow White and the Seven Dawrfs", this film is, despite the racist content, generally considered a masterpiece. This film is a draw at small audience showings and film festavals.
#. Tin Pan Alley Cats - This is generally bootlegged and generally put up on sites and then taken down for copyright reasons. Clips that were restored were featured as supplamentry material in the ''Looney Toons Golden Collection Volume 2 DVD''.
#. Angel Puss - This is the only Looney Toons cartoon to be part of the censored eleven.
#. Goldilocks and the Jivin' Bears - I don't know anything about this one either.

Although these are the only ones on the censored 11 list, there have been many more that have been taken out of circulation since this list has been created. Also, many of these have not appeared on DVD often. Here is the list.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEiU6GpvJf0 Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips] - This makes fun of Japanese people because it was made shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The release was protested by Japanese rights groups when it was schedualed to be released in 1991. The title refers to "nip" meaning bite and "Nip" being a racial slur for a Japanese person.
#. Confederacy Honey - This is a parody of the film "Gone With The Wind". This is the first to show Inky, who is a slave holding Elmer Fudd's horse. Inky is also in "All This and Rabbit Stew".
#. Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat - This is a Universal film. Although it shows what was, for the time, unusual to show desierable African American women, now a days, it is considered racist for showing black people as lazy and irresponsible. This is in the public domain.
#. Uncle Tom's Cabana - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. Half-Pint Pygmy - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxHfwhckcs&feature=related Making Stars] - This is a Fletcher Studios cartoon starring Betty Boop. This shows many steriotypes.

Please note, these cartoons do have very racist content in them. So, viewer descretion is advised.

==Basic View Of God==

I think that God is absolutly awesome. However, I also think that I should not force God upon anyone in order to get them to convert. Ferthermore, I think that we use God as a concept to measure our pain. For example (here is a classic), praying to God before a test that we did not study for in hopes of doing well. Then, we simply do not pray to God again until the next test. That bugs me.

==Basic View Of The Bible==

It is a good book. It's a great read. However, I also think that things should be taken in there contextually. For instance, I belive in the theory of evolution because creationism believes that the earth has been around for 6,000 years. However, they have found fossils that are 3.5 billion years old of humans with ape-like characteristics.

Although I do believe that a lot of the things in the bible are true (such as Jesus being the savior of man (I am, after all, a Catholic)), I also think that it should be read contextually. This is what was tought in my theology class and in my biology class, we are learning about evolution.

==Basic View Of The United States==

Great place to live. I love this country (and I'm not just saying that because I know that I will get a lot of complaints that I am anti-American because I am a liberal). However, I think that there are problems with this country as well. For instance, we are currently fighting a war. However, a few years ago, Congress was talking about same-sex marrage. Now, I have no problem with couples of the same-sex getting married, however, there is a war going on, and, before we focus on red herrings such as that, we should focus on rebuilding the country we have destroyed and getting our troops home safely.

==Pages Worked On==

*[[Amused To Death]]-Creator
*[[Aqualung]]-Creator
*[[What God Wants]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[Monty Python]]-Minor Edit
*[[Essay: Religion]]-Writer
*[[Perfect Sense]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[The Wall]]-Creator
*[[Sympathy for the Devil]]-Creator
*[[Rocky Horror Picture Show]]-Edits
*[[Is atheism a religion]]-Starter
*[[Should gay marrage be allowed?]]-Starter
*[[Finding A Topic]]-Writer
*[[Concept album]]-Creator
*[[Reefer Madness]]-Creator
*[[Debate:Is War Murder?]]-Starter
*[[Essay:Raul Kensington's Backstory]]-Serial

I would just like to say thank you to all of the people that changed and will continue to change the mistakes on my pages. I really apprechiate it.

==Question Of The Week==

This is subject to change weekly. Please send your answer to me by email and, if I recieve it, I will send you back a conformaton email. Please mark the subject as "Question Of The Week Response". Also, please not only answer the question, but also, explain why you think that. This is your time to be creative, so please, do so. Speak the truth as well, because I do not know your name.

This week's question of the week is:

What is your definition of the truth and why?

===How To Send An Email===

See the long column on the left. Keep going down until you get to that bottom subheading. Somewhere in there, it should say "Email this user". Click on that, and you should be able to email me. Remember, keep your answers as detailed as possible.

===About Last Week's Question===

Last week's question was "Is George W. Bush a great presedent?" We came down to the conclusion that Bush is a good president for the way that he has handled things such as Same-Sex Marrage and the Iraq War. 
 
I would like to thank everyone that participated in this, and I hope that you will answer next week's question.

User:Rocky

2008-10-24T00:33:24Z

Rocky: /* Pages Worked On */

{{userboxtop|Rocky}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User tolerancecompromisetruth}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Critical}}
{{User free software}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User Barnstar?}}
{{User Noholedonut}}
{{User Godbigbang}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}
{{User American}}
{{User guncontrol}}
{{User guns illegal}}
{{User patriot questions authority}}
{{User Liberal}}
{{User nowar}}
{{User gay rights}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User faveband|Pink Floyd}}
{{User noBush}}
{{User admires|John Waters & Stanley Kubrick}}
{{User Life begins|Four months after conception}}
{{User Socrates}}
{{userboxbottom}}

{{QuoteBox|Look my lad, I took the liberty of examining that bird when I got it home, and the only reason that it had been standing there in the first place, was that it had been nailed there. --John Cleese}}
{{QuoteBox|Leave the gun, take the canolli. -- Clamenza}}
{{QuoteBox|Nag, nag, nag. Sometimes, I wish I had married the woman that I met at my bachalor party. --Peater Griffin}}
{{QuoteBox|Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Nothin', and I mean nothin' can be free. --Janis Joplin}}

I am a user on Conservapedia. I am, in fact a [[liberal]], and I would just like to point out that on the liberal page, a lot of the things that I read were in fact true. I am still a minor, so don't be too hard on me. After coming to Conservapedia, I have learned a lot however. Also, I would like to say that censorship, and that the Fairness Docterine are both stupid and annoying things that should not be in this country, or anywhere.

==Censored Eleven==

For those of you that do not know what the '''Censored Eleven''' is, it is 11 cartoons that are Looney Toons and Merry Melody cartoons that have not been alowed to be shown on TV since the late 1960's. This is because of the overly racist content in them. However, I hate censorship. I also think that by trying to take these cartoons off the market, we are trying to say that racism did not happen, which, I believe, is almost as bad as condoning it. So, here are the cartoons. Some of them are in the public domain. The ones that I have found on youtube have links to them.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDCNQoeBLvk Hittin' the Trail for Hallelujah Land] - A basic copy of both Walt Disney's "Steamboat Willie" and "The Skeleton Dance". Also, some of the characters look the same. For instance, ''Piggy'' looks a lot like ''Mickey Mouse''.
#. Sunday Go to Meetin' Time - I am trying to see this one
#. Clean Pastures - This was controversal from the begining because the censors thought that it was in violation of the Hays Code, a code which stated what could be in movies and what could not be (enacted 1930, scrapped 1968), thought that it made a mockery of religion.
#. Uncle Tom's Bungalow - This is another one that I am still trying to see.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt---f83q7g Jungle Jitters] - This film is in the public domain.
#. The Isle of Pongo Pongo - This one I know absolutly nothing about.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk36qmiVBWw&NR=1 All This and Rabbit Stew] - This cartoon features Bugs Bunny as he tricks a black person and wins his clothes. This is also in the public domain.
#. Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs - A parody of "Snow White and the Seven Dawrfs", this film is, despite the racist content, generally considered a masterpiece. This film is a draw at small audience showings and film festavals.
#. Tin Pan Alley Cats - This is generally bootlegged and generally put up on sites and then taken down for copyright reasons. Clips that were restored were featured as supplamentry material in the ''Looney Toons Golden Collection Volume 2 DVD''.
#. Angel Puss - This is the only Looney Toons cartoon to be part of the censored eleven.
#. Goldilocks and the Jivin' Bears - I don't know anything about this one either.

Although these are the only ones on the censored 11 list, there have been many more that have been taken out of circulation since this list has been created. Also, many of these have not appeared on DVD often. Here is the list.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEiU6GpvJf0 Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips] - This makes fun of Japanese people because it was made shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The release was protested by Japanese rights groups when it was schedualed to be released in 1991. The title refers to "nip" meaning bite and "Nip" being a racial slur for a Japanese person.
#. Confederacy Honey - This is a parody of the film "Gone With The Wind". This is the first to show Inky, who is a slave holding Elmer Fudd's horse. Inky is also in "All This and Rabbit Stew".
#. Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat - This is a Universal film. Although it shows what was, for the time, unusual to show desierable African American women, now a days, it is considered racist for showing black people as lazy and irresponsible. This is in the public domain.
#. Uncle Tom's Cabana - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. Half-Pint Pygmy - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxHfwhckcs&feature=related Making Stars] - This is a Fletcher Studios cartoon starring Betty Boop. This shows many steriotypes.

Please note, these cartoons do have very racist content in them. So, viewer descretion is advised.

==Basic View Of God==

I think that God is absolutly awesome. However, I also think that I should not force God upon anyone in order to get them to convert. Ferthermore, I think that we use God as a concept to measure our pain. For example (here is a classic), praying to God before a test that we did not study for in hopes of doing well. Then, we simply do not pray to God again until the next test. That bugs me.

==Basic View Of The Bible==

It is a good book. It's a great read. However, I also think that things should be taken in there contextually. For instance, I belive in the theory of evolution because creationism believes that the earth has been around for 6,000 years. However, they have found fossils that are 3.5 billion years old of humans with ape-like characteristics.

Although I do believe that a lot of the things in the bible are true (such as Jesus being the savior of man (I am, after all, a Catholic)), I also think that it should be read contextually. This is what was tought in my theology class and in my biology class, we are learning about evolution.

==Basic View Of The United States==

Great place to live. I love this country (and I'm not just saying that because I know that I will get a lot of complaints that I am anti-American because I am a liberal). However, I think that there are problems with this country as well. For instance, we are currently fighting a war. However, a few years ago, Congress was talking about same-sex marrage. Now, I have no problem with couples of the same-sex getting married, however, there is a war going on, and, before we focus on red herrings such as that, we should focus on rebuilding the country we have destroyed and getting our troops home safely.

==Pages Worked On==

*[[Amused To Death]]-Creator
*[[Aqualung]]-Creator
*[[What God Wants]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[Monty Python]]-Minor Edit
*[[Essay: Religion]]-Writer
*[[Perfect Sense]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[The Wall]]-Creator
*[[Sympathy for the Devil]]-Creator
*[[Rocky Horror Picture Show]]-Edits
*[[Is atheism a religion]]-Starter
*[[Should gay marrage be allowed?]]-Starter
*[[Finding A Topic]]-Writer
*[[Concept album]]-Creator
*[[Reefer Madness]]-Creator
*[[Debate:Is War Murder?]]-Starter
*[[Essay:Raul Kensington's Backstory]]-Serial

I would just like to say thank you to all of the people that changed and will continue to change the mistakes on my pages. I really apprechiate it.

==Question Of The Week==

This is subject to change weekly. Please send your answer to me by email and, if I recieve it, I will send you back a conformaton email. Please mark the subject as "Question Of The Week Response". Also, please not only answer the question, but also, explain why you think that. This is your time to be creative, so please, do so. Speak the truth as well, because I do not know your name.

This week's question of the week is:

What is your definition of the truth and why?

===How To Send An Email===

See the long column on the left. Keep going down until you get to that bottom subheading. Somewhere in there, it should say "Email this user". Click on that, and you should be able to email me. Remember, keep your answers as detailed as possible.

===About Last Week's Question===

Last week's question was "Is George W. Bush a great presedent?" We came down to the conclusion that Bush is a good president for the way that he has handled things such as Same-Sex Marrage and the Iraq War. 
 
I would like to thank everyone that participated in this, and I hope that you will answer next week's question.

Sympathy for the Devil

2008-07-06T16:15:32Z

Rocky: Checking Spelling

'''"Sympathy for the Devil"''' is the first song on the [[Rolling Stones]]' album ''[[Beggars Banquet]]''. It appears before the song "No Expectations", and it is 6 minutes and 19 seconds in length, making it the longest song on the album. The song has been controversial in many conservative groups because of its title.

==Meaning of the Song==
This song is very controversial. This is because most people assume that it just simply means that the Rolling Stones are [[Satanist|devil worshipers]]. However, it has been interpreted in another way, as well. It has been interpreted as being a song showing that people allow [[Satan]] to control their world and that people allow Satan into their lives. The line "Please allow me to introduce myself / I'm a man of wealth and taste" refers to the devil's seemingly good promises. "Made damn sure that Pilate / Washed his hands and sealed his fate" refers to [[Pontius Pilate]]'s being the killer of [[Jesus]]. "I rode a tank / Held a general's rank / When the Blitzkrieg raged / And the bodies stank" refers to [[World War II]] and [[Nazism]], the bodies stinking in the concentration camps. "I watched with glee / While your kings and queens / Fought for ten decades / For the gods they made" refers to the [[Hundred Years War]], which was fought over religious intolerance in Europe.

==Sympathy for the Devil Remix==
There was an album released containing all of the remixes of the song.

===Track Listing===
# Sympathy For The Devil ((The Neptunes Remix) (Radio Edit))
# Sympathy For The Devil ((The Neptunes Remix))
# Sympathy For The Devil ((Fatboy Slim Remix) (Radio Edit))
# Sympathy For The Devil ((Fatboy Slim Remix))
# Sympathy For The Devil ((Full Phatt Remix) (Radio Edit))
# Sympathy For The Devil ((Full Phatt Remix))
# Sympathy For The Devil ((Original Version))

Total Time-38:24

==Cover Versions==
There have been many remixes and covers of the song, the most popular of which was done by [[Guns N' Roses]].

==External Links==
[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rolling+stones/sympathy+for+the+devil_20117881.html Song Lyrics]

[[Category:Songs]]

Reefer Madness

2008-07-06T16:12:46Z

Rocky: Checking Spelling

[[Image:ReeferMadnessPoster.jpg‎]]

'''Reefer Madness''' is an early 1930's exploitation film. The film is about the dangers of doing marijuana. However, because of the film's campy acting, the film has become popular amongst pot heads.

==Plot==
''This article is short. You can help by expanding it.''

==History==
The film was originally financed by church groups. However, when the budget got too big, the film was sold to a producer. The producer released the film on the exploitation circuit. The film did not do very well until the 1970's when it started being shown as a [[midnight movie]]. It became very popular amongst pot heads. This is because, the film is overacted and some of the things in it are completely outrageous (for instance, the heroine jumps out the window instead of going to jail). In 2004, [[20th Century Fox]] as well as [[Legend Films]] released a color version of the film. The color is done very weirdly to keep with the campy style of the original. The film has fallen into the public domain, making it available for anyone to download or put onto DVD. On [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/reefer_madness/ rottentommatos.com], the film holds a 50% rating. On yahoo.com, the film holds a C+ rating from it's users.
==Availability==
The film is currently available on DVD.
==External Links==
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6696582420128930236&q=reefer+madness&ei=J8ocSP_fAoGMrgK04eW-Ag&hl=en Reefer Madness on Google video]

User:Rocky

2008-06-19T20:40:10Z

Rocky: Adding in a new section

{{userboxtop|Rocky}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User tolerancecompromisetruth}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Critical}}
{{User free software}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User Barnstar?}}
{{User Noholedonut}}
{{User Godbigbang}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}
{{User American}}
{{User guncontrol}}
{{User guns illegal}}
{{User patriot questions authority}}
{{User Liberal}}
{{User nowar}}
{{User gay rights}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User faveband|Pink Floyd}}
{{User noBush}}
{{User admires|John Waters & Stanley Kubrick}}
{{User Life begins|Four months after conception}}
{{User Socrates}}
{{userboxbottom}}

{{QuoteBox|Look my lad, I took the liberty of examining that bird when I got it home, and the only reason that it had been standing there in the first place, was that it had been nailed there. --John Cleese}}
{{QuoteBox|Leave the gun, take the canolli. -- Clamenza}}
{{QuoteBox|Nag, nag, nag. Sometimes, I wish I had married the woman that I met at my bachalor party. --Peater Griffin}}
{{QuoteBox|Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Nothin', and I mean nothin' can be free. --Janis Joplin}}

I am a user on Conservapedia. I am, in fact a [[liberal]], and I would just like to point out that on the liberal page, a lot of the things that I read were in fact true. I am still a minor, so don't be too hard on me. After coming to Conservapedia, I have learned a lot however. Also, I would like to say that censorship, and that the Fairness Docterine are both stupid and annoying things that should not be in this country, or anywhere.

==Censored Eleven==

For those of you that do not know what the '''Censored Eleven''' is, it is 11 cartoons that are Looney Toons and Merry Melody cartoons that have not been alowed to be shown on TV since the late 1960's. This is because of the overly racist content in them. However, I hate censorship. I also think that by trying to take these cartoons off the market, we are trying to say that racism did not happen, which, I believe, is almost as bad as condoning it. So, here are the cartoons. Some of them are in the public domain. The ones that I have found on youtube have links to them.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDCNQoeBLvk Hittin' the Trail for Hallelujah Land] - A basic copy of both Walt Disney's "Steamboat Willie" and "The Skeleton Dance". Also, some of the characters look the same. For instance, ''Piggy'' looks a lot like ''Mickey Mouse''.
#. Sunday Go to Meetin' Time - I am trying to see this one
#. Clean Pastures - This was controversal from the begining because the censors thought that it was in violation of the Hays Code, a code which stated what could be in movies and what could not be (enacted 1930, scrapped 1968), thought that it made a mockery of religion.
#. Uncle Tom's Bungalow - This is another one that I am still trying to see.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt---f83q7g Jungle Jitters] - This film is in the public domain.
#. The Isle of Pongo Pongo - This one I know absolutly nothing about.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk36qmiVBWw&NR=1 All This and Rabbit Stew] - This cartoon features Bugs Bunny as he tricks a black person and wins his clothes. This is also in the public domain.
#. Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs - A parody of "Snow White and the Seven Dawrfs", this film is, despite the racist content, generally considered a masterpiece. This film is a draw at small audience showings and film festavals.
#. Tin Pan Alley Cats - This is generally bootlegged and generally put up on sites and then taken down for copyright reasons. Clips that were restored were featured as supplamentry material in the ''Looney Toons Golden Collection Volume 2 DVD''.
#. Angel Puss - This is the only Looney Toons cartoon to be part of the censored eleven.
#. Goldilocks and the Jivin' Bears - I don't know anything about this one either.

Although these are the only ones on the censored 11 list, there have been many more that have been taken out of circulation since this list has been created. Also, many of these have not appeared on DVD often. Here is the list.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEiU6GpvJf0 Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips] - This makes fun of Japanese people because it was made shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The release was protested by Japanese rights groups when it was schedualed to be released in 1991. The title refers to "nip" meaning bite and "Nip" being a racial slur for a Japanese person.
#. Confederacy Honey - This is a parody of the film "Gone With The Wind". This is the first to show Inky, who is a slave holding Elmer Fudd's horse. Inky is also in "All This and Rabbit Stew".
#. Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat - This is a Universal film. Although it shows what was, for the time, unusual to show desierable African American women, now a days, it is considered racist for showing black people as lazy and irresponsible. This is in the public domain.
#. Uncle Tom's Cabana - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. Half-Pint Pygmy - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxHfwhckcs&feature=related Making Stars] - This is a Fletcher Studios cartoon starring Betty Boop. This shows many steriotypes.

Please note, these cartoons do have very racist content in them. So, viewer descretion is advised.

==Basic View Of God==

I think that God is absolutly awesome. However, I also think that I should not force God upon anyone in order to get them to convert. Ferthermore, I think that we use God as a concept to measure our pain. For example (here is a classic), praying to God before a test that we did not study for in hopes of doing well. Then, we simply do not pray to God again until the next test. That bugs me.

==Basic View Of The Bible==

It is a good book. It's a great read. However, I also think that things should be taken in there contextually. For instance, I belive in the theory of evolution because creationism believes that the earth has been around for 6,000 years. However, they have found fossils that are 3.5 billion years old of humans with ape-like characteristics.

Although I do believe that a lot of the things in the bible are true (such as Jesus being the savior of man (I am, after all, a Catholic)), I also think that it should be read contextually. This is what was tought in my theology class and in my biology class, we are learning about evolution.

==Basic View Of The United States==

Great place to live. I love this country (and I'm not just saying that because I know that I will get a lot of complaints that I am anti-American because I am a liberal). However, I think that there are problems with this country as well. For instance, we are currently fighting a war. However, a few years ago, Congress was talking about same-sex marrage. Now, I have no problem with couples of the same-sex getting married, however, there is a war going on, and, before we focus on red herrings such as that, we should focus on rebuilding the country we have destroyed and getting our troops home safely.

==Pages Worked On==

*[[Amused To Death]]-Creator
*[[Aqualung]]-Creator
*[[What God Wants]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[Monty Python]]-Minor Edit
*[[Essay: Religion]]-Writer
*[[Perfect Sense]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[The Wall]]-Creator
*[[Sympathy for the Devil]]-Creator
*[[Rocky Horror Picture Show]]-Edits
*[[Is atheism a religion]]-Starter
*[[Should gay marrage be allowed?]]-Starter
*[[Finding A Topic]]-Writer
*[[Concept album]]-Creator
*[[Reefer Madness]]-Creator
*[[Debate:Is War Murder?]]-Starter

I would just like to say thank you to all of the people that changed and will continue to change the mistakes on my pages. I really apprechiate it.

==Question Of The Week==

This is subject to change weekly. Please send your answer to me by email and, if I recieve it, I will send you back a conformaton email. Please mark the subject as "Question Of The Week Response". Also, please not only answer the question, but also, explain why you think that. This is your time to be creative, so please, do so. Speak the truth as well, because I do not know your name.

This week's question of the week is:

What is your definition of the truth and why?

===How To Send An Email===

See the long column on the left. Keep going down until you get to that bottom subheading. Somewhere in there, it should say "Email this user". Click on that, and you should be able to email me. Remember, keep your answers as detailed as possible.

===About Last Week's Question===

Last week's question was "Is George W. Bush a great presedent?" We came down to the conclusion that Bush is a good president for the way that he has handled things such as Same-Sex Marrage and the Iraq War. 
 
I would like to thank everyone that participated in this, and I hope that you will answer next week's question.

User:Rocky

2008-06-07T21:28:39Z

Rocky:

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-30T02:33:06Z

Rocky: /* IMDB rating */

Page has become a vandalism magnet - which, by the way, proves the thesis of the movie: people want to shut Stein up instead of answering his points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Categories==
There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Regarding your last question, what is there to explain? Why does several similar but different flagella speak against design? Rather, it's for the evolutionists to explain why similar items have arisen separately. "Convergent evolution" is code for "we can't attribute it to common descent", yet common descent is what evolution is mainly about! Most "explanations" of gradual evolution are merely "just so" stories, which assume evolution to be true and then explain, usually in very general and untestable terms, how something might have come about. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
: ID is a ''positive'' argument, that there is ''evidence of design''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: After I was blocked the section about alleged copyright infringement was removed (again). Why doesn't this belong in an article about the movie, when it was more than adequately sourced (from the producers own countersuit, no less)? Also, Able806 still hasn't been answered on why the Wall Street Journal isn't a credible source for documenting that the producers are accused of using ''Imagine'' without permission. While they responded quickly to the accusations of infringement by XVIVO, the producers have been completely silent on that allegation. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

{{unsigned|TrevorAlan}}

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Your name looks like a pseudonym, so the burden of proof is on you. Try to be more polite, too.

:::::As to whether ''V[[ariety]]'' is liberal, if you can show that it is neutral or conservative, I'd love to see evidence for it in our article about it, whenever someone gets around to writing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Don't want to overstep my bounds here, but let's review Aschlafly's argument

1 Claims "Variety" is liberal backed by the fact that it does not have a pro-life article in it. Lack of support for one argument does not imply support for the other side. Also insinuates that the readers of "Variety" are liberal and that the magazine would offer appeal to those readers, both statements not supported by an ounce of evidence in this forum.

2 Proceeds to invoke an ad hominem attack on DaBoss3, claiming that he is "clueless" or "in liberal denial," an issue that has yet to be proven by Aschlafly.

3 DaBoss3 takes a ridiculous detour (this I'll acknowledge), which Aschlafly quickly jumps on to circumvent the issue, and combines 2 logical fallacies into one, an ad hominem attack of calling DaBoss3 ignorant and then begging the question, using that claim of ignorance to then assume that he is wrong on the issue of Variety's bias, which is an example of his ignorance.

:::One final note, addressed to the much more reasonable Ed Poor, shouldn't the default status of a publication be apolitical, with the burden of proof (and no, I am not referring to your comment on the burden of proof, I am aware that is a different issue) lying on the person claiming it has bias? --[[User:SeanF|SeanF]] 01:15, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:I just wanted to mention that I deleted the part about Variety having less subscribers than Conservapedia's daily page views. It has no relevance to any sort of argument being presented. --[[User:GeorgeF|GeorgeF]] 18:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Excuse me? Assuming you were serious, isn't that an example of "guilty until proven innocent"? Not to mention a (sadly) somewhat typical double standard.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Since when is a conservapedia account a civil right? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good point, although I'm thinking more of Conservapedia's image.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for that clarification. ;) I happen to agree that it is usually better for conservapedia not to block people until they have directly broken the commandmnts, but I can't feel that we've wronged anyone who's been blocked for lesser reasons (though I don't do so myself). Nor can we harm anyone (except perhaps ourselves) by having a double standard. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:28, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

I don't think Expelled was meant to be a Christian movie. I just saw it on saturday and I got the impression that the movie was not trying to support the Christian six-day creation, nor did it put forward Christianity in any way-- it merely exposes the intolerant attitude atheist evolutionists have towards intelligent design. In fact labeling the ID movement as "Christian" and "Extremist" is one of the ways that evoltionists try to discredit the science behind intelligent design. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I have seen the movie, and though I am a Christian I thought it was an exellent movie that did stand up for truth. I have trouble being sceptical about anyone's faith just because they liked a movie that wasn't explicitly Christian. There is a fine line between prudence and legalism. {{unsigned|BenjaminS}}

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, don't you mean adverb? The word unconvincingly, in this context, is an adverb; if we are to nitpick about grammar, then maybe you should be more careful in your own editing process.--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 13:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy what you said into the body of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: I am just speeding out the door and will have to wait until tonight to respond to the -- reasonably stated -- comments by Everwill above, but I must just come back to the, by now, very overworked, debate on my use of the word "hysterical". This may involve a distinction between British (or in my case, Irish) English and American English, but when I see the word "hysterical" my first instinct is that the writer is using it in its formal sense. In this case I was suggesting that Stein, despite his sang froid, was panicking unduly about a supposed threat to free speech. He was, in my view, being "hysterical". I never intended to make a comment on whether the film was funny or not and I am really amazed that everyone seems to have taken "hysterical" to mean "hysterically funny". I am even more amazed that so much attention has been focussed on one stray word. Is Bill Clinton editing this page? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:07, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

::::::It's really not important what you want to parse [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical hysterical] into meaning. It means what it means. But I can accept your rephrasing at face-value and still find your statements do not jive with my understanding of reality.

::::::If by "hysterical" you meant "very", well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the reason I found Mr. Stein's arguments so ... er ... ''hysterically'' convincing, is because I have witnessed that Wall of Oppression first hand. I know that it exists because I have encountered those people who want to crush the idea of Intelligent Design. They have a blood-thirsty religious fanaticism propelling their point of view and they stand upon opinion as if it were fact.

::::::As an aside, I am no Young Earth Creationist. At times, in my life I'm not even sure I believed in a god, as I am forever repulsed by single-minded irrational attachment to dogma. As I learn more, I adjust my world view to accommodate additional facts. I see the YEC crowd as unbending and as unrealistic as the anti-ID atheists. I for one am in favor of letting the facts stand as they are, whether they support the Bible, Anton Levay or the atheist's manifesto. Facts are facts. I think that Stein has done a public service by uncovering the damaging effects of money and bias upon Big Science. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

And on it goes. The phrase I used was "unconvincingly hysterical" not "hysterically unconvincing". So it hardly seems likely that I meant it to mean "very". If you are going to pull my words apart then please pull apart the correct words. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:09, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

I watched the movie last night. It was a well-made movie; anyone who thinks otherwise is letting their world view and prejudice get in the way of their thinking. Ben Stein made the movie interesting and inspiring. I think the best argument put forth in the movie was not that ID is undeniable fact, but rather that we should have the freedom to express both sides of the argument. If the best Darwinists have is the idea that life came in on the backs of crystals or aliens made us, is this really too much to ask? And they're the ones calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales XD. It just seems that they'll take anything BUT the Bible. I don't know what you think, but I think that's bad science and a little disturbing. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I have been following this movie's development and was very excited to see that it was given such a widespread release being a documentary. This movie was a much needed work to expose the widespread censorship by evolutionist of any notion of intelligent design. I've found a lot of people have no idea of the level that evolutionist will go to keep their theory "safe" from competing ideas and ultimately reality. In the interviews this movie did a good job of exposing the heart of the issue for those on the persecuting side. While some such as Dawkins are willing to accept the possibility of completely unfounded ideas such as aliens being responsible for creating life, they are unwilling to accept the most obvious of answers that we were created by God. The true issues is not about science, it's about their unwillingness to allow God into their atheistic world view. To quote Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." The irrationality of the atheistic can be clearly seen even by those who have hardened their hearts against any notion of God. This is why they are so adamant against any idea of God as the creator. Once that idea is allowed, they fear their greatest mental stronghold will be demolished. It's no wonder they hold so strongly to their position of power within the scientific and academic community. One thing I have observed in the public arena is that once you question evolution atheistic evolutionist rush to the defense through everything from argument to ridicule. Just look at the films ratings on [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB's Expelled Page] It's interesting to note how many have rated this film 1 without even seeing it, offended by the very premise of the movie. The first day there was an initial rush of 1 votes by those that gave this movie a poor rating as soon as they were given the chance. One of issues Stein brought to light in this film was media censorship and ridicule of the intelligent design by the media. Liberal movie critics jumped at the chance to misrepresent this film, and lambasting it's very premise with comments such as [http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/radio/cl-et-expelled18apr18,0,1163561.story an attempt to deceive audiences ] and [http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-intelligence-allowed/review/293361 (an) obvious propaganda piece ] It's apparent one needn't go far to prove that point. I strongly feel this film is a must see for anyone. To comment on the quality of the production, Ben Stein did an excellent job of producing a documentary that is both entertaining and informative. [[User:DanCon|DanCon]] 01:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh my gosh Nathan! I've grown up my whole life in a Christian missionary home... and I don't mind decent secular music! Besides, the film wasn't a Christian film. It existed to point out a wrong in the scientific community, not to evangalize! My goodness your kids are over sheltered if this movie offended you! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 
I watched the movie at its premiere, but was blocked and haven't had a chance to add my comments here (per the request above) until now. I was even interviewed for television about it, although because it was a Christian media company, I doubt they will air my comments.

It was a pretty bizarre film. Literally five seconds into it, they begin interspersing scenes with old film clips of Stalin's USSR, the Berlin Wall, and Nazi Germany, without any explanation. It isn't until much later that you find out the actual "meaning" behind these scenes.

The film also adopted a strange tactic... it spent the first hour arguing for freedom and how no idea could be dangerous, but that academic inquiry demanded all possibilities be open. And then it spent the second hour insinuating that evolution by means of natural selection was a dangerous idea because it "led" to Nazi ideals. This would seem to be contradictory, at least on its face.

The three or four examples provided by Stein were not very conclusive, especially after one becomes familiar with them. Richard Sternberg martyrs himself in the movie, implying that he was fired from his position and he lost his office because of intelligent design, but even ID advocates admit that neither fact is true. He was already scheduled to leave the journal in which he published the ID paper, and it was his last issue to edit. And the office change at the Smithsonian just moved him to a different office, which he then relocated voluntarily. The rest of the examples are about of the same calibre, and no statistics or other data is provided to suggest that there are others (aside from shadowy anonymous people, but the movie lacks the credibility to believe that).

I couldn't help but notice that they made a number of propaganda-style moves in the film. For example, they only refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection as "Darwinism," perhaps to imply it is some sort of cult of personality. But it would be absurd to suggest that modern evolutionary theory relies primarily on Darwin's works. The basic premise he suggested holds true and has been found to be accurate inasmuch as we can tell in science, but that is a very different thing. No one calls relativity "Einsteinism" for the same reason. Another ideological move was to cherry-pick interviewees, selecting only rabidly atheist or terminally-ill insane Texans to represent the evolution side of the debate. Without balancing out this presentation, it just makes it hilariously biased. A comparable move would be a pro-science (evolution) movie which only interviewed Kevin Hovind and his ilk through prison bars. Interestingly and on a side note, the movie equated ID with creationism throughout. I guess the Discovery Institute forgot to remind them to pretend there was a distinction.

Most particularly, the movie used the Holocaust to try to make their ideological point, and didn't even do so well. Berlinski and Stein discuss in the movie how "Darwinism" was a "necessary but not sufficient" cause for Nazism and the Holocaust, yet the movie proceeds to dwell on that tragedy overlong nonetheless. Even if you believe evolution was "necessary but not sufficient," why would you then use that incredible emotional manipulation on the audience to suggest that evolution was the cause? By traveling to the camp (Dachau, I think?) and then discussing at length what went on there, it implies that evolution is at fault, even after they just had to admit that it was not. It's rather insulting.

Stylistically, it borrowed a lot of Michael Moore's techniques, as others have pointed out. Having Dawkins sit in darkness on a stage and Stein travel in a taxicab to "confront" him paints the same sort of (absurd) hero shot that Moore uses (such as in Moore's ''Roger and Me'', when he "confronts" the CEO of Ford Motors). Things like that were fairly common, and the movie actually got pretty boring about two-thirds of the way through. The "shucks I'm just here finding out the truth" schtick got old very quickly... I don't see how anyone couldn't see that the whole approach was staged, and that he had this agenda from the beginning.

So overall, not a very good movie in general, and ludicrously ineffective in establishing its point. Two thumbs way down.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 14:22, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Science is ''supposed to'' limit itself to things that are falsifiable, but so often [[Falsifiability of evolution|doesn't]]. The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?". Forensic science, archaeology, the SETI program, etc., all ask that question, so why can't ID ask it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Interiot deserves credit for raising the question of the [[limits of science]], which needs to be covered better in [[Philosophy of science]]. The idea that God may choose to act in predictable ways is a hypothesis (or assumption), just as viable as our age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant. For example, things that feel heavy always fall when dropped. The stars go around the sky every night, but some of those little lights move with respect to the others (these wanderers are called [[planet]]s).

:::It's up to us to figure out what the rules are - of physical phenomena and anything else we can study.

:::What are the laws governing the human mind? Thought, emotion, will - are these purely manifestations of biochemistry in our brains, or what? I don't think [[Physical science]] has a monopoly on the study of [[Psychology]] and [[Sociology]], but these are still [[science]]s, aren't they?
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

::::Those "age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant" are not age-old, but are specifically Christian-based assumptions. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for some details. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::*(Interjecting) Your comment is off-topic. This article is not about ID as much as it as about attempts to silence people who talk about it in academia. Science has nothing to fear from false ideas; rather, it is the antidote to falsehood, error and superstition. If you are saying that one of the excuses the anti-ID camp use to silence their critics is simply to brand it as having "no validity", then *that* can go in the article. Do you have any info about that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:03, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

ID is a scientific approach that finds fault with evolution and says that a creator must be present because nature has signs of design in it. What's un-Christian about that? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:34, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Long timescales and common descent is theistic evolution, not ID. ID does not take a stance on whether the earth is young or old... stop putting words in it's mouth! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:36, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:Who are you talking to? If you want to debate, we should have several [[Debate Topics]] related to this issue - and you are free to create another page. But this "talk page" is only for discussion of ways to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:40, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm new here, but I find this a moat interesting question. Could you tell me which debate pages specifically address the question of timescale within ID? Thanks. [[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 16:58, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::The film mentions the connection between Darwinism and eugenics - IIRC it says how many people the U.S. sterilized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:24, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

"Racial Hygiene" is, and was, no more an evolutionary concept than genocide has ever been a christian concept. Both have been tagged as such in specific circumstances and neither of the broader terms deserved to be associated with the narrower. {{unsigned|Scholl}}

: Your comment is absurd. [[Evolution]] teaches "survival of the fittest," and that the fittest races will survive. [[Christianity]] rejects that nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Imposing your view point ==

Walton One, you are the one actually trying to impose your view point. This is a conservative encyclopedia and we cannot treat it like your personal propoganda. Please do not impose a liberal point of view. It is conservapedia not liberalpedia. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:While you may not agree with Walton One's changes, work with him constructively. Our goal is truth. We happen to believe it is found in Conservative ideals, but it is not our intention to cut off the dialogue of a user who has been around for some time and contributed articles to our site in the past that were thorough and educational. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:(To Heffalump) I am a conservative not a liberal, and I don't have a strong personal opinion about the film or about ID. I am trying to ensure the article is neutral and factual, by removing personal opinion and speculation, as per point 5 of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.'' I am not imposing any viewpoint on the article. I realise it is difficult to strike the right balance on such a controversial topic, but we can at least try to be even-handed. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:06, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Theistic evolution]]==

This is mentioned in the film, but very briefly. I wish I had a transcript as my notes are incomplete.

One of the men they interviewed said that evolution is incompatible with creationism, despite attempts by Darwinists to enlist liberal Christians. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Full rewrite needed==

Now that I've seen the film, I'm entirely dissatisfied with the article (except the intro and some of the external links).

Basically, the existing version of this article is centered on the POV of ID opponents, rather than being based on the film. While it is okay to voice criticism of the film, first the article should summarize the film and then go into detail about the narrative, composition, look and feel, and especially the points it makes.

If there are any rebuttals to its points, that should come next.

Peripheral points, such as general evolution vs. ID debate, should be minimal. Like a brief summary and then a link to one of our [[Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Make your voice heard==

If your contribution or comment has been reverted, and you think this is just as bad as what the Darwinists have been doing to their opponents, come to [[Conservapedia:Censorship]] and voice your opinion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Eugenics]] and the [[Holocaust]]==

A major complaint about the film is its exposure of the ideological linkage between Darwinism's "[[survival of the fittest]]" idea, and the [[Social Darwinism]] based on it. Critics insinuate (or state outright?) that the film unfairly blames the theory of evolution for what demagogues and despots did with it.

However, the film mentions at least twice that no one is blaming all evolutionists for sterilizations and mass murder. But it does point out the precise way in which Hitler used Darwin's ideas to support Nazi ideology.

This needs to be explained better in the article. We should not print a unsubstantiated accusations here; critics can make their false accusations on their own websites - even if that is an abuse of the freedom of speech - because there should be no censorship in academic debate.

But a trustworthy encyclopedia is not a newspaper; there is no rush to be first to "break a story". Contributors should watch the movie and write about what the remember seeing and hearing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

* I suspected before watching the film that critics were misrepresenting it, in terms of its presentation of the links between Darwinism, Eugenics and the Holocaust. The typical screed went, "How dare they say evolution is responsible for Nazi genocide?"
* As I watched the film, I made notes of the places where the film makers took pains to make precisely the opposite point of what those critics had said. So I think I was justified in removing their "reviews" on the grounds of simply not being trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::I am of the belief that most of our 'reviews' and viewpoints of individuals detracts from the article, which should be about the movie itself. The article comes across as a back and forth pull of reviews. It doesn't flow. In other words it's sounding a bit like WP. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, it's sounding precisely like Associated Press, the cream of liberal news media.

:::Here's a nice review or summary:

:::*“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Makers of the documentary said the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered. [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080421/32048_%5C'Expelled%5C'_Explodes_into_Top_10_Box_Office.htm]
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

== They keep having to lock the WP article ==

It's just a regular comedy of errors over there. Sometimes it's a full lock and sometimes it's a block of anonymous users. Is it any wonder WP is garbage? Exactly how people think it's a reliable source for anything but the most basic, non-controversial things is beyond me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:13, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Jinxmchue. I find [[Wikipedia]] to be worthless for anything of real interest. How [[Wikipedia]] is handling [[Expelled]] is just one of over 100 [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::I finally took at a look at their version, and now I see where all the changes are coming from to our version, which I have been reverting. They are simply plagiarizing WP - ironic, in view of the media flap over the animation [[Premise Media]] allegedly plagiarized from Harvard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not trying to be rude... but why is it that when Wikipedia locks an article, it's liberal bias. But one of our own admins he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=433467&oldid=433465 consdered locking it] because he assumed there would be vandalsim, which is fine. Also, Jinxmchue mocks the blocking of anon. users, but doesn't acknowledge that this site doesn't even allow anon. edits (not that I don't understand why) and for some time, it was common practice to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandals. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Wikipedia tends to lock articles which liberals on the site have deemed to "own." If you look at the edit history of the WP article, it is obvious which group controls it (and with such concrete reasoning such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=208627352&oldid=208624149 "So what?"] for removing relevant material that doesn't trash the movie). And WP prides itself on being open to edits by anyone and everyone, anonymous or not. CP makes no such claim. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::In all fairness there are [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&limit=500&action=history several] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality&limit=500&action=history articles] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Evolution&limit=500&action=history here] which seem to be "owned" not by a group of editors but by a single person. In the case of Wikipedia there has been clear edit warring which would, by the rules, require a degree of protection (I would personally favour a blanket protection for a few days and no edits to see if some of the issues can be settled on the talk page). Here the articles have received less edit warring or vandalism, and appear to be presently locked for the sake of it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]]!~

:Normally, I'm not one to give much credence to the "bias in Wikipedia" charge, but I have to admit, in this case, it is appropriate. A lot of a quotations are inappropriate for the sections they're in, and it's obvious that parts of it are meant to steer the reader towards a certain opinion. The article is coming down on one side of the issue, and a good encyclopedia shouldn't do that.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:35, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::The WP article is now over 100KB in length (and has a warning about that), with well over half of it devoted to criticisms notable or not. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Definition of criticism==

Saying that they quoted Darwin is not a '''criticism'''. Complaining that they took Darwin out of context would be a criticism, but the section I deleted does not do that. Is there anyone who feels that the points the film made about Darwinism and Eugenics were incorrect? Okay, but first quote the film accurately.

What did the film say about the connection between the writings of Charles Darwin and the beginnings of Eugenics? Or what did Eugenics advocates, such as Hitler, say which sounds reminiscent of Darwin? And who in the movie blames Darwin?

In one or two places in the movie Stein (and maybe someone else) specifically says they are not blaming Darwin for the social implications of his theory - nor are they saying that modern evolutionists are justifying the Holocaust. So what's the criticism?

Sounds like the usual silliness, like:
#The film has Wells in it
#He's a creationist
#Therefore the film endorses creationism
#Believing in creationism makes you untrustworthy
#Therefore the film should not be trusted

That's silly because it also has an atheist in it. Does that mean the film endorses atheism? No, it explores the intersection between atheism and other ideas, and the way academia censors any opposing POV and vilifies its critics.

If anyone vilifies the movie, we can name them and even describe their arguments. Like, "Mr. A said the movie is dishonest because the trailer showed Ben Stein in short pants while in the movie he always wore long pants." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scientific American==

The SciAm rebuttal makes six points. Most are irrelevant or nonsensical. Take for example their admission that science '''does''' reject design out of hand. They reason they give is identical to one of the [[arguments for atheism]]. This comes right after claiming that mainstream science's rejection of design is unrelated to atheism.

I'd rather not quote SciAm uncritically. If they want to make an argument, fine. But we needn't give it credence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whoa, isn't the point of Expelled about the unfairness if people finding a 'scientific' viewpoint lacking in credibility suppressing its open discussion? If you want ID to be treated credibly, then why not give Scientific American's rebuttal a place in the article and let it stand or fall on it's merit? Otherwise, you wind up using the same tactics you criticize as unfair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|JC]] 20:59, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::Not exactly. The film points out the unfairness of suppressing a viewpoint - period. Don't be obtuse: no one suppresses viewpoints which lack credibility; no one has to suppress the flat earth theory, the very act of considering it makes it obvious to you that it's false.

::The trouble with ID is that considering '''gives it''' credibility. The idea that design comes from a designer usually makes sense to people, and so does the idea that life shows signs of having been designed. Only someone who has a '''non-scientific motive''' for suppressing [[design theory]] would be scared of letting it be described in a science journal or university class. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Science doesn't reject design out of hand as much as it asserts that saying something has a supernatural cause is not valid science, because it can't be proved or disproved by the scientific method. The proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind reality belongs should be studied as philosophy and/or religion, and if it can ever be tested under the scientific method, then as science. By the way, your first comment mentioned that "''Most'' are irrelevant or nonsensical." Which ones do you consider to be be the valid points, and why weren't they left in the article? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:55, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: ID does not claim that the designer is supernatural. It leaves that question open, probably specifically on the grounds that you mention. However, that's not the same thing as saying that science is unable to detect evidence of design. Science frequently does that, so you are incorrect to claim that the proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind ''life'' (which is all that ID claims, I think) should not be studied by science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: You're right about the nature of the designer - I've heard ID proponents claim that it could be mystical, extraterrestrial or something completely different in nature - the unifying idea being that there's a designer, period. I don't have a problem at all with science exploring the origins of life or the universe. When you see the arrangement of rocks in Stonehenge you can assume they're the result of chance, but it doesn't take much scientific investigation to conclude that there was design involved, and therefore a designer. Where life is concerned it gets trickier, though. You can recreate in a lab the conditions that cause chemicals to combine and form amino acids on their own, and you can examine single-celled creatures to how amino acids compose part of a living thing. You can also study viruses, which are not alive in their own sense, but contain the RNA components to affect living things to reproduce themselves, and sit somewhere on a complexity scale between amino acids and a living amoeba. ID looks at the middle and end-points (viruses and amoeba), and states that these are too complex to exist without a designer, but that seems to fall short to me. There are many things we don't understand yet (and maybe never will), but ID is more like taking a shortcut to a simple answer instead of taking the time (maybe lifetimes) to probe further through the scientific method. (The paradox of "Who designed the Designer, then?" tells me that it's a shortcut) When you look at man's understanding of science and the universe in 1908 and compare it to 2008 the progress is greater than in all of recorded history. I'd have to believe that there will be progress between now and 2108 that will resolve may of ID's questions without a designer needing to be involved. Maybe not, but it sure seems more likely.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:14, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::: One problem with your argument is that it's basically expressing ''faith'' that naturalism will one day account for life. Okay, you can have that faith if you choose, but that faith is not grounds for saying that ID is not science. The ''evidence'' at this stage is that naturalism ''cannot'' account for life. Hence ID is science.
:::::: Your argument about amino acids, viruses, and amoeba seems to be saying that there is a sequence there, rather than a clear break. But that "sequence" is not really a sequence at all. Rather it is (a) three points with clear breaks between them, and (b) not even three points on a line. Some scientists have proposed, because of their relative simplicity, that viruses came before the first living cell. The problem with that is that viruses can only exist by hijacking the reproductive equipment of living cells, so could not have preceded them. So the "sequence" if there is one, is amino acids, living cells, viruses.
:::::: Further, reproducing the "natural" process of creating amino acids actually works ''against'' your argument. This is because life requires that all the amino acids be of a single chirality, whereas the "natural" processes creating them produce a mixture of left and right-handed forms, which will ''not'' work for life. So now your sequence is amino-acids-that-can't-produce-life, living cell, virus. The idea that they were intelligently designed is looking better all the time!
:::::: By the way, the reason that I put "natural" in quotes above is because the Urey-Miller experiments did not actually replicate natural conditions. Apart from using an oxygen-free "atmosphere" which is now known to be wrong, they had a very non-natural trap to remove the created amino acids from their "environment" before they could be broken down again.
:::::: I don't think it's fair to describe ID as stating that living things "are too complex to exist without a designer". Rather, I think it would be fairer to state that ID says that various aspects of living things could not have occurred naturally. Enormous complexity is a major reason ''why'' they could not have occurred naturally, but the ability to occur naturally (i.e. without design) is the pertinent point. To compare with Stonehenge, Stonehenge is not especially complex, but clearly would not have occurred naturally.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal reception ==

I am going to remove the 'Liberal reception' bit. What is the relevance? I am sure some conservatives dont like the movie either while I am sure some liberals are ID supporters. Unless someone can show why this needs to stay I will think of another way to phrase it
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:28, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== WP versus the Good Guys ==

I made the mistake of glancing at Wikipedia's horrendous article about this movie. It's not so much an article about the movie as a point-by-point counter argument against the movie together with a long list of links to bad reviews of the movie. There are some devastating comments about the fairness of the article as compared to how other films were treated. The best part is that they have clearly revealed themselves as what they are: incredibly, wildly biased and totalitarian.

That said, I want to make sure that we safeguard against being Wikipedia's mirror image. I urge other editors to stay within bounds and maintain fairness rather than stepping over into advocacy. This article should not become a "proof" for ID. This article should remain an accurate representation of the movie's theme and ideas.

All that aside, I augmented and edited. Criticism and improvements are welcomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
: You speak as though Wikipedia has only just revealed their bias! Yet you and I both know that this is nothing new for them. Thanks for your edits. Although I had a few minor quibbles (and have made changes accordingly), your edits have improved the article. I only wish I could see the movie for myself to better judge the accuracy of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:49, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:I would think eliminating advocacy could be served by removing the following things:
:*The "Find a Theatre Near You" box, which is outright advocacy.
:*The politicized reception sections, which classify all negative criticism as liberal.
:*The Roebuck quote, which is unencyclopedic and does not touch on the actual movie at all.
:*Large sections of the intro, which abandon the movie and simply argue ID.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:54, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:: I've made some changes following your comments.
:: The "Find a theatre" box is not advocacy, except ''perhaps'' to advocates ''seeing'' the movie. I had previously removed it from the main body of the text on the grounds of being unencyclopedic, which I think is a reasonable compromise.
:: I've changed the headings of the reception/review sections, but not removed the sections as you suggest: I couldn't see the point in removing them. This change actually solved a problem that I'd previously noticed, that Carl Wieland's comments were, as far as I know, not actually a ''review'', he having not seen the movie, I would think.
:: I've removed the Roebuck quote on the grounds that it is about ID, not about the movie.
:: From a quick look, I can't see "large sections of the intro" arguing ID.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:19, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I think this is some improvement. I still think that having the theatre box is clear advocacy to see the movie, which implies partisanship and high bias, considering how there is no such box for any other movie (to the best of my knowledge). But perhaps my view of the intro to the article (or rather, I see that I really mean the summary, sorry) is askew, but it still seems to me to be arguing the point rather than summarizing the movie. Thank you for the changes, though.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:52, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: How many other movies do we have articles on, and how many of them are currently in theatres?
:::: Well, it was the introduction that I checked, not the summary! But looking at ''the Summary'' now, I still can't see that it is arguing ID rather than simply describing what the movie is about.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Who here also edits expelled article at WP? ==

I spend ten times as much time their, but check in over here every once in a while. I have the same user name there if anyone wants to contact me. Who else edits both places? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I would edit, but I'd probably be "banned" from it because it relates to ID - and I'm on probation there. They think that 'neutrality' and 'balance' are tendentious. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I tried editing it, but it's more stress than it's worth. I think it may be impossible to build a truly neutral and balanced article about this topic, at least through the conventional wiki process. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I've learned that to try to edit anything over there that has to do with evolution, Creationism or Intelligent Design, you usually run afoul of the system-gaming pro-evolution groupies. You can find most of their names on the list of WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Participants WikiProject: Intelligent Design], ironically enough. Any pro-Creationism, pro-ID or anti-evolution edits with references will be reverted or twisted by them and you will be hypocritically smeared as a "POV warrior." Wikipedia officially claims [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_of_wisdom#On_Wikipedia_and_the_Cabal "there really is no cabal,"] but the truth is much different. Edit any article that has to do with evolution, Creationism or ID and at least one person from the above WikiProject will show up. Usually more so they can undermine WP's three revert rule. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Sadly, their admins will also try to lead you over a cliff. Knowing the three revert rule themselves, they will run right up to the edge, and then block you when you follow and fall over. In other words rather than attempt to be helpful, they attempt to take advantage of people who don't know as much as they do so they can have them removed or push them out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, and not only that, but at least two of the pro-evolutionist participants in the WikiProject: Intelligent Design are admins who, unsurprisingly, watch and defend each others' admin actions. If you try to complain about one's admin actions, the other quickly jumps in to handle the complaint. You'd think Wikipedia would prevent that from occurring. Or maybe you wouldn't think that, I guess. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::: These are good criticisms of Wikipedia. Does any of this happen here? Sysops using reverting questions and then banning users trying to work out what the proper content should be on a talk page? Or complaints being handled only by sympathetic sysops who defend the actions of the other or have the complaints ignored altogether? It would seem that these types of behaviors are common to all wikis - and maybe even could be applied to groups of people and wikis are just one instance of it being shown. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:04, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

List under here (add comments above this line)
----
[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I found that article at wikipedia to be too biased, which is what brought me here. I'm glad to see some place is giving it a fair shake. [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 20:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== moving find a theater box to the end ==

I'm going to move to the end as a link, we don't need to advocate a movie.[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:52, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Controversy==

The article needs a controversy section, if we're going to tag it as "controversial" in the first sentence. What is the controversy? Is anyone saying the opposite of what the movie asserts?

Please list the 3 top sources who claim that ID is given equal time in the classroom.

Name any editor or college president who says that scientists are given complete academic freedom regarding ID throughout the English-speaking world.

It's not a controversy if the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials. It's a controversy if there are two sides, presenting arguments. NCSE at least makes a case - even though their arguments are self-contradictory and focus on word games. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
: Are you saying that the film is ''not'' controversial? Simply on the grounds that its opponents aren't making a case? If the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials, why doesn't this constitute there being two sides? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, okay. Let's summarize the two sides then.

By the way, you said that someone ''confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]''. I don't think that linkage was made out of actual confusion. The NCSE (among others) has specifically and repeatedly '''claimed''' that ID is an an aspect of creationism - although I'm not sure whether they meant [[YEC]] or [[OEC]]. If it's the former, than their claim is nonsense because YEC entails the faith-based proposition that God created every living thing less than 10,000 years ago. ID is neutral on "who the intelligent designer is" and "when it all began". But stop me if I'm veering off topic.

On the other hand, maybe this is one of the key points of the topic. ID opponents see the claims of [[Intelligent Design]] as contradicting the claims of Evolution. And the only alternative to evolution the opponents can think of is Creationism. We might summarize their argument as follows:
#Either evolution is true, or Creationism is true.
#If ID is true, evolution is false.
#Therefore, ID implies Creationism.

It's a pretty impressive theological argument, but it betrays their pretense of not having any religious preconceptions of their own. In fact, I think their chief objection to ID is that it undermines support for atheism.

Of course, they're "not supposed to admit that" so the only other thing they can do is expel ID and its proponents from the academy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually, I'm pretty sure one of the cheif objection here is that Inteligent Design turns the scientific method on its head by starting with a conclusion (God created us) and digging for evidence (Or, rather, a lack of evidence, as shown by the frequent objections on this wiki by creationists which go something like "Unless you have a perfect evolutionary path for every animal where every single step was fossilized, you're clearly wrong.") to support the conclusion. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 01:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But the Scientific Method starts with the presupposition that there is no God, or at least not a God that interfere with the world. It assumes that everything can be explained through naturalistic causes, which by definition precludes God from the start. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Apples and oranges. The goal of science is to figure out how the world works and why it work the way it does. The goal of ID's research, if it can be called that (Really, can sifting through other research then throwing your hands up and saying "I dunno, God did it" be called research?) is to prove that life was designed by God. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not apples and oranges. You can't say ID starts off with one assumption and criticize it, then shrug it off when it's pointed out that the scientific method also starts out with an assumption. And ID is not "giving up". It's seeing what appears to be order and design and concluding that it was designed. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Alright, I guess you're right. I shouldn't just shrug that off. However, if we're going through a list of things science does not assume exists, should you not logically criticise it for not accounting for the existence of Eris, Asherah, Loki, Enki, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Odin, Eostre, Mithras, Wiskedejak, Spiderman, or other such figures? Furthermore, wouldn't assuming God exists be, well, an assumption?
:Yeah, like I said. Seeing what appears to be order and saying "Well, I guess God made it like that." instead of figuring out a plausible explanation for /why/ it's like that. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But then your saying that God is not a plausible explanation. Why not? In the ID movie, Richard Dawkins admitted to what appeared to be intelligent design, but claimed it might have been aliens who put the life there long ago. So, in all honesty, are aliens more plausible that God? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Is a form of extra-terrestrial life form seeding the planet with lifeforms many millions of years ago more plausible than a supernatural entity creating the entire universe six thousand years ago and not allowing mutations to stack and change the species?
:In all honesty, yeah. They're both rather unlikely, yes, but I'll put my chips on the aliens explanation over the supernatural one. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed, perhaps I should have said "''conflated'' intelligent design with creationism". Also, it depends on how one defines the terms. ID is creationism only in the broadest sense of the word, not in how it is normally used. Creationism doesn't for example, normally include the idea that we were created by aliens, whereas ID doesn't say who the designer is, so doesn't exclude the possibility of aliens.
:: IndianaJ, ID is a argument that the ''scientific evidence'' points to a designer. Now the ''proponents'' of ID might (or might not) have a religious motive, just like proponents of evolution might have a religious (atheistic) motive, but the latter keep telling us that their motive and their science are distinct, so why the double-standard with ID?
:: UltimateHero, it's not the scientific method that starts with the presupposition that there is no god, but naturalistic science.
:: IndianaJ, nobody is seriously proposing the existence of those characters you mentioned, but many people, including many scientists, do propose that the God of the Bible exists. Simply ruling that claim out on the grounds that it's an assumption is just as illogical as ruling it in on the grounds that it's possible.
:: Also, you grossly misrepresent the arguments that ID proponents and creationists make. Perhaps that's because (a) you can't criticise the argument that they actually do make, or (b) you have no idea ''what'' arguments they actually make.
:: Further, the problem with the aliens explanation is that it simply removes the question one step: who created the aliens? Claiming that God is the creator doesn't have this problem, because there's no need to ask who created an uncreated Being.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: You're honestly telling me that no [[Native Americans]] believe in Wiskadejak?
::: Furthermore, perhaps you should inform me about what these arguments are, instead of simply telling me that I don't understand them.
::: You're right, PJR, there's no need to ask who created something that doesn't exist.
::: And finally, re: Motive. The goal of science is not to prove atheism right, but the goal of ID proponents is to prove ID right by circumventing the scientific method by starting with a conclusion. If you seriously don't think that's how it's happening, you're clueless. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 12:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

No, it's opposite of how you stated it. ID looks at the evidence then concludes God. There is no basic assumption. It's secular science that starts out by assuming that everything can be explained by naturalistic principles, and thereby define God out of the equation from the start. It's secular science that assumes, not ID. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:A common misunderstanding, and likely a deliberate misreading!

:ID looks at the evidence then concludes [[design]]. Opponents see "design" and get upset because design implies a "designer", which (for [[atheists]]) certainly can't be [[God]]. They then attack ID using the following reasoning:

:#ID replaces unguided evolution with design (all sides agree)
:#If there is design, there must be a designer (going beyond physical science into philosophy or religion)
:#The designer must be advanced space aliens (like the Spaghetti Monster?), or else [[God]]

:But all ID is saying is #1. Physical science has no business going beyond that.

:We need to write an article about the campaign to suppress ID. This article needs to expose the faulty arguments being used. It needs to distinguish between what ID actually does say, and what ID opponents claim it says (or implies). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:28, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::By definition, ID has to also be asserting #2 as well though - there can't be design without a designer. I agree that ID doesn't try to ''directly'' address the nature of the designer, but by definition it tends to be supernatural. That's because as a "science", ID needs to follow a consistent logic: so if there is design within the physical universe, there is an implied physical designer. Being physical, that designer must have a designer, and so on, until you either have a scientific impossibility or a ''supernatural'' designer at some point.

::I may have gotten this wrong, but that's why ID is questioned as valid science - it relies on the impossible (an unending recursion of designers), or the supernatural. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Your analysis is shrewd, but mistaken. It reveals the extra things that ID opponents tack on, but tying a carrot onto a woman's face or placing a conical black hat on her head does not turn her into a witch (with apologies to Monty Python); it doesn't even mean she ''thinks'' she's a witch. It's a dishonest way of getting her in trouble.

:::Opponents (and we should name them) insist that #1 implies #2. But is it really true that ID *is* asserting the existence of a designer? No more true, I'm sure than Evolution is *denying* the existence of a designer.

:::The unending recursion issue is metaphysics, not physical science. Likewise, the appearance of life (out of the primordial "soup") - with no explanation for how it has the appearance of design - is also metaphysics. Perhaps our [[Origin of life]] article can list the various physical means proposed; see [[The Miller/Urey Experiment]].

:::A famous philosopher recently said what you assert above about a physical designer. Perhaps we should quote him, i.e., [[Richard Dawkins]] and the "space aliens" theory he told Ben Stein in the movie. But this goes outside the realm of physical science. It ventures into the area of [[Philosophy of science]], where there are disagreements about things such as [[Methodological naturalism]].

:::Your last point is, I take it, your own opinion? Or perhaps you had in mind a particular scholar in the field of [[philosophy of science]]. Is there a [[physical scientist]] who thinks that ID relies on the supernatural, or is that a legal opinion, or what? I thought ID merely said (1) unguided evolution couldn't be true, and (2) life shows signs of having been designed. Where do you get [[supernatural causation]]? (And who agrees with you whom we can quote?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:25, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is the designer supernatural "by definition?" The only people I ever see applying such a definition are critics of ID. By their definition of what does or does not constitute the supernatural, then theories of how the universe came to be also involve the supernatural (i.e. beyond the natural universe, which didn't exist before the theorized Big Bang) and are thus invalid in the scientific realm. Additionally, many of the theories about the universe also rely upon an unending recursion of universes that conversely expand from and contract to and a singularity in a process with no beginning or end. Yet these things are wholeheartedly accepted as perfectly good science. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm no expert on ID (and I don't play one on TV, either), which is why I admit I may be wrong. I just don't see how a scientific conclusion that there is an inherent design behind things would not by logic require a designer - how is that "tacking on"?. If designed things can exist without a designer then "design" is the wrong word to be using in the first place.

:::: To Ed Poor's statements about what ID "merely states": if life shows signs of having been designed, then it is either from the actions of a designer, or the observation itself is an error of interpretation. If I pour bowl after bowl of alphabet soup and find words in the arrangement of the letters, was there a designer at work or am I just interpreting reality from the perspective of someone who understands a certain written language?

:::: Ray Comfort talks about looking at a Coke can or a house and reaching the obvious conclusion that there was a designer. So we deduce the designer, man, and then find that he's so complex biologically that design is the only plausible explanation for his existence. Living in the physical world, then, man has to have a physical designer (even one we can't detect/define yet), or the designer exists beyond the natural existence our senses are limited to perceiving (which is why I used the word "supernatural").

:::: To Jinxmchue, I agree that theories like the big bang hit the same wall in term of being unable to answer where the energy came from before the event - it just describes what happened after it started. I'm not out to bash ID, but I do question its treatment as science until it can hold up to fair and reasonable using the scientific method. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:24, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To Dinsdale:
* ''I just don't see how a scientific conclusion that there is an inherent design behind things would not by logic require a designer''
*:You might have overlooked what I said about this above, so I'll repeat it: Is it really true that ID *is* asserting the existence of a designer? No more true, I'm sure than Evolution is *denying* the existence of a designer.
* ''If I pour bowl after bowl of alphabet soup and find words in the arrangement of the letters, was there a designer at work or am I just interpreting reality from the perspective of someone who understands a certain written language?''
*:If the letters are all in the Roman alphabet (as opposed to, say, Japanese [[kana]]), it might tell you something about the designer. But it certainly shows that the cereal was designed. The shapes of the cereal particles have too much correlation with letters to have occured without design.
* ''if life shows signs of having been designed, then it is either from the actions of a designer, or the observation itself is an error of interpretation''
*:What does this have to do with Evolution and naturalism? Your conclusions are in the field of the [[philosophy of science]], as I said before. We might just as well argue that if unguided evolution is true, it is possible for human beings to have come into being without [[God]]. Is this what evolution is arguing? If so, it has departed from the realm of [[physical science]] and entered the field of metaphysics and philosophy.
* ''Living in the physical world, then, man has to have a physical designer (even one we can't detect/define yet), or the designer exists beyond the natural existence our senses are limited to perceiving (which is why I used the word "supernatural").''
*:Thank you for clarifying the metaphysical issues here. As we leave the realm of physical science, we are free to speculate philosophically or religiously. Atheists will assume that the big bang had a physical cause, that life had a physical cause, and that unguided evolution can account for the appearance of phyla and human beings without [[God]]. None of these assumptions are part of "science" as confined by [[methodological naturalism]]. Equally, none of the questions about the identity or character of life's designer are within the province of physical science.
*:However, just as archaeologists seeing ancient ruins will hypothesize a designer, biologists seeing a the "appearance of design" in the structure and function of a bacterium or a human cell may hypothesize that random causes are insufficient. This points to design. However, it would be an additional step (beyond physical science) to attempt any description about the designer.

:All of this really boils down to a question about the [[Philosophy of science]]. Should science study '''only''' physical causes? Adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] (and atheists) say yes. Let's stop debating here and get back to the discussion of the movie article - or at least start planning the improvement of articles related to the movie. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Hey, I want to add my two bob's worth!
:: I liked Ed's first recent post (14:28, 21 May), but disagree with his three points. Here's my version:
::# Scientists observe what ''appears to be'' design.
::# Atheistic scientists try and explain this ''apparent'' design as not actual design. ID proponent claim that it ''is'' actual design.
::# Quoting Ed, "If there is [actual] design, there must be a designer". If the design is ''actual'', not merely ''apparent'', then design ''necessarily'' requires a designer. Both sides agree on this, and it is not philosophy, but science, as in archaeology, forensic science, and the SETI program.
::# Quoting Ed again (but with my numbering), "The designer must be (i) advanced space aliens (like the Spaghetti Monster?), or else (ii) God". But ''this'' is the point where we say (quoting again), "(going beyond physical science into philosophy or religion)"
:: ID goes as far as point 3, but its critics accuse it of going to point 4 (ii). It does not do this.
:: As for writing an article about suppressing ID, we already have one ([[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]), although it has an approach perhaps a bit different to Ed's suggestion.
:: I partly disagree with PDinsdale's point that accepting a designer ''necessarily'' means that the designer must have a designer which must have a designer and so forth until the ultimate designer was supernatural. Actually, I agree with that argument, but not with the idea that this is only true if one accepts the first designer. If one is prepared to accept that evolution can produce life, then, in principle, one could accept that terrestrial life was designed by an alien, which itself evolved. Yes, it would be special pleading, but my point is that ID claims the apparent design ''in terrestrial life'' (the only life available to examine) to be actual design, and that design indicates a designer, but not that the designer, if an alien, was also designed. So the reason that ID is rejected is not because it ''necessarily'' requires a supernatural designer, but simply because it makes the case for a supernatural designer so much stronger. And thus the objection is philosophical/religious, not scientific.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I think Philip clarified the point Ed was trying to get across, so let me try to recap. ID's premise is that there is evidence of underlying design in our physical world, and while design requires a designer, it does not seek to research the nature of the designer(s). That much I had already gotten, and what I'm seeing now is that ID has a "hard stop" at that point, and does not seek to explain whether the designer(s) of what was being observed in nature were designed themselves. Did I get this right? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, that's correct (I believe), because there is no way of explaining whether or not the designer was designed itself without explaining something about that designer, which it doesn't do. To reinforce that point, ID is about a ''scientific'' investigation, and whilst it is perfectly reasonable to scientifically conclude (i.e. from the evidence) that there is design (and therefore a designer), it is not reasonable (scientifically) to say whether the designer was designed without having some evidence to investigate.
:::: Creationism, by contrast (and this is one reason ID and creationism are not the same thing), ''will'' identify the designer, although not from scientific evidence, but from literary evidence (the Bible).
:::: It's also important to distinguish the ''scientific argument'' of ID from the opinions of ID promoters and supports, many of whom would readily identify the designer as God, and therefore would be creationists. In this regard it's also instructive to realise that creationists have been using arguments from design before there was an ID movement as such.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks, that helps because it clarifies why ID proponents believe that its critics are attaching premises to ID and attacking them, when they're not really part of "core" ID. This still leaves me questioning whether ID can be considered a valid scientific theory, though. The reason is that it requires a constrained scope - it shows evidence for design, but stops at asking about the nature of the designer, the source of the components used in the design, and a set of rules or theories to define what may (organisms) or may not (basic elements and molecules) have been designed. It also doesn't have any predictive properties (i.e. there's no set of rules to say which of the following three things were designed or not - a human, a rock found in nature, a rock reshaped by a man, the sun). Other areas of science are open to investigation as to how they interact with each other (chemistry, physics, & astronomy for example), but I don't see this with ID (although I'm open to learning more about it). In the end, it just seems like ID takes a shortcut to a conclusion (this looks like it was designed) instead of letting science find other explanations over time that fit in better with the scientific method. We have many gaps in our understanding, and each discovery raises as many questions as it answers, but when you look at the progress of the last 200 years how can we not assume that our understanding of the universe and our origins will be many times greater than today in 2058, let alone 2208? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:23, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree that there is a requirement for a constrained scope, but I'm not so sure that it is ID opponents alone who advocate this requirement. I thought rather that it was adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] who insist that only physical causes should be considered.

By the way, not all scientists are willing to stay within their self-imposed bounds. I recently read Carl Sagan's definition of evolution, which specifically states that God had nothing to do with it. This is not the same as ignoring the supernatural (as in, "if miracles have taken place it's no business of ours") but rather denying that it has any power, desire (or even existence). This kind of denial is metaphysical or religious and therefore goes outside of the realm of physical science.

ID wants to be allowed to play by the same rules as Evolution. Either both sides can talk about the metaphysical implications of physical science, or neither side can. Getting back to the movie (which I frankly thought impossible at this point ;-) the producers are arguing that Big Science employs a double standard when it expels ID from the academy. Sagan is allowed to mention God, Dawkins is allowed to promote his brand of atheism, but anything that implies (or supports) Creationism is banned.

All of this is a big distraction from the issue which ID raises: i.e., that life shows signs of having been designed. Indeed, biologists speak of body plans and designs (at least as a kind of verbal convenience). The question at hand is whether random events, tempered by a purely physical principle ([[natural selection]]), can create new phyla and novel organs. ID is an argument that the last couple decades of research show that there are too many missing links and too much "information" for that.

ID wants biologists to concede that "life might have been designed" and to stop insisting that "it could only have evolved naturally". But the [[elephant in the room]] is the philosophical assumption nearly all evolution advocates make: that there is no God and no supernatural forces. So they '''begin''' with the assumption that there is no Designer; then they conclude (quite rationally) that the appearance of design is spurious. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:09, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

DinsdaleP, Ed Poor is correct in pointing out that naturalism imposes a constraint, and I would reject that ID does, in any sense that really matters. That is, naturalism imposes a constraint in rejecting a possible explanation from consideration, whereas ID's "constraint" is not to reject a possible explanation from consideration, but to limit the area of investigation. It's not really any different to saying that an archaeologist is going to limit his scope to archaeology and not get into astronomy.

When I wrote previously that ID couldn't determine whether the designer was designed, implying that ID can't tell anything about the designer, I did actually wonder whether I should mention that it ''is'' possible, in principle, to determine ''some'' things about the designer. For example, one could deduce that the designer is himself orderly, judging by the amount of order he has in his designs. One could also deduce (if there was evidence of this, I'm being hypothetical now) that the designer had a preference for green over red. So it is true that ID ''could'' draw ''some'' conclusions about the designer. But given the flak that they cop for supposedly identifying the designer as God when they don't, it is quite understandable that they'd want to stay totally away from drawing ''any'' conclusions about the designer.

It's not true that ID has no criteria to determine the existence of design. Although I don't understand the finer details of it, that's what "[[specified complexity]]" and [[information theory]] is all about.

Also, keep in mind that ID as a field of research is very young, and is struggling to be accepted ''at all'', let alone actually have research funds granted to it, so criticising it for not having a wider scope is rather unfair.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::Those are interesting insights - thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:29, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Use of full versus edited quotes==

I'm not looking to start an edit war, so I want to explain why I restored the full quote in the Negative Comments section. The quote was originally cut down and edited because it was considered to be "wrong", and I restored it because it was a quote and should have been left in its full, original context because the edits were so sever it was no longer representative of the original statement - if someone considers the statement to be wrong but it's captured accurately asa quote, then a counter-example should be presented instead of pulling the quote through excessive editing.

The quote was then re-edited down, based on the premise that quotes can be edited down and still be considered quotes. I restored it again, because when you compare the before-and-after, there's a significant difference between the versions. The cut-down "quote" removes the mention of the Kitzmiller trial and the ruling that the compulsory teaching of ID was unconstitutional. That's not a minor edit - it was removing a key fact (that was the ruling, whether one considers it right or wrong). That section of the quote is also key to the supposed motivation of people looking to get ID into schools - when a court says you can't do it one way, people sought to find other ways.

I'm not weighing in on the movie or the trial, only that if this is going to be a Trustworthy Encyclopedia, we need to present cited quotes as close to the original as possible when they support a point, and not edit them surgically so they represent something different because editors don't agree with the original content. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess I wasted my time on the comments above because the entire paragraph got removed. Considering that the entry was in a section called "Negative Reception", it was not going to be supportive of the film. Since it was a review, in other words ''an opinion'', it seems like an overreaction to pull it from the article on the basis of being inaccurate. Are all references to reviews or the quotes of people going to be removed from Conservapedia because the are "wrong" or "inaccurate" in accordance with the conservative viewpoint? What happened to not being afraid of giving dissenting views a fair presentation, and letting the strength of the conservative perspective speak for itself? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::I reverted the original quote because it would have required pointing out that the court case mentioned only had local jurisdiction, and was therefore misleading. In that form recording the quote, and the needed explanation to follow, would only stray from the article itself. We want to stay focused on the movie. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:17, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I see that I may have caused a problem here when I included the full quote. I am not sure, however, that I understand Learn together's objection to the full quote. Why must the court's jurisdiction be explained? --[[User:HHCrippen|HHCrippen]] 18:25, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Reviews quoted should be about the movie. If they put words into the narrator's mouth, then they are not about the movie ''per se'', but are volleys being lobbed at parties to the issue being examined. They would be relevant to an article about the production company, perhaps:
*angered by a hard-hitting documentary which exposed them, the establishment retaliated in the following ways ...

Other comments about merits of ID itself should go in the [[Intelligent design controversy]] article. Any reviews which ignore what the movie said but make tangential points about ID can go there.

Ironic, isn't it, that nearly every review which our liberal friends have inserted on this page fall into the same category that the movie speaks of. It's life imitating art, I guess. And it's only going to hurt the [[scientific materialism]]'s attempt to ride the Evolution issue. Truth will out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Charles Darwin Quote ==

The movie contains a "quote" from Charles Darwin, which is supposedly to have inspired Nazism. But, they did not state the whole quote in the movie. Here is what Ben Stein read:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

However, here is the whole quote (stuff in ''italics'' was ommitted in the previous statement), as is stated in Charles Darwin's '''The Decent Of Man''':

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; ''and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.'' We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; ''we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.'' Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. ''It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,'' hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

''The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.''

:While I personally would not have made the same choice to voice the quote the way the movie did, Darwin's writings do not necessarily cause one to agree with his conclusions after reading the points he makes. In other words he swings around almost 180 degrees from where it appears he is going, but others reading it may have taken his statements and applied their own logical conclusions that didn't include the need for human sentimentality. Even before World War II, the eugenics programs in both Nazi Germany and the United States to sterilize those considered to be unfit were alive and well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:37, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== IMDB rating ==
"Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings that detractors of the film give even if they haven't seen it, 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10."

What about ratings of 1 given by those who have seen it, or ratings higher than 1 that have been given by those who haven't seen it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:46, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Documentaries have a tendency to be well received as it is the audience that has an interest that shows up. Likewise if someone has a strong desire to see a film, then they do so. It's the negative end of the scale that gets the most 'phony play'. Unfortunately that is a part of life and we have to accept it, but we certainly don't have to report it. If you look at films generally on the IMDB website, you'll see that 1 ratings are generally reported less than 5% of the time, unless of course the movie is religious or not PC. I guess I could have just included 5% 1 ratings, but I didn't. For those of us on this site, we also have another advantage. Most of the sysops have seen the movie, and we were able to see the audience response first hand. We also know a number of people who have seen the movie and talked with them. The response is very positive, with a few disappointments, about in line with the 8.5 that is calculated. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:12, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
:: So if your personal observations are more important than the IDMB observations, why not just simply not report the latter instead of cooking the numbers? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:23, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I would just like to say about the comment about PC films, not all of the time are PC films given 1's. For instance, the film "Triumph of the Wills", often considered to be the best propoganda film ever made (in fact, a lot of people consider Expelled to be propoganda) has only 5.1% of the people rating the film a 1 (although, and I know this will get brought up, 5.1 is bigger than 5, I know). This film is very un-PC because of it's glorification of the Nazi party.
:::Also, what is funny (although I really should not put it in this section), is how much this reminds me of "Ferenheight 9/11". This is because, both films are done from one person's point of view, not showing both sides. Both films are, in their own way, propoganda films (although not as bad as "Triumph" was) because they both premote their own point of views and do not mention (at least from what I have heard), the other point of view in a positive light. Therefore, they promote only one point of view and try to get people to surrender to those points of views. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Aqualung

2008-05-30T02:14:57Z

Rocky:

[[Image:JethroTullAqualungalbumcover.jpg‎]]

"'''Aqualung'''" is a progressive [[Rock and roll|rock]] album released by [[Jethro Tull]]. The album was released on March 19, 1971.

==About The Album==

Aqualung was one of the first albums to be recorded at Island Studios out in London. While they were recording, [[Led Zeppelin]] was mixing their untitled fourth album. Aqualung was Jethro Tull's fourth studio album.

Side A begins with two sketches, including some characters that are less than reputable (Aqualung and Cross Eyed Mary). Then, it includes two autobiographical tracks, both written by Ian Anderson. They are about visiting his father when he was chronically ill.

Side B is about being "Pro-God, Anti-Church". This is because, as it states many times on side B, having an organized religion can restrict somebody to worshiping God in a certain way, thereby not enhancing it.

==Cover==

The cover depicts the title character, Aqualung, standing and eying something. The back cover shows Aqualung sitting on a corner. It was drawn by Burt Silverman. Although Silverman says that it was inspired by Anderson, Anderson denies this.

==Track Listing==
===Side A===

#Aqualung-6:31
#Cross-Eyed Mary-4:06
#Cheap Day Return-1:21
#Mother Goose-3:51
#Wond'ring Aloud-1:53
#Up To Me-3:15

===Side B===

#My God-7:08
#Hymn 43-3:14
#Slipstream-1:13
#Locomotive Breath-4:23
#Wind Up-6:01

===Bonus Tracks===

Included with the 1996 and 1999 re-releases of the album were some bonus tracks.

#Lick Your Fingers Clean-2:46
#Wind Up (Quad Version)-5:24
#Excerpts From The Ian Anderson Interview [Mojo Magazine]-13:59
#Songs For Jeffery (BBC)-2:51
#Fat Man (BBC)-2:57
#Bourée (BBC)-3:58

Total Time (Original Release)-42:55
Total Time (Re-release)-75:27

==Track Breakdown==
===Side A===
====Aqualung====
This is the first song on the album, coming before "Cross-Eyed Mary". The song is about a pervert named Aqualung who ma********s to little girls (Spitting out pieces of his broken luck.). Aqaulung is probably a homless person because he is not dressed up in great clothes (Snot running down his nose --/Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes.). Aqualung hangs out at the park to watch the little girls play. He is very paranoid about the police coming (Aqualung my friend --/Don't you start away uneasy/You poor old sod, you see, it's only me.).
====Cross-Eyed Mary====
This is the second song on the album, following "Aqualung" and coming before "Cheap Day Return". The song first starts out with a scene of a homless man who would do anything to get back at the rich people ignoring him (And who would steal the candy/From a laughing baby's mouth/If he could take it from the money man.). Then, the song goes to Mary, who is a rich girl (Dines in Hampstead village//On expense accounted gruel). In this song, whilst out at the playground, she notices Aqualung, who she gives money to. She takes from her rich house and gives to the poor (She's the Robin Hood of Highgate --/Helps the poor man get along.).
====Cheap Day Return====
This is the third track on the album, after "Cross-Eyed Mary" and before "Mother Goose". This song is aqustic, only feturing the aqustic guitar. This song is about Ian Anderson visiting his chronically ill father (And you sadly wonder/Does the nurse treat your old man/The way she should.).
====Mother Goose====
This is the fourth song on the album, coming after "Cheap Day Return" and before "Wond'ring Aloud". This track does not really have any connection to the Mother Goose of children's stories. This song is about a person that goes to a fair and sees many things. This song is also very aqustic.
====Wond'ring Aloud====
This is the fifth song on the album, coming after "Mother Goose" and before "Up To Me". This song is another aqustic song. This song is about a couple having sex ("As we start both our hearts beating life/Into each other."). Then, it goes on to states that the only way that you can become better is by giving things up.
====Up To Me====
This is the sixth song on the album, coming before "My God" and after "Wond'ring Aloud". Also, it is the last song on Side A of the album. This song is about a guy that makes choices and states that they were up to him and he did not have to do it. For instance, he leaves his date at a bar ("Take you to the cinema/And leave you in a wimpy bar --/You tell me that weve gone to far --/Come running up to me."). He also talks about breaking his cousins glasses at a party and leaving him to put them back together.
===Side B===
====My God====
This is the first song on Side B, coming before "Hymn 43" and after "Up To Me". The song first states that people have minipulated God for their purposes ("Locked him in his golden cage./Made him bend to your religion --"). Then, it goes on to state the atheist point of view ("He is the God of nothing --/If thats all that you can see."), and the Christian point of view ("You are the God of everything --/Hes inside you and me."). It then says that people should lean on God gently, "And dont call on him to save you/From your social graces/And the sins you used to waive." Graces, in this sense, refers to charities, and most likely means that because throughout history, the church has generally helped the rich, the church is only doing the charities to make them look good. The sins that were waved refer to during the Protestant Reformation, when people would pay the church indulgences to have their sins forgiven. It then says that the church is wrapped in the chains of history, meaning that it cannot be forgotten just because it was the church doing it, showing it's also "earthly presence".
====Hymn 43====
This is the eighth song on the album, coming before "Slipstream" and after "My God". The first two lines of the song, "Oh father high in heaven -- smile down upon your son/whose busy with his money games -- his women and his gun." These lines probabily refer to how most conservatives (eg. Rupert Murdock) are exteremly rich ("Money games"). The woman is probabily refering to how he is busy having sex with his woman. And woman, especially at that time, were housewives. The gun refers to the common conservative belief that everyone should be able to own a gun. This is about conservatives because conservatism is conseidered to be the "moral party" and therefore would speak on behalf of Jesus Christ.

The "unsung western hero" in the next verse refers to the people that first came to America and would use Native American slave labor, and would kill them. The justification behind doing that was that they could introduce the Natives to Christianity. The part about going to Hollywood "To set the white man free" probabily refers to the movie ''The Birth Of A Nation''. This film is considered to be the first Hollywood blockbuster, and glorifies the Ku Klux Klan, as saviors from the black people that were (in the film), taking over the world and oppressing white people. In the film, the Ku Klux Klan have crosses on their uniforms.

The chorus "warns" Jesus to save himself "from the gory glory seekers who use His name in death." This refers to the many religious battles fought in Jesus' name. The line "His cross was rather bloody" probabily refers to the amount of death that has been caused in his name and therefore, make his cross bloody.
====Slipstream====
This is the ninth song on the album, coming before "Locomotive Breath" and after "Hymn 43". This is an acustic song on the album about the rich. It paints a scene about a rich man in an eloquent ship. He is pressing "on God's waiter" his "last dime". The man gets out of the boat without having to do anything.
====Locomotive Breath====
This is the tenth song on the album, coming before "Wind-Up" and after "Slipsteam". It is about a man who is just going die and has nothing to do besides that ("runs the all-time loser,/headlong to his death."). Because the man is so boring, "He sees his children jumping off/at the stations -- one by one.", which probabily means that they don't visit him that much. His wife is sleeping around with other men ("His woman and his best friend --/in bed and having fun."). The man is trying to escape by crawling on his hands and knees, but he cannot. The man "Catches angels as they fall.", which probabily means that he is a very religious person and knows a lot of the angels. Towards the end of the song, the man takes a bible and opens it to page one, probabily implying that he is always reading the Bible and does not have enough time for anything else.
====Wind-Up====
This is the 11th song on the album, as well as the last song on Side B and the last song on the album. It comes after "Locomotive Breath". The song is about the singer when he is younger. He goes to school and is tought "how not to play the game". He then, prays to God, and God says that he's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays. Then, he says that they could "excomunicate" him on his "way to Sunday school", implying that they would just assume keep him out for saying what is agianst the church.

==Reception==

The album was 7th in Billboard Music Charts' [[North America]].
The album was 4th in the [[United Kingdom|UK]] Charts.
The song "Hymn 43" was 91st on Billboards Pop Singles chart.
The album was ranked 337th on Rolling Stones top 500 albums of all time.
This is Jethro Tull's most popular album.

==Quadraphonic==

This was one of two Jethro Tull albums released using quadraphonic sound (the other is ''War Child''). One difference between the actual album and between the quadraphonic version was that the song "Wind Up" was preformed in a higher key (this version is included in the re-release). Also, the song "Aqualung" has two riffs at the begining of it instead of just one in the quadraphonic version.

==External Links==
*[http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/J/jethrotulllyrics/jethrotullaqualunglyrics.htm Aqualung Lyrics]
*[http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jethrotull/crosseyedmary.html Cross-Eyed Mary Lyrics]
*[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jethro+tull/cheap+day+return_20070948.html Cheap Day Return Lyrics]
*[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jethro+tull/mother+goose_20070952.html Mother Goose Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Wond-ring-Aloud.html Wond'ring Aloud Lyrics]
*[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jethro+tull/up+to+me_20070955.html Up To Me Lyrics]
*[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jethro+tull/my+god_20070953.html My God Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Hymn-43.html Hymn 43 Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Slipstream.html Slipsteam Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Locomotive-Breath.html Locomotive Breath Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Wind-Up.html Wind-Up Lyrics]

[[category:albums]]

Aqualung

2008-05-30T02:14:29Z

Rocky: The track breakdown is finished. It still needs some tweeking, but it is a good prototype.

[[Image:JethroTullAqualungalbumcover.jpg‎]]

"'''Aqualung'''" is a progressive [[Rock and roll|rock]] album released by [[Jethro Tull]]. The album was released on March 19, 1971.

==About The Album==

Aqualung was one of the first albums to be recorded at Island Studios out in London. While they were recording, [[Led Zeppelin]] was mixing their untitled fourth album. Aqualung was Jethro Tull's fourth studio album.

Side A begins with two sketches, including some characters that are less than reputable (Aqualung and Cross Eyed Mary). Then, it includes two autobiographical tracks, both written by Ian Anderson. They are about visiting his father when he was chronically ill.

Side B is about being "Pro-God, Anti-Church". This is because, as it states many times on side B, having an organized religion can restrict somebody to worshiping God in a certain way, thereby not enhancing it.

==Cover==

The cover depicts the title character, Aqualung, standing and eying something. The back cover shows Aqualung sitting on a corner. It was drawn by Burt Silverman. Although Silverman says that it was inspired by Anderson, Anderson denies this.

==Track Listing==
===Side A===

#Aqualung-6:31
#Cross-Eyed Mary-4:06
#Cheap Day Return-1:21
#Mother Goose-3:51
#Wond'ring Aloud-1:53
#Up To Me-3:15

===Side B===

#My God-7:08
#Hymn 43-3:14
#Slipstream-1:13
#Locomotive Breath-4:23
#Wind Up-6:01

===Bonus Tracks===

Included with the 1996 and 1999 re-releases of the album were some bonus tracks.

#Lick Your Fingers Clean-2:46
#Wind Up (Quad Version)-5:24
#Excerpts From The Ian Anderson Interview [Mojo Magazine]-13:59
#Songs For Jeffery (BBC)-2:51
#Fat Man (BBC)-2:57
#Bourée (BBC)-3:58

Total Time (Original Release)-42:55
Total Time (Re-release)-75:27

==Track Breakdown==
===Side A===
====Aqualung====
This is the first song on the album, coming before "Cross-Eyed Mary". The song is about a pervert named Aqualung who ma********s to little girls (Spitting out pieces of his broken luck.). Aqaulung is probably a homless person because he is not dressed up in great clothes (Snot running down his nose --/Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes.). Aqualung hangs out at the park to watch the little girls play. He is very paranoid about the police coming (Aqualung my friend --/Don't you start away uneasy/You poor old sod, you see, it's only me.).
====Cross-Eyed Mary====
This is the second song on the album, following "Aqualung" and coming before "Cheap Day Return". The song first starts out with a scene of a homless man who would do anything to get back at the rich people ignoring him (And who would steal the candy/From a laughing baby's mouth/If he could take it from the money man.). Then, the song goes to Mary, who is a rich girl (Dines in Hampstead village//On expense accounted gruel). In this song, whilst out at the playground, she notices Aqualung, who she gives money to. She takes from her rich house and gives to the poor (She's the Robin Hood of Highgate --/Helps the poor man get along.).
====Cheap Day Return====
This is the third track on the album, after "Cross-Eyed Mary" and before "Mother Goose". This song is aqustic, only feturing the aqustic guitar. This song is about Ian Anderson visiting his chronically ill father (And you sadly wonder/Does the nurse treat your old man/The way she should.).
====Mother Goose====
This is the fourth song on the album, coming after "Cheap Day Return" and before "Wond'ring Aloud". This track does not really have any connection to the Mother Goose of children's stories. This song is about a person that goes to a fair and sees many things. This song is also very aqustic.
====Wond'ring Aloud====
This is the fifth song on the album, coming after "Mother Goose" and before "Up To Me". This song is another aqustic song. This song is about a couple having sex ("As we start both our hearts beating life/Into each other."). Then, it goes on to states that the only way that you can become better is by giving things up.
====Up To Me====
This is the sixth song on the album, coming before "My God" and after "Wond'ring Aloud". Also, it is the last song on Side A of the album. This song is about a guy that makes choices and states that they were up to him and he did not have to do it. For instance, he leaves his date at a bar ("Take you to the cinema/And leave you in a wimpy bar --/You tell me that weve gone to far --/Come running up to me."). He also talks about breaking his cousins glasses at a party and leaving him to put them back together.
===Side B===
====My God===
This is the first song on Side B, coming before "Hymn 43" and after "Up To Me". The song first states that people have minipulated God for their purposes ("Locked him in his golden cage./Made him bend to your religion --"). Then, it goes on to state the atheist point of view ("He is the God of nothing --/If thats all that you can see."), and the Christian point of view ("You are the God of everything --/Hes inside you and me."). It then says that people should lean on God gently, "And dont call on him to save you/From your social graces/And the sins you used to waive." Graces, in this sense, refers to charities, and most likely means that because throughout history, the church has generally helped the rich, the church is only doing the charities to make them look good. The sins that were waved refer to during the Protestant Reformation, when people would pay the church indulgences to have their sins forgiven. It then says that the church is wrapped in the chains of history, meaning that it cannot be forgotten just because it was the church doing it, showing it's also "earthly presence".
====Hymn 43====
This is the eighth song on the album, coming before "Slipstream" and after "My God". The first two lines of the song, "Oh father high in heaven -- smile down upon your son/whose busy with his money games -- his women and his gun." These lines probabily refer to how most conservatives (eg. Rupert Murdock) are exteremly rich ("Money games"). The woman is probabily refering to how he is busy having sex with his woman. And woman, especially at that time, were housewives. The gun refers to the common conservative belief that everyone should be able to own a gun. This is about conservatives because conservatism is conseidered to be the "moral party" and therefore would speak on behalf of Jesus Christ.

The "unsung western hero" in the next verse refers to the people that first came to America and would use Native American slave labor, and would kill them. The justification behind doing that was that they could introduce the Natives to Christianity. The part about going to Hollywood "To set the white man free" probabily refers to the movie ''The Birth Of A Nation''. This film is considered to be the first Hollywood blockbuster, and glorifies the Ku Klux Klan, as saviors from the black people that were (in the film), taking over the world and oppressing white people. In the film, the Ku Klux Klan have crosses on their uniforms.

The chorus "warns" Jesus to save himself "from the gory glory seekers who use His name in death." This refers to the many religious battles fought in Jesus' name. The line "His cross was rather bloody" probabily refers to the amount of death that has been caused in his name and therefore, make his cross bloody.
====Slipstream====
This is the ninth song on the album, coming before "Locomotive Breath" and after "Hymn 43". This is an acustic song on the album about the rich. It paints a scene about a rich man in an eloquent ship. He is pressing "on God's waiter" his "last dime". The man gets out of the boat without having to do anything.
====Locomotive Breath====
This is the tenth song on the album, coming before "Wind-Up" and after "Slipsteam". It is about a man who is just going die and has nothing to do besides that ("runs the all-time loser,/headlong to his death."). Because the man is so boring, "He sees his children jumping off/at the stations -- one by one.", which probabily means that they don't visit him that much. His wife is sleeping around with other men ("His woman and his best friend --/in bed and having fun."). The man is trying to escape by crawling on his hands and knees, but he cannot. The man "Catches angels as they fall.", which probabily means that he is a very religious person and knows a lot of the angels. Towards the end of the song, the man takes a bible and opens it to page one, probabily implying that he is always reading the Bible and does not have enough time for anything else.
====Wind-Up====
This is the 11th song on the album, as well as the last song on Side B and the last song on the album. It comes after "Locomotive Breath". The song is about the singer when he is younger. He goes to school and is tought "how not to play the game". He then, prays to God, and God says that he's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays. Then, he says that they could "excomunicate" him on his "way to Sunday school", implying that they would just assume keep him out for saying what is agianst the church.

==Reception==

The album was 7th in Billboard Music Charts' [[North America]].
The album was 4th in the [[United Kingdom|UK]] Charts.
The song "Hymn 43" was 91st on Billboards Pop Singles chart.
The album was ranked 337th on Rolling Stones top 500 albums of all time.
This is Jethro Tull's most popular album.

==Quadraphonic==

This was one of two Jethro Tull albums released using quadraphonic sound (the other is ''War Child''). One difference between the actual album and between the quadraphonic version was that the song "Wind Up" was preformed in a higher key (this version is included in the re-release). Also, the song "Aqualung" has two riffs at the begining of it instead of just one in the quadraphonic version.

==External Links==
*[http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/J/jethrotulllyrics/jethrotullaqualunglyrics.htm Aqualung Lyrics]
*[http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jethrotull/crosseyedmary.html Cross-Eyed Mary Lyrics]
*[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jethro+tull/cheap+day+return_20070948.html Cheap Day Return Lyrics]
*[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jethro+tull/mother+goose_20070952.html Mother Goose Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Wond-ring-Aloud.html Wond'ring Aloud Lyrics]
*[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jethro+tull/up+to+me_20070955.html Up To Me Lyrics]
*[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/jethro+tull/my+god_20070953.html My God Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Hymn-43.html Hymn 43 Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Slipstream.html Slipsteam Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Locomotive-Breath.html Locomotive Breath Lyrics]
*[http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Wind-Up.html Wind-Up Lyrics]

[[category:albums]]

Aqualung

2008-05-30T01:13:38Z

Rocky: /* Track Breakdown */

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-30T01:04:38Z

Rocky: Added in an audience reception box so that people could know what the audience thought of the film before seeing it, instead of just seeing the figures.

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref>

== Viewer Reception==
On [http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/expellednointelligenceallowed?q=expelled Metacritic], the film currently holds an average rating of 3.7 out of 10 based upon 124 votes. However, on [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/reviews_users.php Rotten Tomatos], the viewing community has a 50% average rating on the film (Rotten). Note: Keep an eye on that page because it changes very frequently.

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) 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.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-30T00:58:32Z

Rocky: /* Viewer Reception */ -Changed to "Box Office Reception" because it does not say whether or not the veiwers enjoyed the film, just shows the figures

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) 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.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

User talk:Rocky

2008-05-30T00:34:52Z

Rocky: /* Please, feel free to talk here. */

{{welcome}}

== Please, feel free to talk here. ==

Well, the time has come for me to return! Please write stuff down. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I was being sarcastic. It seems funny that Conservapedia would use Fox News as a source for science reporting since Fox reports on evolution like it really happened. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Essay:Religion==

Hi, I hope you don't mind but I did a quick spell check of your essay. I know you requested users did not edit it and instead discussed it on the talk page, but I've made sure that content was not changed beyond a few letters. Happy editing [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:43, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks, man. I am terrible at spelling. Really apprechiate (probabily spelt that wrong) the edits. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Rocky Horror ==

I was a bit puzzled by your message, but then I went and checked my edit history. That's actually not my article. I simply redirected an erroneous title to the correct one (which I shouldn't have done since it's against CP's guidelines). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:57, 28 April 2008 (EDT) 
 
Oh, I see. Well, I still changed it, if you want to see it. Yeah. Wow, it is harder to think up something to say now than it was when I had to write that essay for English. Anyway, thanks for telling me. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Debates ==

Rocky,

If you want to start a debate, then please do the following:
* Title it "Debate: <title of debate>". You will note that DanH has moved [[Is atheism a religion]] and [[Should gay marrage be allowed?]] to [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]] and [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]] respectively.
* Start the debates. Don't just create a page for ''others'' to debate (they are quite capable of doing that themselves), but put forward your own views so that people have something to agree or disagree with. (And don't just give your opinion, but provide an argument.)
I'll leave those pages there for another day or so, but if you don't put your own views there by then, I'll delete those pages.

I realise you're still new to all this, so don't take this as telling you off; just giving you some guidance.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT) 
 
Philip,

Don't worry, you did not sound like you were telling me off. I put in the debates my own opinion. You can access the one about athisim [[Debate:Is atheism a religion|here]] and the one about homosexual marrage [[Debate:Should gay marrage be allowed?|here]]. Thank you for telling me that. I was wondering why nobody was responding. Thank you, again. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

==Question of the Week==

I believe that Bush is a good president in most aspects. I don't use the e-mail thing. sorry... [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 09:51, 30 April 2008 (EDT) 
:That's cool with the email thing. What aspects do you think that he is good with? --[[User:Rocky]]

:Pro-life, same-sex marriages, gun control... [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Spelling ==

I would suggest that you use Firefox as your browser and install the spell-checker. It would appear that you are in need of some assistance. (I'm trying to put this as nicely as I can.) [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style]] page has spell-checker downloads under "spelling" if you are interested. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==Matt Shepard==
If what you included was real information, then cite it; otherwise, it will be removed as possible libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:55, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Theistic Evolution ==

Rocky, does your "theistic evolution" include one Adam and Eve? Real evolution does not. But Christian doctrine relies on one Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids in [[Humani Generis]] teaching anything contrary to that, for obvious reasons: the meaning of [[Jesus]] depends on Adam.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:Did Adam and Eve really exist? I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I don't care if they really existed because it is more important to link Adam and Eve symbolically than it is to say that they actually existed and that people that don't believe it are wrong. Jesus was the new Adam, symbolically because Jesus was man's next attempt to be sinless (for lack of a better word). Maybe there was a humanlike creature, one male and one female, that came from evolution to be Adam and Eve (again, I wasn't there). However, what I believe is more important than saying that they existed and you shouldn't say anything different than that, is less important than how much, symbolically, Adam and Eve are intertwind. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:: Jesus's life and [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]] make little sense without one [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], who could not have existed under any [[theory of evolution]]. What theistic evolution does is persuade people to abandon [[faith]] in [[Jesus]] without immediately realizing it. Clever, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

:::It is pretty clever. However, why are Adam and Eve not known symbollically instead of reality? What I mean by that is, why does it matter if they really existed because the story symbolizes a lot more than their existance, right? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:::Also, how could Jesus' life and the Crusifiction and Resurrection not have made sense without Adam and Eve? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:::: Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection was redemption for the original sin committed by one Adam and Eve, which passed through them to all descendants. This is [[Christianity]].

:::: My own objection to the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific. But I point out there is really no such thing as theistic (Christian) evolution, except as way-station leading someone away from Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Whilst strict theistic evolution would have no Adam and Eve, a modified version could have God creating an actual Adam and Eve, or creating souls for a pair of existing hominids who then became Adam and Eve. But of course this is a compromise view because the naturalistic evolutionary view simply doesn't fit the biblical account, and if you are going to reject the naturalistic view, why not just stick with what the Bible says?

Andy is right that theistic evolution leads people to abandon faith in Jesus (although that doesn't mean that it will always happen).

The problem with suggesting that Adam and Eve are merely symbolic is that while symbolism is useful for making conceptual connections and illustrating ideas, it is not a ''basis'' for doctrine. So if we say that Jesus came to save us from sin, which was introduced with Adam and Eve, but that Adam and Eve are only symbolic, then symbols can't introduce sin, so sin is either non-existent or symbolic, and in either case we don't need to be saved from it, which means that we don't need Jesus. The following quote is from an atheist who that understands this better than many Christians:
{{QuoteBox|It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.}}

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

P.S. I just read this:
{{QuoteBox|Sherwood Taylor, Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, said in 1949:
 
‘In England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.'[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5737]}}
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that God guided evolution, unlike most people seem to believe, which is that most people that believe in evolution are athiests. I do think, however, that Adam and Eve did not exist. I think that sin is human beings going to their animalistic instincts. For instance, people that chose to have sex with multiple partners that they don't really care about. That is like an animal because all animals except humans are not capable of loving one another and simply have sex to procreate. Also, when someone kills someone else, that could be a territorial thing. For instance, if someone broke into my house, I would be scared and might kill them because they are invading my territory. However, with this one, humans can be worse than animals because humans are the only animals that kill for pleasure. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

PS. Although I will not be back for some time, please do respond because when I come back on June 1st, I want to know somebody wanted to answer. Thanks. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

User:Rocky

2008-05-30T00:34:11Z

Rocky:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-30T00:21:13Z

Rocky: /* Viewer Reception */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

On [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/?critic=creamcrop RottenTomatos.com], the "Top Critics" section has the film labeled at a 0% (rotten) rating. The "[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/?name_order=asc#mo T-Mater Critics]" have the film at a 9% (rotten) rating. However, the [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/reviews_users.php Rotten Tomato community] has more favorable reviews, giving the film an average rating of 50% (rotten).

On [http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/expellednointelligenceallowed?q=expelled Metacritic.com], the average critic rating is 20 out of 100 (generally negative reviews). The Metacritic community has an average of 3.7 out of 10.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) 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.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-30T00:20:30Z

Rocky: /* Negative Reception */ -Rotten tomatos and metacritic

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

On [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/?critic=creamcrop RottenTomatos.com], the "Top Critics" section has the film labeled at a 0% (rotten) rating. The "[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/?name_order=asc#mo T-Mater Critics]" have the film at a 9% (rotten) rating. However, the [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/reviews_users.php Rotten Tomato community] has more favorable reviews, giving the film an average rating of 50% (rotten).

On [http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/expellednointelligenceallowed?q=expelled Metacritic.com], the average critic rating is 20 out of 100 (generally negative reviews). The Metacritic community has an average of 3.7 out of 10.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) 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.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-30T00:03:34Z

Rocky: /* Charles Darwin Quote */

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-30T00:02:56Z

Rocky: Charles Darwin Quote

Page has become a vandalism magnet - which, by the way, proves the thesis of the movie: people want to shut Stein up instead of answering his points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Categories==
There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Regarding your last question, what is there to explain? Why does several similar but different flagella speak against design? Rather, it's for the evolutionists to explain why similar items have arisen separately. "Convergent evolution" is code for "we can't attribute it to common descent", yet common descent is what evolution is mainly about! Most "explanations" of gradual evolution are merely "just so" stories, which assume evolution to be true and then explain, usually in very general and untestable terms, how something might have come about. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
: ID is a ''positive'' argument, that there is ''evidence of design''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: After I was blocked the section about alleged copyright infringement was removed (again). Why doesn't this belong in an article about the movie, when it was more than adequately sourced (from the producers own countersuit, no less)? Also, Able806 still hasn't been answered on why the Wall Street Journal isn't a credible source for documenting that the producers are accused of using ''Imagine'' without permission. While they responded quickly to the accusations of infringement by XVIVO, the producers have been completely silent on that allegation. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

{{unsigned|TrevorAlan}}

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Your name looks like a pseudonym, so the burden of proof is on you. Try to be more polite, too.

:::::As to whether ''V[[ariety]]'' is liberal, if you can show that it is neutral or conservative, I'd love to see evidence for it in our article about it, whenever someone gets around to writing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Don't want to overstep my bounds here, but let's review Aschlafly's argument

1 Claims "Variety" is liberal backed by the fact that it does not have a pro-life article in it. Lack of support for one argument does not imply support for the other side. Also insinuates that the readers of "Variety" are liberal and that the magazine would offer appeal to those readers, both statements not supported by an ounce of evidence in this forum.

2 Proceeds to invoke an ad hominem attack on DaBoss3, claiming that he is "clueless" or "in liberal denial," an issue that has yet to be proven by Aschlafly.

3 DaBoss3 takes a ridiculous detour (this I'll acknowledge), which Aschlafly quickly jumps on to circumvent the issue, and combines 2 logical fallacies into one, an ad hominem attack of calling DaBoss3 ignorant and then begging the question, using that claim of ignorance to then assume that he is wrong on the issue of Variety's bias, which is an example of his ignorance.

:::One final note, addressed to the much more reasonable Ed Poor, shouldn't the default status of a publication be apolitical, with the burden of proof (and no, I am not referring to your comment on the burden of proof, I am aware that is a different issue) lying on the person claiming it has bias? --[[User:SeanF|SeanF]] 01:15, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:I just wanted to mention that I deleted the part about Variety having less subscribers than Conservapedia's daily page views. It has no relevance to any sort of argument being presented. --[[User:GeorgeF|GeorgeF]] 18:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Excuse me? Assuming you were serious, isn't that an example of "guilty until proven innocent"? Not to mention a (sadly) somewhat typical double standard.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Since when is a conservapedia account a civil right? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good point, although I'm thinking more of Conservapedia's image.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for that clarification. ;) I happen to agree that it is usually better for conservapedia not to block people until they have directly broken the commandmnts, but I can't feel that we've wronged anyone who's been blocked for lesser reasons (though I don't do so myself). Nor can we harm anyone (except perhaps ourselves) by having a double standard. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:28, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

I don't think Expelled was meant to be a Christian movie. I just saw it on saturday and I got the impression that the movie was not trying to support the Christian six-day creation, nor did it put forward Christianity in any way-- it merely exposes the intolerant attitude atheist evolutionists have towards intelligent design. In fact labeling the ID movement as "Christian" and "Extremist" is one of the ways that evoltionists try to discredit the science behind intelligent design. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I have seen the movie, and though I am a Christian I thought it was an exellent movie that did stand up for truth. I have trouble being sceptical about anyone's faith just because they liked a movie that wasn't explicitly Christian. There is a fine line between prudence and legalism. {{unsigned|BenjaminS}}

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, don't you mean adverb? The word unconvincingly, in this context, is an adverb; if we are to nitpick about grammar, then maybe you should be more careful in your own editing process.--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 13:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy what you said into the body of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: I am just speeding out the door and will have to wait until tonight to respond to the -- reasonably stated -- comments by Everwill above, but I must just come back to the, by now, very overworked, debate on my use of the word "hysterical". This may involve a distinction between British (or in my case, Irish) English and American English, but when I see the word "hysterical" my first instinct is that the writer is using it in its formal sense. In this case I was suggesting that Stein, despite his sang froid, was panicking unduly about a supposed threat to free speech. He was, in my view, being "hysterical". I never intended to make a comment on whether the film was funny or not and I am really amazed that everyone seems to have taken "hysterical" to mean "hysterically funny". I am even more amazed that so much attention has been focussed on one stray word. Is Bill Clinton editing this page? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:07, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

::::::It's really not important what you want to parse [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical hysterical] into meaning. It means what it means. But I can accept your rephrasing at face-value and still find your statements do not jive with my understanding of reality.

::::::If by "hysterical" you meant "very", well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the reason I found Mr. Stein's arguments so ... er ... ''hysterically'' convincing, is because I have witnessed that Wall of Oppression first hand. I know that it exists because I have encountered those people who want to crush the idea of Intelligent Design. They have a blood-thirsty religious fanaticism propelling their point of view and they stand upon opinion as if it were fact.

::::::As an aside, I am no Young Earth Creationist. At times, in my life I'm not even sure I believed in a god, as I am forever repulsed by single-minded irrational attachment to dogma. As I learn more, I adjust my world view to accommodate additional facts. I see the YEC crowd as unbending and as unrealistic as the anti-ID atheists. I for one am in favor of letting the facts stand as they are, whether they support the Bible, Anton Levay or the atheist's manifesto. Facts are facts. I think that Stein has done a public service by uncovering the damaging effects of money and bias upon Big Science. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

And on it goes. The phrase I used was "unconvincingly hysterical" not "hysterically unconvincing". So it hardly seems likely that I meant it to mean "very". If you are going to pull my words apart then please pull apart the correct words. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:09, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

I watched the movie last night. It was a well-made movie; anyone who thinks otherwise is letting their world view and prejudice get in the way of their thinking. Ben Stein made the movie interesting and inspiring. I think the best argument put forth in the movie was not that ID is undeniable fact, but rather that we should have the freedom to express both sides of the argument. If the best Darwinists have is the idea that life came in on the backs of crystals or aliens made us, is this really too much to ask? And they're the ones calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales XD. It just seems that they'll take anything BUT the Bible. I don't know what you think, but I think that's bad science and a little disturbing. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I have been following this movie's development and was very excited to see that it was given such a widespread release being a documentary. This movie was a much needed work to expose the widespread censorship by evolutionist of any notion of intelligent design. I've found a lot of people have no idea of the level that evolutionist will go to keep their theory "safe" from competing ideas and ultimately reality. In the interviews this movie did a good job of exposing the heart of the issue for those on the persecuting side. While some such as Dawkins are willing to accept the possibility of completely unfounded ideas such as aliens being responsible for creating life, they are unwilling to accept the most obvious of answers that we were created by God. The true issues is not about science, it's about their unwillingness to allow God into their atheistic world view. To quote Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." The irrationality of the atheistic can be clearly seen even by those who have hardened their hearts against any notion of God. This is why they are so adamant against any idea of God as the creator. Once that idea is allowed, they fear their greatest mental stronghold will be demolished. It's no wonder they hold so strongly to their position of power within the scientific and academic community. One thing I have observed in the public arena is that once you question evolution atheistic evolutionist rush to the defense through everything from argument to ridicule. Just look at the films ratings on [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB's Expelled Page] It's interesting to note how many have rated this film 1 without even seeing it, offended by the very premise of the movie. The first day there was an initial rush of 1 votes by those that gave this movie a poor rating as soon as they were given the chance. One of issues Stein brought to light in this film was media censorship and ridicule of the intelligent design by the media. Liberal movie critics jumped at the chance to misrepresent this film, and lambasting it's very premise with comments such as [http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/radio/cl-et-expelled18apr18,0,1163561.story an attempt to deceive audiences ] and [http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-intelligence-allowed/review/293361 (an) obvious propaganda piece ] It's apparent one needn't go far to prove that point. I strongly feel this film is a must see for anyone. To comment on the quality of the production, Ben Stein did an excellent job of producing a documentary that is both entertaining and informative. [[User:DanCon|DanCon]] 01:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh my gosh Nathan! I've grown up my whole life in a Christian missionary home... and I don't mind decent secular music! Besides, the film wasn't a Christian film. It existed to point out a wrong in the scientific community, not to evangalize! My goodness your kids are over sheltered if this movie offended you! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 
I watched the movie at its premiere, but was blocked and haven't had a chance to add my comments here (per the request above) until now. I was even interviewed for television about it, although because it was a Christian media company, I doubt they will air my comments.

It was a pretty bizarre film. Literally five seconds into it, they begin interspersing scenes with old film clips of Stalin's USSR, the Berlin Wall, and Nazi Germany, without any explanation. It isn't until much later that you find out the actual "meaning" behind these scenes.

The film also adopted a strange tactic... it spent the first hour arguing for freedom and how no idea could be dangerous, but that academic inquiry demanded all possibilities be open. And then it spent the second hour insinuating that evolution by means of natural selection was a dangerous idea because it "led" to Nazi ideals. This would seem to be contradictory, at least on its face.

The three or four examples provided by Stein were not very conclusive, especially after one becomes familiar with them. Richard Sternberg martyrs himself in the movie, implying that he was fired from his position and he lost his office because of intelligent design, but even ID advocates admit that neither fact is true. He was already scheduled to leave the journal in which he published the ID paper, and it was his last issue to edit. And the office change at the Smithsonian just moved him to a different office, which he then relocated voluntarily. The rest of the examples are about of the same calibre, and no statistics or other data is provided to suggest that there are others (aside from shadowy anonymous people, but the movie lacks the credibility to believe that).

I couldn't help but notice that they made a number of propaganda-style moves in the film. For example, they only refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection as "Darwinism," perhaps to imply it is some sort of cult of personality. But it would be absurd to suggest that modern evolutionary theory relies primarily on Darwin's works. The basic premise he suggested holds true and has been found to be accurate inasmuch as we can tell in science, but that is a very different thing. No one calls relativity "Einsteinism" for the same reason. Another ideological move was to cherry-pick interviewees, selecting only rabidly atheist or terminally-ill insane Texans to represent the evolution side of the debate. Without balancing out this presentation, it just makes it hilariously biased. A comparable move would be a pro-science (evolution) movie which only interviewed Kevin Hovind and his ilk through prison bars. Interestingly and on a side note, the movie equated ID with creationism throughout. I guess the Discovery Institute forgot to remind them to pretend there was a distinction.

Most particularly, the movie used the Holocaust to try to make their ideological point, and didn't even do so well. Berlinski and Stein discuss in the movie how "Darwinism" was a "necessary but not sufficient" cause for Nazism and the Holocaust, yet the movie proceeds to dwell on that tragedy overlong nonetheless. Even if you believe evolution was "necessary but not sufficient," why would you then use that incredible emotional manipulation on the audience to suggest that evolution was the cause? By traveling to the camp (Dachau, I think?) and then discussing at length what went on there, it implies that evolution is at fault, even after they just had to admit that it was not. It's rather insulting.

Stylistically, it borrowed a lot of Michael Moore's techniques, as others have pointed out. Having Dawkins sit in darkness on a stage and Stein travel in a taxicab to "confront" him paints the same sort of (absurd) hero shot that Moore uses (such as in Moore's ''Roger and Me'', when he "confronts" the CEO of Ford Motors). Things like that were fairly common, and the movie actually got pretty boring about two-thirds of the way through. The "shucks I'm just here finding out the truth" schtick got old very quickly... I don't see how anyone couldn't see that the whole approach was staged, and that he had this agenda from the beginning.

So overall, not a very good movie in general, and ludicrously ineffective in establishing its point. Two thumbs way down.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 14:22, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Science is ''supposed to'' limit itself to things that are falsifiable, but so often [[Falsifiability of evolution|doesn't]]. The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?". Forensic science, archaeology, the SETI program, etc., all ask that question, so why can't ID ask it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Interiot deserves credit for raising the question of the [[limits of science]], which needs to be covered better in [[Philosophy of science]]. The idea that God may choose to act in predictable ways is a hypothesis (or assumption), just as viable as our age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant. For example, things that feel heavy always fall when dropped. The stars go around the sky every night, but some of those little lights move with respect to the others (these wanderers are called [[planet]]s).

:::It's up to us to figure out what the rules are - of physical phenomena and anything else we can study.

:::What are the laws governing the human mind? Thought, emotion, will - are these purely manifestations of biochemistry in our brains, or what? I don't think [[Physical science]] has a monopoly on the study of [[Psychology]] and [[Sociology]], but these are still [[science]]s, aren't they?
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

::::Those "age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant" are not age-old, but are specifically Christian-based assumptions. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for some details. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::*(Interjecting) Your comment is off-topic. This article is not about ID as much as it as about attempts to silence people who talk about it in academia. Science has nothing to fear from false ideas; rather, it is the antidote to falsehood, error and superstition. If you are saying that one of the excuses the anti-ID camp use to silence their critics is simply to brand it as having "no validity", then *that* can go in the article. Do you have any info about that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:03, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

ID is a scientific approach that finds fault with evolution and says that a creator must be present because nature has signs of design in it. What's un-Christian about that? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:34, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Long timescales and common descent is theistic evolution, not ID. ID does not take a stance on whether the earth is young or old... stop putting words in it's mouth! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:36, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:Who are you talking to? If you want to debate, we should have several [[Debate Topics]] related to this issue - and you are free to create another page. But this "talk page" is only for discussion of ways to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:40, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm new here, but I find this a moat interesting question. Could you tell me which debate pages specifically address the question of timescale within ID? Thanks. [[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 16:58, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::The film mentions the connection between Darwinism and eugenics - IIRC it says how many people the U.S. sterilized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:24, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

"Racial Hygiene" is, and was, no more an evolutionary concept than genocide has ever been a christian concept. Both have been tagged as such in specific circumstances and neither of the broader terms deserved to be associated with the narrower. {{unsigned|Scholl}}

: Your comment is absurd. [[Evolution]] teaches "survival of the fittest," and that the fittest races will survive. [[Christianity]] rejects that nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Imposing your view point ==

Walton One, you are the one actually trying to impose your view point. This is a conservative encyclopedia and we cannot treat it like your personal propoganda. Please do not impose a liberal point of view. It is conservapedia not liberalpedia. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:While you may not agree with Walton One's changes, work with him constructively. Our goal is truth. We happen to believe it is found in Conservative ideals, but it is not our intention to cut off the dialogue of a user who has been around for some time and contributed articles to our site in the past that were thorough and educational. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:(To Heffalump) I am a conservative not a liberal, and I don't have a strong personal opinion about the film or about ID. I am trying to ensure the article is neutral and factual, by removing personal opinion and speculation, as per point 5 of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.'' I am not imposing any viewpoint on the article. I realise it is difficult to strike the right balance on such a controversial topic, but we can at least try to be even-handed. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:06, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Theistic evolution]]==

This is mentioned in the film, but very briefly. I wish I had a transcript as my notes are incomplete.

One of the men they interviewed said that evolution is incompatible with creationism, despite attempts by Darwinists to enlist liberal Christians. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Full rewrite needed==

Now that I've seen the film, I'm entirely dissatisfied with the article (except the intro and some of the external links).

Basically, the existing version of this article is centered on the POV of ID opponents, rather than being based on the film. While it is okay to voice criticism of the film, first the article should summarize the film and then go into detail about the narrative, composition, look and feel, and especially the points it makes.

If there are any rebuttals to its points, that should come next.

Peripheral points, such as general evolution vs. ID debate, should be minimal. Like a brief summary and then a link to one of our [[Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Make your voice heard==

If your contribution or comment has been reverted, and you think this is just as bad as what the Darwinists have been doing to their opponents, come to [[Conservapedia:Censorship]] and voice your opinion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Eugenics]] and the [[Holocaust]]==

A major complaint about the film is its exposure of the ideological linkage between Darwinism's "[[survival of the fittest]]" idea, and the [[Social Darwinism]] based on it. Critics insinuate (or state outright?) that the film unfairly blames the theory of evolution for what demagogues and despots did with it.

However, the film mentions at least twice that no one is blaming all evolutionists for sterilizations and mass murder. But it does point out the precise way in which Hitler used Darwin's ideas to support Nazi ideology.

This needs to be explained better in the article. We should not print a unsubstantiated accusations here; critics can make their false accusations on their own websites - even if that is an abuse of the freedom of speech - because there should be no censorship in academic debate.

But a trustworthy encyclopedia is not a newspaper; there is no rush to be first to "break a story". Contributors should watch the movie and write about what the remember seeing and hearing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

* I suspected before watching the film that critics were misrepresenting it, in terms of its presentation of the links between Darwinism, Eugenics and the Holocaust. The typical screed went, "How dare they say evolution is responsible for Nazi genocide?"
* As I watched the film, I made notes of the places where the film makers took pains to make precisely the opposite point of what those critics had said. So I think I was justified in removing their "reviews" on the grounds of simply not being trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::I am of the belief that most of our 'reviews' and viewpoints of individuals detracts from the article, which should be about the movie itself. The article comes across as a back and forth pull of reviews. It doesn't flow. In other words it's sounding a bit like WP. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, it's sounding precisely like Associated Press, the cream of liberal news media.

:::Here's a nice review or summary:

:::*“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Makers of the documentary said the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered. [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080421/32048_%5C'Expelled%5C'_Explodes_into_Top_10_Box_Office.htm]
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

== They keep having to lock the WP article ==

It's just a regular comedy of errors over there. Sometimes it's a full lock and sometimes it's a block of anonymous users. Is it any wonder WP is garbage? Exactly how people think it's a reliable source for anything but the most basic, non-controversial things is beyond me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:13, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Jinxmchue. I find [[Wikipedia]] to be worthless for anything of real interest. How [[Wikipedia]] is handling [[Expelled]] is just one of over 100 [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::I finally took at a look at their version, and now I see where all the changes are coming from to our version, which I have been reverting. They are simply plagiarizing WP - ironic, in view of the media flap over the animation [[Premise Media]] allegedly plagiarized from Harvard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not trying to be rude... but why is it that when Wikipedia locks an article, it's liberal bias. But one of our own admins he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=433467&oldid=433465 consdered locking it] because he assumed there would be vandalsim, which is fine. Also, Jinxmchue mocks the blocking of anon. users, but doesn't acknowledge that this site doesn't even allow anon. edits (not that I don't understand why) and for some time, it was common practice to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandals. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Wikipedia tends to lock articles which liberals on the site have deemed to "own." If you look at the edit history of the WP article, it is obvious which group controls it (and with such concrete reasoning such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=208627352&oldid=208624149 "So what?"] for removing relevant material that doesn't trash the movie). And WP prides itself on being open to edits by anyone and everyone, anonymous or not. CP makes no such claim. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::In all fairness there are [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&limit=500&action=history several] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality&limit=500&action=history articles] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Evolution&limit=500&action=history here] which seem to be "owned" not by a group of editors but by a single person. In the case of Wikipedia there has been clear edit warring which would, by the rules, require a degree of protection (I would personally favour a blanket protection for a few days and no edits to see if some of the issues can be settled on the talk page). Here the articles have received less edit warring or vandalism, and appear to be presently locked for the sake of it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]]!~

:Normally, I'm not one to give much credence to the "bias in Wikipedia" charge, but I have to admit, in this case, it is appropriate. A lot of a quotations are inappropriate for the sections they're in, and it's obvious that parts of it are meant to steer the reader towards a certain opinion. The article is coming down on one side of the issue, and a good encyclopedia shouldn't do that.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:35, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::The WP article is now over 100KB in length (and has a warning about that), with well over half of it devoted to criticisms notable or not. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Definition of criticism==

Saying that they quoted Darwin is not a '''criticism'''. Complaining that they took Darwin out of context would be a criticism, but the section I deleted does not do that. Is there anyone who feels that the points the film made about Darwinism and Eugenics were incorrect? Okay, but first quote the film accurately.

What did the film say about the connection between the writings of Charles Darwin and the beginnings of Eugenics? Or what did Eugenics advocates, such as Hitler, say which sounds reminiscent of Darwin? And who in the movie blames Darwin?

In one or two places in the movie Stein (and maybe someone else) specifically says they are not blaming Darwin for the social implications of his theory - nor are they saying that modern evolutionists are justifying the Holocaust. So what's the criticism?

Sounds like the usual silliness, like:
#The film has Wells in it
#He's a creationist
#Therefore the film endorses creationism
#Believing in creationism makes you untrustworthy
#Therefore the film should not be trusted

That's silly because it also has an atheist in it. Does that mean the film endorses atheism? No, it explores the intersection between atheism and other ideas, and the way academia censors any opposing POV and vilifies its critics.

If anyone vilifies the movie, we can name them and even describe their arguments. Like, "Mr. A said the movie is dishonest because the trailer showed Ben Stein in short pants while in the movie he always wore long pants." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scientific American==

The SciAm rebuttal makes six points. Most are irrelevant or nonsensical. Take for example their admission that science '''does''' reject design out of hand. They reason they give is identical to one of the [[arguments for atheism]]. This comes right after claiming that mainstream science's rejection of design is unrelated to atheism.

I'd rather not quote SciAm uncritically. If they want to make an argument, fine. But we needn't give it credence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whoa, isn't the point of Expelled about the unfairness if people finding a 'scientific' viewpoint lacking in credibility suppressing its open discussion? If you want ID to be treated credibly, then why not give Scientific American's rebuttal a place in the article and let it stand or fall on it's merit? Otherwise, you wind up using the same tactics you criticize as unfair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|JC]] 20:59, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::Not exactly. The film points out the unfairness of suppressing a viewpoint - period. Don't be obtuse: no one suppresses viewpoints which lack credibility; no one has to suppress the flat earth theory, the very act of considering it makes it obvious to you that it's false.

::The trouble with ID is that considering '''gives it''' credibility. The idea that design comes from a designer usually makes sense to people, and so does the idea that life shows signs of having been designed. Only someone who has a '''non-scientific motive''' for suppressing [[design theory]] would be scared of letting it be described in a science journal or university class. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Science doesn't reject design out of hand as much as it asserts that saying something has a supernatural cause is not valid science, because it can't be proved or disproved by the scientific method. The proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind reality belongs should be studied as philosophy and/or religion, and if it can ever be tested under the scientific method, then as science. By the way, your first comment mentioned that "''Most'' are irrelevant or nonsensical." Which ones do you consider to be be the valid points, and why weren't they left in the article? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:55, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: ID does not claim that the designer is supernatural. It leaves that question open, probably specifically on the grounds that you mention. However, that's not the same thing as saying that science is unable to detect evidence of design. Science frequently does that, so you are incorrect to claim that the proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind ''life'' (which is all that ID claims, I think) should not be studied by science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: You're right about the nature of the designer - I've heard ID proponents claim that it could be mystical, extraterrestrial or something completely different in nature - the unifying idea being that there's a designer, period. I don't have a problem at all with science exploring the origins of life or the universe. When you see the arrangement of rocks in Stonehenge you can assume they're the result of chance, but it doesn't take much scientific investigation to conclude that there was design involved, and therefore a designer. Where life is concerned it gets trickier, though. You can recreate in a lab the conditions that cause chemicals to combine and form amino acids on their own, and you can examine single-celled creatures to how amino acids compose part of a living thing. You can also study viruses, which are not alive in their own sense, but contain the RNA components to affect living things to reproduce themselves, and sit somewhere on a complexity scale between amino acids and a living amoeba. ID looks at the middle and end-points (viruses and amoeba), and states that these are too complex to exist without a designer, but that seems to fall short to me. There are many things we don't understand yet (and maybe never will), but ID is more like taking a shortcut to a simple answer instead of taking the time (maybe lifetimes) to probe further through the scientific method. (The paradox of "Who designed the Designer, then?" tells me that it's a shortcut) When you look at man's understanding of science and the universe in 1908 and compare it to 2008 the progress is greater than in all of recorded history. I'd have to believe that there will be progress between now and 2108 that will resolve may of ID's questions without a designer needing to be involved. Maybe not, but it sure seems more likely.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:14, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::: One problem with your argument is that it's basically expressing ''faith'' that naturalism will one day account for life. Okay, you can have that faith if you choose, but that faith is not grounds for saying that ID is not science. The ''evidence'' at this stage is that naturalism ''cannot'' account for life. Hence ID is science.
:::::: Your argument about amino acids, viruses, and amoeba seems to be saying that there is a sequence there, rather than a clear break. But that "sequence" is not really a sequence at all. Rather it is (a) three points with clear breaks between them, and (b) not even three points on a line. Some scientists have proposed, because of their relative simplicity, that viruses came before the first living cell. The problem with that is that viruses can only exist by hijacking the reproductive equipment of living cells, so could not have preceded them. So the "sequence" if there is one, is amino acids, living cells, viruses.
:::::: Further, reproducing the "natural" process of creating amino acids actually works ''against'' your argument. This is because life requires that all the amino acids be of a single chirality, whereas the "natural" processes creating them produce a mixture of left and right-handed forms, which will ''not'' work for life. So now your sequence is amino-acids-that-can't-produce-life, living cell, virus. The idea that they were intelligently designed is looking better all the time!
:::::: By the way, the reason that I put "natural" in quotes above is because the Urey-Miller experiments did not actually replicate natural conditions. Apart from using an oxygen-free "atmosphere" which is now known to be wrong, they had a very non-natural trap to remove the created amino acids from their "environment" before they could be broken down again.
:::::: I don't think it's fair to describe ID as stating that living things "are too complex to exist without a designer". Rather, I think it would be fairer to state that ID says that various aspects of living things could not have occurred naturally. Enormous complexity is a major reason ''why'' they could not have occurred naturally, but the ability to occur naturally (i.e. without design) is the pertinent point. To compare with Stonehenge, Stonehenge is not especially complex, but clearly would not have occurred naturally.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal reception ==

I am going to remove the 'Liberal reception' bit. What is the relevance? I am sure some conservatives dont like the movie either while I am sure some liberals are ID supporters. Unless someone can show why this needs to stay I will think of another way to phrase it
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:28, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== WP versus the Good Guys ==

I made the mistake of glancing at Wikipedia's horrendous article about this movie. It's not so much an article about the movie as a point-by-point counter argument against the movie together with a long list of links to bad reviews of the movie. There are some devastating comments about the fairness of the article as compared to how other films were treated. The best part is that they have clearly revealed themselves as what they are: incredibly, wildly biased and totalitarian.

That said, I want to make sure that we safeguard against being Wikipedia's mirror image. I urge other editors to stay within bounds and maintain fairness rather than stepping over into advocacy. This article should not become a "proof" for ID. This article should remain an accurate representation of the movie's theme and ideas.

All that aside, I augmented and edited. Criticism and improvements are welcomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
: You speak as though Wikipedia has only just revealed their bias! Yet you and I both know that this is nothing new for them. Thanks for your edits. Although I had a few minor quibbles (and have made changes accordingly), your edits have improved the article. I only wish I could see the movie for myself to better judge the accuracy of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:49, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:I would think eliminating advocacy could be served by removing the following things:
:*The "Find a Theatre Near You" box, which is outright advocacy.
:*The politicized reception sections, which classify all negative criticism as liberal.
:*The Roebuck quote, which is unencyclopedic and does not touch on the actual movie at all.
:*Large sections of the intro, which abandon the movie and simply argue ID.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:54, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:: I've made some changes following your comments.
:: The "Find a theatre" box is not advocacy, except ''perhaps'' to advocates ''seeing'' the movie. I had previously removed it from the main body of the text on the grounds of being unencyclopedic, which I think is a reasonable compromise.
:: I've changed the headings of the reception/review sections, but not removed the sections as you suggest: I couldn't see the point in removing them. This change actually solved a problem that I'd previously noticed, that Carl Wieland's comments were, as far as I know, not actually a ''review'', he having not seen the movie, I would think.
:: I've removed the Roebuck quote on the grounds that it is about ID, not about the movie.
:: From a quick look, I can't see "large sections of the intro" arguing ID.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:19, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I think this is some improvement. I still think that having the theatre box is clear advocacy to see the movie, which implies partisanship and high bias, considering how there is no such box for any other movie (to the best of my knowledge). But perhaps my view of the intro to the article (or rather, I see that I really mean the summary, sorry) is askew, but it still seems to me to be arguing the point rather than summarizing the movie. Thank you for the changes, though.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:52, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: How many other movies do we have articles on, and how many of them are currently in theatres?
:::: Well, it was the introduction that I checked, not the summary! But looking at ''the Summary'' now, I still can't see that it is arguing ID rather than simply describing what the movie is about.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Who here also edits expelled article at WP? ==

I spend ten times as much time their, but check in over here every once in a while. I have the same user name there if anyone wants to contact me. Who else edits both places? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I would edit, but I'd probably be "banned" from it because it relates to ID - and I'm on probation there. They think that 'neutrality' and 'balance' are tendentious. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I tried editing it, but it's more stress than it's worth. I think it may be impossible to build a truly neutral and balanced article about this topic, at least through the conventional wiki process. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I've learned that to try to edit anything over there that has to do with evolution, Creationism or Intelligent Design, you usually run afoul of the system-gaming pro-evolution groupies. You can find most of their names on the list of WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Participants WikiProject: Intelligent Design], ironically enough. Any pro-Creationism, pro-ID or anti-evolution edits with references will be reverted or twisted by them and you will be hypocritically smeared as a "POV warrior." Wikipedia officially claims [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_of_wisdom#On_Wikipedia_and_the_Cabal "there really is no cabal,"] but the truth is much different. Edit any article that has to do with evolution, Creationism or ID and at least one person from the above WikiProject will show up. Usually more so they can undermine WP's three revert rule. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Sadly, their admins will also try to lead you over a cliff. Knowing the three revert rule themselves, they will run right up to the edge, and then block you when you follow and fall over. In other words rather than attempt to be helpful, they attempt to take advantage of people who don't know as much as they do so they can have them removed or push them out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, and not only that, but at least two of the pro-evolutionist participants in the WikiProject: Intelligent Design are admins who, unsurprisingly, watch and defend each others' admin actions. If you try to complain about one's admin actions, the other quickly jumps in to handle the complaint. You'd think Wikipedia would prevent that from occurring. Or maybe you wouldn't think that, I guess. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::: These are good criticisms of Wikipedia. Does any of this happen here? Sysops using reverting questions and then banning users trying to work out what the proper content should be on a talk page? Or complaints being handled only by sympathetic sysops who defend the actions of the other or have the complaints ignored altogether? It would seem that these types of behaviors are common to all wikis - and maybe even could be applied to groups of people and wikis are just one instance of it being shown. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:04, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

List under here (add comments above this line)
----
[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I found that article at wikipedia to be too biased, which is what brought me here. I'm glad to see some place is giving it a fair shake. [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 20:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== moving find a theater box to the end ==

I'm going to move to the end as a link, we don't need to advocate a movie.[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:52, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Controversy==

The article needs a controversy section, if we're going to tag it as "controversial" in the first sentence. What is the controversy? Is anyone saying the opposite of what the movie asserts?

Please list the 3 top sources who claim that ID is given equal time in the classroom.

Name any editor or college president who says that scientists are given complete academic freedom regarding ID throughout the English-speaking world.

It's not a controversy if the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials. It's a controversy if there are two sides, presenting arguments. NCSE at least makes a case - even though their arguments are self-contradictory and focus on word games. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
: Are you saying that the film is ''not'' controversial? Simply on the grounds that its opponents aren't making a case? If the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials, why doesn't this constitute there being two sides? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, okay. Let's summarize the two sides then.

By the way, you said that someone ''confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]''. I don't think that linkage was made out of actual confusion. The NCSE (among others) has specifically and repeatedly '''claimed''' that ID is an an aspect of creationism - although I'm not sure whether they meant [[YEC]] or [[OEC]]. If it's the former, than their claim is nonsense because YEC entails the faith-based proposition that God created every living thing less than 10,000 years ago. ID is neutral on "who the intelligent designer is" and "when it all began". But stop me if I'm veering off topic.

On the other hand, maybe this is one of the key points of the topic. ID opponents see the claims of [[Intelligent Design]] as contradicting the claims of Evolution. And the only alternative to evolution the opponents can think of is Creationism. We might summarize their argument as follows:
#Either evolution is true, or Creationism is true.
#If ID is true, evolution is false.
#Therefore, ID implies Creationism.

It's a pretty impressive theological argument, but it betrays their pretense of not having any religious preconceptions of their own. In fact, I think their chief objection to ID is that it undermines support for atheism.

Of course, they're "not supposed to admit that" so the only other thing they can do is expel ID and its proponents from the academy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually, I'm pretty sure one of the cheif objection here is that Inteligent Design turns the scientific method on its head by starting with a conclusion (God created us) and digging for evidence (Or, rather, a lack of evidence, as shown by the frequent objections on this wiki by creationists which go something like "Unless you have a perfect evolutionary path for every animal where every single step was fossilized, you're clearly wrong.") to support the conclusion. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 01:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But the Scientific Method starts with the presupposition that there is no God, or at least not a God that interfere with the world. It assumes that everything can be explained through naturalistic causes, which by definition precludes God from the start. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Apples and oranges. The goal of science is to figure out how the world works and why it work the way it does. The goal of ID's research, if it can be called that (Really, can sifting through other research then throwing your hands up and saying "I dunno, God did it" be called research?) is to prove that life was designed by God. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not apples and oranges. You can't say ID starts off with one assumption and criticize it, then shrug it off when it's pointed out that the scientific method also starts out with an assumption. And ID is not "giving up". It's seeing what appears to be order and design and concluding that it was designed. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Alright, I guess you're right. I shouldn't just shrug that off. However, if we're going through a list of things science does not assume exists, should you not logically criticise it for not accounting for the existence of Eris, Asherah, Loki, Enki, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Odin, Eostre, Mithras, Wiskedejak, Spiderman, or other such figures? Furthermore, wouldn't assuming God exists be, well, an assumption?
:Yeah, like I said. Seeing what appears to be order and saying "Well, I guess God made it like that." instead of figuring out a plausible explanation for /why/ it's like that. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But then your saying that God is not a plausible explanation. Why not? In the ID movie, Richard Dawkins admitted to what appeared to be intelligent design, but claimed it might have been aliens who put the life there long ago. So, in all honesty, are aliens more plausible that God? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Is a form of extra-terrestrial life form seeding the planet with lifeforms many millions of years ago more plausible than a supernatural entity creating the entire universe six thousand years ago and not allowing mutations to stack and change the species?
:In all honesty, yeah. They're both rather unlikely, yes, but I'll put my chips on the aliens explanation over the supernatural one. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed, perhaps I should have said "''conflated'' intelligent design with creationism". Also, it depends on how one defines the terms. ID is creationism only in the broadest sense of the word, not in how it is normally used. Creationism doesn't for example, normally include the idea that we were created by aliens, whereas ID doesn't say who the designer is, so doesn't exclude the possibility of aliens.
:: IndianaJ, ID is a argument that the ''scientific evidence'' points to a designer. Now the ''proponents'' of ID might (or might not) have a religious motive, just like proponents of evolution might have a religious (atheistic) motive, but the latter keep telling us that their motive and their science are distinct, so why the double-standard with ID?
:: UltimateHero, it's not the scientific method that starts with the presupposition that there is no god, but naturalistic science.
:: IndianaJ, nobody is seriously proposing the existence of those characters you mentioned, but many people, including many scientists, do propose that the God of the Bible exists. Simply ruling that claim out on the grounds that it's an assumption is just as illogical as ruling it in on the grounds that it's possible.
:: Also, you grossly misrepresent the arguments that ID proponents and creationists make. Perhaps that's because (a) you can't criticise the argument that they actually do make, or (b) you have no idea ''what'' arguments they actually make.
:: Further, the problem with the aliens explanation is that it simply removes the question one step: who created the aliens? Claiming that God is the creator doesn't have this problem, because there's no need to ask who created an uncreated Being.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: You're honestly telling me that no [[Native Americans]] believe in Wiskadejak?
::: Furthermore, perhaps you should inform me about what these arguments are, instead of simply telling me that I don't understand them.
::: You're right, PJR, there's no need to ask who created something that doesn't exist.
::: And finally, re: Motive. The goal of science is not to prove atheism right, but the goal of ID proponents is to prove ID right by circumventing the scientific method by starting with a conclusion. If you seriously don't think that's how it's happening, you're clueless. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 12:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

No, it's opposite of how you stated it. ID looks at the evidence then concludes God. There is no basic assumption. It's secular science that starts out by assuming that everything can be explained by naturalistic principles, and thereby define God out of the equation from the start. It's secular science that assumes, not ID. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:A common misunderstanding, and likely a deliberate misreading!

:ID looks at the evidence then concludes [[design]]. Opponents see "design" and get upset because design implies a "designer", which (for [[atheists]]) certainly can't be [[God]]. They then attack ID using the following reasoning:

:#ID replaces unguided evolution with design (all sides agree)
:#If there is design, there must be a designer (going beyond physical science into philosophy or religion)
:#The designer must be advanced space aliens (like the Spaghetti Monster?), or else [[God]]

:But all ID is saying is #1. Physical science has no business going beyond that.

:We need to write an article about the campaign to suppress ID. This article needs to expose the faulty arguments being used. It needs to distinguish between what ID actually does say, and what ID opponents claim it says (or implies). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:28, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::By definition, ID has to also be asserting #2 as well though - there can't be design without a designer. I agree that ID doesn't try to ''directly'' address the nature of the designer, but by definition it tends to be supernatural. That's because as a "science", ID needs to follow a consistent logic: so if there is design within the physical universe, there is an implied physical designer. Being physical, that designer must have a designer, and so on, until you either have a scientific impossibility or a ''supernatural'' designer at some point.

::I may have gotten this wrong, but that's why ID is questioned as valid science - it relies on the impossible (an unending recursion of designers), or the supernatural. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Your analysis is shrewd, but mistaken. It reveals the extra things that ID opponents tack on, but tying a carrot onto a woman's face or placing a conical black hat on her head does not turn her into a witch (with apologies to Monty Python); it doesn't even mean she ''thinks'' she's a witch. It's a dishonest way of getting her in trouble.

:::Opponents (and we should name them) insist that #1 implies #2. But is it really true that ID *is* asserting the existence of a designer? No more true, I'm sure than Evolution is *denying* the existence of a designer.

:::The unending recursion issue is metaphysics, not physical science. Likewise, the appearance of life (out of the primordial "soup") - with no explanation for how it has the appearance of design - is also metaphysics. Perhaps our [[Origin of life]] article can list the various physical means proposed; see [[The Miller/Urey Experiment]].

:::A famous philosopher recently said what you assert above about a physical designer. Perhaps we should quote him, i.e., [[Richard Dawkins]] and the "space aliens" theory he told Ben Stein in the movie. But this goes outside the realm of physical science. It ventures into the area of [[Philosophy of science]], where there are disagreements about things such as [[Methodological naturalism]].

:::Your last point is, I take it, your own opinion? Or perhaps you had in mind a particular scholar in the field of [[philosophy of science]]. Is there a [[physical scientist]] who thinks that ID relies on the supernatural, or is that a legal opinion, or what? I thought ID merely said (1) unguided evolution couldn't be true, and (2) life shows signs of having been designed. Where do you get [[supernatural causation]]? (And who agrees with you whom we can quote?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:25, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is the designer supernatural "by definition?" The only people I ever see applying such a definition are critics of ID. By their definition of what does or does not constitute the supernatural, then theories of how the universe came to be also involve the supernatural (i.e. beyond the natural universe, which didn't exist before the theorized Big Bang) and are thus invalid in the scientific realm. Additionally, many of the theories about the universe also rely upon an unending recursion of universes that conversely expand from and contract to and a singularity in a process with no beginning or end. Yet these things are wholeheartedly accepted as perfectly good science. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm no expert on ID (and I don't play one on TV, either), which is why I admit I may be wrong. I just don't see how a scientific conclusion that there is an inherent design behind things would not by logic require a designer - how is that "tacking on"?. If designed things can exist without a designer then "design" is the wrong word to be using in the first place.

:::: To Ed Poor's statements about what ID "merely states": if life shows signs of having been designed, then it is either from the actions of a designer, or the observation itself is an error of interpretation. If I pour bowl after bowl of alphabet soup and find words in the arrangement of the letters, was there a designer at work or am I just interpreting reality from the perspective of someone who understands a certain written language?

:::: Ray Comfort talks about looking at a Coke can or a house and reaching the obvious conclusion that there was a designer. So we deduce the designer, man, and then find that he's so complex biologically that design is the only plausible explanation for his existence. Living in the physical world, then, man has to have a physical designer (even one we can't detect/define yet), or the designer exists beyond the natural existence our senses are limited to perceiving (which is why I used the word "supernatural").

:::: To Jinxmchue, I agree that theories like the big bang hit the same wall in term of being unable to answer where the energy came from before the event - it just describes what happened after it started. I'm not out to bash ID, but I do question its treatment as science until it can hold up to fair and reasonable using the scientific method. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:24, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To Dinsdale:
* ''I just don't see how a scientific conclusion that there is an inherent design behind things would not by logic require a designer''
*:You might have overlooked what I said about this above, so I'll repeat it: Is it really true that ID *is* asserting the existence of a designer? No more true, I'm sure than Evolution is *denying* the existence of a designer.
* ''If I pour bowl after bowl of alphabet soup and find words in the arrangement of the letters, was there a designer at work or am I just interpreting reality from the perspective of someone who understands a certain written language?''
*:If the letters are all in the Roman alphabet (as opposed to, say, Japanese [[kana]]), it might tell you something about the designer. But it certainly shows that the cereal was designed. The shapes of the cereal particles have too much correlation with letters to have occured without design.
* ''if life shows signs of having been designed, then it is either from the actions of a designer, or the observation itself is an error of interpretation''
*:What does this have to do with Evolution and naturalism? Your conclusions are in the field of the [[philosophy of science]], as I said before. We might just as well argue that if unguided evolution is true, it is possible for human beings to have come into being without [[God]]. Is this what evolution is arguing? If so, it has departed from the realm of [[physical science]] and entered the field of metaphysics and philosophy.
* ''Living in the physical world, then, man has to have a physical designer (even one we can't detect/define yet), or the designer exists beyond the natural existence our senses are limited to perceiving (which is why I used the word "supernatural").''
*:Thank you for clarifying the metaphysical issues here. As we leave the realm of physical science, we are free to speculate philosophically or religiously. Atheists will assume that the big bang had a physical cause, that life had a physical cause, and that unguided evolution can account for the appearance of phyla and human beings without [[God]]. None of these assumptions are part of "science" as confined by [[methodological naturalism]]. Equally, none of the questions about the identity or character of life's designer are within the province of physical science.
*:However, just as archaeologists seeing ancient ruins will hypothesize a designer, biologists seeing a the "appearance of design" in the structure and function of a bacterium or a human cell may hypothesize that random causes are insufficient. This points to design. However, it would be an additional step (beyond physical science) to attempt any description about the designer.

:All of this really boils down to a question about the [[Philosophy of science]]. Should science study '''only''' physical causes? Adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] (and atheists) say yes. Let's stop debating here and get back to the discussion of the movie article - or at least start planning the improvement of articles related to the movie. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Hey, I want to add my two bob's worth!
:: I liked Ed's first recent post (14:28, 21 May), but disagree with his three points. Here's my version:
::# Scientists observe what ''appears to be'' design.
::# Atheistic scientists try and explain this ''apparent'' design as not actual design. ID proponent claim that it ''is'' actual design.
::# Quoting Ed, "If there is [actual] design, there must be a designer". If the design is ''actual'', not merely ''apparent'', then design ''necessarily'' requires a designer. Both sides agree on this, and it is not philosophy, but science, as in archaeology, forensic science, and the SETI program.
::# Quoting Ed again (but with my numbering), "The designer must be (i) advanced space aliens (like the Spaghetti Monster?), or else (ii) God". But ''this'' is the point where we say (quoting again), "(going beyond physical science into philosophy or religion)"
:: ID goes as far as point 3, but its critics accuse it of going to point 4 (ii). It does not do this.
:: As for writing an article about suppressing ID, we already have one ([[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]), although it has an approach perhaps a bit different to Ed's suggestion.
:: I partly disagree with PDinsdale's point that accepting a designer ''necessarily'' means that the designer must have a designer which must have a designer and so forth until the ultimate designer was supernatural. Actually, I agree with that argument, but not with the idea that this is only true if one accepts the first designer. If one is prepared to accept that evolution can produce life, then, in principle, one could accept that terrestrial life was designed by an alien, which itself evolved. Yes, it would be special pleading, but my point is that ID claims the apparent design ''in terrestrial life'' (the only life available to examine) to be actual design, and that design indicates a designer, but not that the designer, if an alien, was also designed. So the reason that ID is rejected is not because it ''necessarily'' requires a supernatural designer, but simply because it makes the case for a supernatural designer so much stronger. And thus the objection is philosophical/religious, not scientific.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I think Philip clarified the point Ed was trying to get across, so let me try to recap. ID's premise is that there is evidence of underlying design in our physical world, and while design requires a designer, it does not seek to research the nature of the designer(s). That much I had already gotten, and what I'm seeing now is that ID has a "hard stop" at that point, and does not seek to explain whether the designer(s) of what was being observed in nature were designed themselves. Did I get this right? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, that's correct (I believe), because there is no way of explaining whether or not the designer was designed itself without explaining something about that designer, which it doesn't do. To reinforce that point, ID is about a ''scientific'' investigation, and whilst it is perfectly reasonable to scientifically conclude (i.e. from the evidence) that there is design (and therefore a designer), it is not reasonable (scientifically) to say whether the designer was designed without having some evidence to investigate.
:::: Creationism, by contrast (and this is one reason ID and creationism are not the same thing), ''will'' identify the designer, although not from scientific evidence, but from literary evidence (the Bible).
:::: It's also important to distinguish the ''scientific argument'' of ID from the opinions of ID promoters and supports, many of whom would readily identify the designer as God, and therefore would be creationists. In this regard it's also instructive to realise that creationists have been using arguments from design before there was an ID movement as such.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks, that helps because it clarifies why ID proponents believe that its critics are attaching premises to ID and attacking them, when they're not really part of "core" ID. This still leaves me questioning whether ID can be considered a valid scientific theory, though. The reason is that it requires a constrained scope - it shows evidence for design, but stops at asking about the nature of the designer, the source of the components used in the design, and a set of rules or theories to define what may (organisms) or may not (basic elements and molecules) have been designed. It also doesn't have any predictive properties (i.e. there's no set of rules to say which of the following three things were designed or not - a human, a rock found in nature, a rock reshaped by a man, the sun). Other areas of science are open to investigation as to how they interact with each other (chemistry, physics, & astronomy for example), but I don't see this with ID (although I'm open to learning more about it). In the end, it just seems like ID takes a shortcut to a conclusion (this looks like it was designed) instead of letting science find other explanations over time that fit in better with the scientific method. We have many gaps in our understanding, and each discovery raises as many questions as it answers, but when you look at the progress of the last 200 years how can we not assume that our understanding of the universe and our origins will be many times greater than today in 2058, let alone 2208? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:23, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree that there is a requirement for a constrained scope, but I'm not so sure that it is ID opponents alone who advocate this requirement. I thought rather that it was adherents of [[methodological naturalism]] who insist that only physical causes should be considered.

By the way, not all scientists are willing to stay within their self-imposed bounds. I recently read Carl Sagan's definition of evolution, which specifically states that God had nothing to do with it. This is not the same as ignoring the supernatural (as in, "if miracles have taken place it's no business of ours") but rather denying that it has any power, desire (or even existence). This kind of denial is metaphysical or religious and therefore goes outside of the realm of physical science.

ID wants to be allowed to play by the same rules as Evolution. Either both sides can talk about the metaphysical implications of physical science, or neither side can. Getting back to the movie (which I frankly thought impossible at this point ;-) the producers are arguing that Big Science employs a double standard when it expels ID from the academy. Sagan is allowed to mention God, Dawkins is allowed to promote his brand of atheism, but anything that implies (or supports) Creationism is banned.

All of this is a big distraction from the issue which ID raises: i.e., that life shows signs of having been designed. Indeed, biologists speak of body plans and designs (at least as a kind of verbal convenience). The question at hand is whether random events, tempered by a purely physical principle ([[natural selection]]), can create new phyla and novel organs. ID is an argument that the last couple decades of research show that there are too many missing links and too much "information" for that.

ID wants biologists to concede that "life might have been designed" and to stop insisting that "it could only have evolved naturally". But the [[elephant in the room]] is the philosophical assumption nearly all evolution advocates make: that there is no God and no supernatural forces. So they '''begin''' with the assumption that there is no Designer; then they conclude (quite rationally) that the appearance of design is spurious. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:09, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

DinsdaleP, Ed Poor is correct in pointing out that naturalism imposes a constraint, and I would reject that ID does, in any sense that really matters. That is, naturalism imposes a constraint in rejecting a possible explanation from consideration, whereas ID's "constraint" is not to reject a possible explanation from consideration, but to limit the area of investigation. It's not really any different to saying that an archaeologist is going to limit his scope to archaeology and not get into astronomy.

When I wrote previously that ID couldn't determine whether the designer was designed, implying that ID can't tell anything about the designer, I did actually wonder whether I should mention that it ''is'' possible, in principle, to determine ''some'' things about the designer. For example, one could deduce that the designer is himself orderly, judging by the amount of order he has in his designs. One could also deduce (if there was evidence of this, I'm being hypothetical now) that the designer had a preference for green over red. So it is true that ID ''could'' draw ''some'' conclusions about the designer. But given the flak that they cop for supposedly identifying the designer as God when they don't, it is quite understandable that they'd want to stay totally away from drawing ''any'' conclusions about the designer.

It's not true that ID has no criteria to determine the existence of design. Although I don't understand the finer details of it, that's what "[[specified complexity]]" and [[information theory]] is all about.

Also, keep in mind that ID as a field of research is very young, and is struggling to be accepted ''at all'', let alone actually have research funds granted to it, so criticising it for not having a wider scope is rather unfair.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::Those are interesting insights - thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:29, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Use of full versus edited quotes==

I'm not looking to start an edit war, so I want to explain why I restored the full quote in the Negative Comments section. The quote was originally cut down and edited because it was considered to be "wrong", and I restored it because it was a quote and should have been left in its full, original context because the edits were so sever it was no longer representative of the original statement - if someone considers the statement to be wrong but it's captured accurately asa quote, then a counter-example should be presented instead of pulling the quote through excessive editing.

The quote was then re-edited down, based on the premise that quotes can be edited down and still be considered quotes. I restored it again, because when you compare the before-and-after, there's a significant difference between the versions. The cut-down "quote" removes the mention of the Kitzmiller trial and the ruling that the compulsory teaching of ID was unconstitutional. That's not a minor edit - it was removing a key fact (that was the ruling, whether one considers it right or wrong). That section of the quote is also key to the supposed motivation of people looking to get ID into schools - when a court says you can't do it one way, people sought to find other ways.

I'm not weighing in on the movie or the trial, only that if this is going to be a Trustworthy Encyclopedia, we need to present cited quotes as close to the original as possible when they support a point, and not edit them surgically so they represent something different because editors don't agree with the original content. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess I wasted my time on the comments above because the entire paragraph got removed. Considering that the entry was in a section called "Negative Reception", it was not going to be supportive of the film. Since it was a review, in other words ''an opinion'', it seems like an overreaction to pull it from the article on the basis of being inaccurate. Are all references to reviews or the quotes of people going to be removed from Conservapedia because the are "wrong" or "inaccurate" in accordance with the conservative viewpoint? What happened to not being afraid of giving dissenting views a fair presentation, and letting the strength of the conservative perspective speak for itself? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::I reverted the original quote because it would have required pointing out that the court case mentioned only had local jurisdiction, and was therefore misleading. In that form recording the quote, and the needed explanation to follow, would only stray from the article itself. We want to stay focused on the movie. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:17, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I see that I may have caused a problem here when I included the full quote. I am not sure, however, that I understand Learn together's objection to the full quote. Why must the court's jurisdiction be explained? --[[User:HHCrippen|HHCrippen]] 18:25, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Reviews quoted should be about the movie. If they put words into the narrator's mouth, then they are not about the movie ''per se'', but are volleys being lobbed at parties to the issue being examined. They would be relevant to an article about the production company, perhaps:
*angered by a hard-hitting documentary which exposed them, the establishment retaliated in the following ways ...

Other comments about merits of ID itself should go in the [[Intelligent design controversy]] article. Any reviews which ignore what the movie said but make tangential points about ID can go there.

Ironic, isn't it, that nearly every review which our liberal friends have inserted on this page fall into the same category that the movie speaks of. It's life imitating art, I guess. And it's only going to hurt the [[scientific materialism]]'s attempt to ride the Evolution issue. Truth will out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Charles Darwin Quote ==

The movie contains a "quote" from Charles Darwin, which is supposedly to have inspired Nazism. But, they did not state the whole quote in the movie. Here is what Ben Stein read:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

However, here is the whole quote (stuff in ''bold'' was ommitted in the previous statement), as is stated in Charles Darwin's '''The Decent Of Man''':

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; ''and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.'' We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; ''we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.'' Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. ''It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,'' hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

''The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.''

Conservapedia:Featured articles

2008-05-27T20:30:24Z

Rocky: /* Proposed for featuring */

<center>



'''Featured articles'''



</center>

== Past articles ==
=== 2007/08 ===
*[[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Ronald Reagan]] (13th to 20th December 2007)
*[[Jesus Christ]] (20th December 2007 to 3rd January 2008)
*[[Republican Party]] (3rd January to 19th January)
*[[C.S. Lewis]] (19th January to 26th January)
*[[Genesis]] (26th January to 2nd February)
*[[I Have a Dream]] (2nd February to 9th February)
*[[Scopes Trial]] (9th February to 16th February)
*[[Stephen Dubner]] (16th February to 23th February)
*[[B-1B Lancer]] (23th February to 1st March)
*[[Earth]] (1st March to 8th March)
*[[Bible]] (8th March to 15th March)
*[[Theater]] (15th March to 22nd March)
*[[Mind/body]] (22nd March to 30th/31st March)
*[[Ice (novel)]] (30th/31st March to 5th/6th April)
*[[Saint Nicholas]] (5th/6th April to 12th/13th April)
*[[Assassination of Abraham Lincoln]] (12th/13th April to 21st April)
*[[Music]] (21st April to 26th April)
*[[Young Earth Creationism]] (26th April to 3rd May)

== Current article ==

*[[Wikipedia]] (21th May to 28th May)

== Future articles ==

The following articles should be checked for any improvements that can be made before they are posted to the Main Page.

*[[Abortion]] (?)
*[[United States of America]] (?)

== Proposed for featuring ==

The following articles will probably be moved to the list above in the order listed if nobody has any objection or alternative suggestion.

*[[Amused To Death]]
*[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
*[[Harry Truman]]
*[[Starlight problem]]
*[[Passover]]
*[[Spanish Inquisition]]
*[[Deconstruction]]
*[[Roberta McCain]]
*[[Johns Hopkins University]]
*[[Kamakura]]
*[[Holy Days]]
*[[Colorado Springs]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[English Painting]]

Template:Infobox Film

2008-05-26T17:58:44Z

Rocky: New page: <includeonly>{| class="infobox vevent" style="width:20em; text-align:left; font-size:90%;" cellspacing="2" ! class="summary" style="font-size: 110%; text-align: center;" colspan="2" | ''{{...

<includeonly>{| class="infobox vevent" style="width:20em; text-align:left; font-size:90%;" cellspacing="2"
! class="summary" style="font-size: 110%; text-align: center;" colspan="2" | ''{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''
|-
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|
{{!}} style="font-size: 95%; line-height:1.5em; text-align: center;" colspan="2" {{!}} [[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{image_size|}}}|{{px|{{{image_size}}} }}|200px}}|]] {{#if:{{{caption|}}}| {{{caption}}}}}
}}
{{!}}- class="description"
{{#if:{{{director|}}}|
! Directed by
{{!}} {{{director}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{producer|}}}|
! Produced by
{{!}} {{{producer}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{writer|}}}|
! Written by
{{!}} {{{writer}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{narrator|}}}|
! Narrated by
{{!}} {{{narrator}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{starring|}}}|
! Starring
{{!}} {{{starring}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{music|}}}|
! Music by
{{!}} {{{music}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{cinematography|}}}|
! Cinematography
{{!}} {{{cinematography}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{editing|}}}|
! Editing by
{{!}} {{{editing}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{distributor|}}}|
! Distributed by
{{!}} {{{distributor}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{released|}}}|
! Release date(s)
{{!}} {{{released}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{runtime|}}}|
! Running time
{{!}} {{{runtime}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{country|}}}|
! Country
{{!}} {{{country}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{language|}}}|
! Language
{{!}} {{#ifexist: {{{language}}} language | [[{{{language}}} language|{{{language}}}]]{{#ifeq:{{{language|}}}|||[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]}} | {{{language}}} }}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{budget|}}}|
! Budget
{{!}} {{{budget}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{gross|}}}|
! Gross revenue
{{!}} {{{gross}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{preceded_by|}}}|
! Preceded by
{{!}} {{{preceded_by}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{followed_by|}}}|
! Followed by
{{!}} {{{followed_by}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{website|}}}|
! style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2" {{!}} '''[{{{website|}}} Official website]'''
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{amg_id|}}}|
! style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2" {{!}} '''[http://allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql={{{amg_id|}}} Allmovie profile]'''
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{imdb_id|}}}|
! style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2" {{!}} '''[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt{{{imdb_id|}}}/ IMDb profile]'''
{{!}}-
}}
|}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}

</noinclude>

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2008-05-18T15:36:05Z

Rocky: /* Fred Phelps */

I don't think that the Westboro Baptist Church qualifies as a liberal activist group especially since they oppose evolution, abortion, and the homosexual agenda, three things that liberals push for heavily. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps wouldn't be that bad if he only protesting homosexuality, its his disrespect of American troops that makes me mad. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
:Of course the WBC isn't a liberal group. They are living proof that anything, even religious conservatism, can be taken to the most extreme, and out of its original context. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
::So why are they still called liberal activists and why is the page locked? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 11:56, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Of course they're liberal. They hate America. They say "God Hates America". Who cares if they also say that God hates fags? Who cares if they're also doing God's work by picketing fag churches? Hatred of America is liberal, period. The admins were right to lock the page. You seem to forget that children are reading this site, and they might be confused if we give then too much conflicting information. MissAmerica 11:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Osama bin Laden also hates America. Does that make him liberal? Do you even know what liberal means?
--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 19:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:Possibly; [[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Are you a parodist? This is a second prime example of it at any rate. I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir - no other conclusion can be brought out of this article other than that you are writing parody articles. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:*''I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir ...''
::*I see. Hmmm. I do not doubt you, sir, for an instant. Now, why are you directing personal comments at me, then, and not discussing the issue? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)
You may have studied his inflammatory comments or read an anti-Christian slanted expose or three, but you haven't pointed out a single specific inaccuracy in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:'''[[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]].'''

:I was responding to that (He is implying that Phelps is a Liberal there, and in the Phelps article he is called a 'Leftist Liberal Democrat'. Doesn't take a genius to work out that that is plain false. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 20:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::It's not false, how could it be? I mean it says "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" and it has an AMERICAN flag right there at the top-left hand side of the page. Are you anti-America or something?! (Just kidding, by the way. I know that sometimes you can't tell if these type of people are kidding or not so I thought I should note that.) [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:29, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I'm conservative but even I can admit that this group is neither liberal nor conservative. It is just simply a hate group --[[User:StephenHarper|StephenHarper]] 20:33, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. --[[User:Richardhead|Richardhead]] 17:40, 20 December 2007 (EST)

:I took out the part that it is a liberal group because there is absolutly no basis for that argument at all. Please tell me if there is. Thanks. [[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:PS. I also added in some parody groups of this hate group. [[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::Folks,
::I know there are likely going to be some who will immediately want to revert Rocky's changes, but I respectfully suggest that there might be some merit here. If Conservapedia wants to grow and become generally accepted, it needs to build a solid foundation. Lumping someone like Phelps in with tree-huggers and misguided college students serves no real useful purpose, and provides ammunition for those who claim that conservatives use "liberal" to mean "Anyone we dislike."

::That being said, facts are facts. Phelps is/was a Democrat; that is a matter of record, as is his support for Gore; those things cannot be disputed or spun, and certainly merit coverage.

::On the other hand, the parody groups don't seem significant, and I don't see why they should be covered. I'll let veteran editors have first crack before I make any changes.
::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I just added in the parody groups simply to show people that these people are not that tough. If you don't make fun of someone, they will allways find a way to justify their hate. However, if you make fun of them, they will have no defense because they will look like idiots. However, I apprechiate the fact that you stuck up for my edits. Thank you. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Fred Phelps ==

Why was the tie-in to Fred Phelps removed? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 05:01, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It was removed because I could not find any sources. If you can find some, you can put it back in. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2008-05-17T14:58:11Z

Rocky:

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2008-05-16T21:29:53Z

Rocky:

Westboro Baptist Church

2008-05-16T21:01:56Z

Rocky:

'''Westboro Baptist Church''' is a cult run by extremest baptists. Although the church affiliates as being baptists, they are not affiliated with the Babtist church. The church's members are almost entirely family members and are infamous for their protests and pickets at the funerals of soldiers who died in the line of duty, where they take the opportunity to denounce what they consider to be America's acceptance of [[homosexuality]]. The name of their [[website]], which contains a vulgar word, reflects this. Their antics are denounced across almost all spectra of political and religious thought. Their motto is "God Hates Fags".

There are many groups that parody it. For instance, in England, there is a group with the motto "God Hates Fags" with fake bible quotes on their page saying that smoking is bad for your health. There is also a group called "God Hates Figs", pointing out the scene in the bible where Jesus destroys a fig tree.

[[Category:Hate Groups]]
[[Category:Cults]]

Westboro Baptist Church

2008-05-16T21:00:12Z

Rocky:

'''Westboro Baptist Church''' is a cult run by extremest baptists. Although the church affiliates as being baptists, they are not affiliated with the Babtist church. The church's members are almost entirely family members and are infamous for their protests and pickets at the funerals of soldiers who died in the line of duty, where they take the opportunity to denounce what they consider to be America's acceptance of [[homosexuality]]. The name of their [[website]], which contains a vulgar word, reflects this. Their antics are denounced across almost all spectra of political and religious thought. Their motto is "God Hates Fags". Their website is [www.godhatesfags.com GodHatesFags.com].

[[Category:Hate Groups]]
[[Category:Cults]]

User:Rocky

2008-05-14T23:18:05Z

Rocky:

User talk:Rocky

2008-05-14T23:12:50Z

Rocky: /* Please, feel free to talk here. */

{{welcome}}

== Please, feel free to talk here. ==

I will not be back until either June 1st or June 2nd. However, please leave me stuff because I want to respond as soon as possible. Thanks --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I was being sarcastic. It seems funny that Conservapedia would use Fox News as a source for science reporting since Fox reports on evolution like it really happened. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Essay:Religion==

Hi, I hope you don't mind but I did a quick spell check of your essay. I know you requested users did not edit it and instead discussed it on the talk page, but I've made sure that content was not changed beyond a few letters. Happy editing [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:43, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks, man. I am terrible at spelling. Really apprechiate (probabily spelt that wrong) the edits. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Rocky Horror ==

I was a bit puzzled by your message, but then I went and checked my edit history. That's actually not my article. I simply redirected an erroneous title to the correct one (which I shouldn't have done since it's against CP's guidelines). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:57, 28 April 2008 (EDT) 
 
Oh, I see. Well, I still changed it, if you want to see it. Yeah. Wow, it is harder to think up something to say now than it was when I had to write that essay for English. Anyway, thanks for telling me. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Debates ==

Rocky,

If you want to start a debate, then please do the following:
* Title it "Debate: <title of debate>". You will note that DanH has moved [[Is atheism a religion]] and [[Should gay marrage be allowed?]] to [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]] and [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]] respectively.
* Start the debates. Don't just create a page for ''others'' to debate (they are quite capable of doing that themselves), but put forward your own views so that people have something to agree or disagree with. (And don't just give your opinion, but provide an argument.)
I'll leave those pages there for another day or so, but if you don't put your own views there by then, I'll delete those pages.

I realise you're still new to all this, so don't take this as telling you off; just giving you some guidance.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT) 
 
Philip,

Don't worry, you did not sound like you were telling me off. I put in the debates my own opinion. You can access the one about athisim [[Debate:Is atheism a religion|here]] and the one about homosexual marrage [[Debate:Should gay marrage be allowed?|here]]. Thank you for telling me that. I was wondering why nobody was responding. Thank you, again. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

==Question of the Week==

I believe that Bush is a good president in most aspects. I don't use the e-mail thing. sorry... [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 09:51, 30 April 2008 (EDT) 
:That's cool with the email thing. What aspects do you think that he is good with? --[[User:Rocky]]

:Pro-life, same-sex marriages, gun control... [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Spelling ==

I would suggest that you use Firefox as your browser and install the spell-checker. It would appear that you are in need of some assistance. (I'm trying to put this as nicely as I can.) [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style]] page has spell-checker downloads under "spelling" if you are interested. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==Matt Shepard==
If what you included was real information, then cite it; otherwise, it will be removed as possible libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:55, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Theistic Evolution ==

Rocky, does your "theistic evolution" include one Adam and Eve? Real evolution does not. But Christian doctrine relies on one Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids in [[Humani Generis]] teaching anything contrary to that, for obvious reasons: the meaning of [[Jesus]] depends on Adam.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:Did Adam and Eve really exist? I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I don't care if they really existed because it is more important to link Adam and Eve symbolically than it is to say that they actually existed and that people that don't believe it are wrong. Jesus was the new Adam, symbolically because Jesus was man's next attempt to be sinless (for lack of a better word). Maybe there was a humanlike creature, one male and one female, that came from evolution to be Adam and Eve (again, I wasn't there). However, what I believe is more important than saying that they existed and you shouldn't say anything different than that, is less important than how much, symbolically, Adam and Eve are intertwind. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:: Jesus's life and [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]] make little sense without one [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], who could not have existed under any [[theory of evolution]]. What theistic evolution does is persuade people to abandon [[faith]] in [[Jesus]] without immediately realizing it. Clever, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

:::It is pretty clever. However, why are Adam and Eve not known symbollically instead of reality? What I mean by that is, why does it matter if they really existed because the story symbolizes a lot more than their existance, right? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:::Also, how could Jesus' life and the Crusifiction and Resurrection not have made sense without Adam and Eve? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:::: Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection was redemption for the original sin committed by one Adam and Eve, which passed through them to all descendants. This is [[Christianity]].

:::: My own objection to the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific. But I point out there is really no such thing as theistic (Christian) evolution, except as way-station leading someone away from Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Whilst strict theistic evolution would have no Adam and Eve, a modified version could have God creating an actual Adam and Eve, or creating souls for a pair of existing hominids who then became Adam and Eve. But of course this is a compromise view because the naturalistic evolutionary view simply doesn't fit the biblical account, and if you are going to reject the naturalistic view, why not just stick with what the Bible says?

Andy is right that theistic evolution leads people to abandon faith in Jesus (although that doesn't mean that it will always happen).

The problem with suggesting that Adam and Eve are merely symbolic is that while symbolism is useful for making conceptual connections and illustrating ideas, it is not a ''basis'' for doctrine. So if we say that Jesus came to save us from sin, which was introduced with Adam and Eve, but that Adam and Eve are only symbolic, then symbols can't introduce sin, so sin is either non-existent or symbolic, and in either case we don't need to be saved from it, which means that we don't need Jesus. The following quote is from an atheist who that understands this better than many Christians:
{{QuoteBox|It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.}}

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

P.S. I just read this:
{{QuoteBox|Sherwood Taylor, Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, said in 1949:
 
‘In England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.'[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5737]}}
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that God guided evolution, unlike most people seem to believe, which is that most people that believe in evolution are athiests. I do think, however, that Adam and Eve did not exist. I think that sin is human beings going to their animalistic instincts. For instance, people that chose to have sex with multiple partners that they don't really care about. That is like an animal because all animals except humans are not capable of loving one another and simply have sex to procreate. Also, when someone kills someone else, that could be a territorial thing. For instance, if someone broke into my house, I would be scared and might kill them because they are invading my territory. However, with this one, humans can be worse than animals because humans are the only animals that kill for pleasure. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

PS. Although I will not be back for some time, please do respond because when I come back on June 1st, I want to know somebody wanted to answer. Thanks. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

User talk:Rocky

2008-05-14T23:11:50Z

Rocky: re:/* Theistic Evolution */

{{welcome}}

== Please, feel free to talk here. ==

It stinks, man because nobody talks to me, man. So, why don't you. Man. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I was being sarcastic. It seems funny that Conservapedia would use Fox News as a source for science reporting since Fox reports on evolution like it really happened. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Essay:Religion==

Hi, I hope you don't mind but I did a quick spell check of your essay. I know you requested users did not edit it and instead discussed it on the talk page, but I've made sure that content was not changed beyond a few letters. Happy editing [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:43, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks, man. I am terrible at spelling. Really apprechiate (probabily spelt that wrong) the edits. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Rocky Horror ==

I was a bit puzzled by your message, but then I went and checked my edit history. That's actually not my article. I simply redirected an erroneous title to the correct one (which I shouldn't have done since it's against CP's guidelines). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:57, 28 April 2008 (EDT) 
 
Oh, I see. Well, I still changed it, if you want to see it. Yeah. Wow, it is harder to think up something to say now than it was when I had to write that essay for English. Anyway, thanks for telling me. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Debates ==

Rocky,

If you want to start a debate, then please do the following:
* Title it "Debate: <title of debate>". You will note that DanH has moved [[Is atheism a religion]] and [[Should gay marrage be allowed?]] to [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]] and [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]] respectively.
* Start the debates. Don't just create a page for ''others'' to debate (they are quite capable of doing that themselves), but put forward your own views so that people have something to agree or disagree with. (And don't just give your opinion, but provide an argument.)
I'll leave those pages there for another day or so, but if you don't put your own views there by then, I'll delete those pages.

I realise you're still new to all this, so don't take this as telling you off; just giving you some guidance.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT) 
 
Philip,

Don't worry, you did not sound like you were telling me off. I put in the debates my own opinion. You can access the one about athisim [[Debate:Is atheism a religion|here]] and the one about homosexual marrage [[Debate:Should gay marrage be allowed?|here]]. Thank you for telling me that. I was wondering why nobody was responding. Thank you, again. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

==Question of the Week==

I believe that Bush is a good president in most aspects. I don't use the e-mail thing. sorry... [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 09:51, 30 April 2008 (EDT) 
:That's cool with the email thing. What aspects do you think that he is good with? --[[User:Rocky]]

:Pro-life, same-sex marriages, gun control... [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Spelling ==

I would suggest that you use Firefox as your browser and install the spell-checker. It would appear that you are in need of some assistance. (I'm trying to put this as nicely as I can.) [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style]] page has spell-checker downloads under "spelling" if you are interested. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|Leave me a death threat!!]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==Matt Shepard==
If what you included was real information, then cite it; otherwise, it will be removed as possible libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:55, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Theistic Evolution ==

Rocky, does your "theistic evolution" include one Adam and Eve? Real evolution does not. But Christian doctrine relies on one Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids in [[Humani Generis]] teaching anything contrary to that, for obvious reasons: the meaning of [[Jesus]] depends on Adam.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:Did Adam and Eve really exist? I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I don't care if they really existed because it is more important to link Adam and Eve symbolically than it is to say that they actually existed and that people that don't believe it are wrong. Jesus was the new Adam, symbolically because Jesus was man's next attempt to be sinless (for lack of a better word). Maybe there was a humanlike creature, one male and one female, that came from evolution to be Adam and Eve (again, I wasn't there). However, what I believe is more important than saying that they existed and you shouldn't say anything different than that, is less important than how much, symbolically, Adam and Eve are intertwind. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:: Jesus's life and [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]] make little sense without one [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], who could not have existed under any [[theory of evolution]]. What theistic evolution does is persuade people to abandon [[faith]] in [[Jesus]] without immediately realizing it. Clever, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

:::It is pretty clever. However, why are Adam and Eve not known symbollically instead of reality? What I mean by that is, why does it matter if they really existed because the story symbolizes a lot more than their existance, right? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:::Also, how could Jesus' life and the Crusifiction and Resurrection not have made sense without Adam and Eve? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:::: Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection was redemption for the original sin committed by one Adam and Eve, which passed through them to all descendants. This is [[Christianity]].

:::: My own objection to the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific. But I point out there is really no such thing as theistic (Christian) evolution, except as way-station leading someone away from Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Whilst strict theistic evolution would have no Adam and Eve, a modified version could have God creating an actual Adam and Eve, or creating souls for a pair of existing hominids who then became Adam and Eve. But of course this is a compromise view because the naturalistic evolutionary view simply doesn't fit the biblical account, and if you are going to reject the naturalistic view, why not just stick with what the Bible says?

Andy is right that theistic evolution leads people to abandon faith in Jesus (although that doesn't mean that it will always happen).

The problem with suggesting that Adam and Eve are merely symbolic is that while symbolism is useful for making conceptual connections and illustrating ideas, it is not a ''basis'' for doctrine. So if we say that Jesus came to save us from sin, which was introduced with Adam and Eve, but that Adam and Eve are only symbolic, then symbols can't introduce sin, so sin is either non-existent or symbolic, and in either case we don't need to be saved from it, which means that we don't need Jesus. The following quote is from an atheist who that understands this better than many Christians:
{{QuoteBox|It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.}}

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

P.S. I just read this:
{{QuoteBox|Sherwood Taylor, Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, said in 1949:
 
‘In England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.'[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5737]}}
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that God guided evolution, unlike most people seem to believe, which is that most people that believe in evolution are athiests. I do think, however, that Adam and Eve did not exist. I think that sin is human beings going to their animalistic instincts. For instance, people that chose to have sex with multiple partners that they don't really care about. That is like an animal because all animals except humans are not capable of loving one another and simply have sex to procreate. Also, when someone kills someone else, that could be a territorial thing. For instance, if someone broke into my house, I would be scared and might kill them because they are invading my territory. However, with this one, humans can be worse than animals because humans are the only animals that kill for pleasure. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

PS. Although I will not be back for some time, please do respond because when I come back on June 1st, I want to know somebody wanted to answer. Thanks. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Aqualung

2008-05-13T02:00:19Z

Rocky: Almost all of Side A

Aqualung

2008-05-13T01:43:44Z

Rocky: Track Breakdown (Begining)

User talk:Rocky

2008-05-13T01:29:37Z

Rocky: /* Theistic Evolution */

User:Rocky

2008-05-13T01:26:55Z

Rocky:

User talk:Rocky

2008-05-13T01:25:41Z

Rocky: re:/* Theistic Evolution */

Talk:Matthew Shepard

2008-05-12T21:44:52Z

Rocky: re:/* Definition of a hate crime */

--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 12:26, 17 December 2007 (EST)Could it be that guys who'd brutally murdered someone might just lie about their motives to avoid being charged with a hate crime? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:59, 14 November 2007 (EST)

I'm almost looking forward to reading about a bunch of gay dudes that murder a straight guy because he is straight and see how quickly right-wingers pull out the 'hate crime' card.

:Conservapedia's quote from 20/20 is completely irrelevant. If these two individuals are so lacking in morals that they are willing to kill (based on Shepard's sexuality or not) they would obviously be willing to lie as to their motives to avoid a potential hate crime prosecution. Hate crime is a substantially more punishable offense then a non-hate crime. I am sure their lawyer was involved in that statement. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 20:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

{{unsigned|incide}}

: Check out [[Mary Stachowicz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: HA! I knew it. Still, I really can't see this as being a hate crime. He didn't kill her because she was straight, he killed her because he had "issues". It looks as if he would have killer her if she continuously told him not to eat cheeseburgers (and inane example I know but I'm trying to prove a point.) Had he randomly picked her out of a crowd as being staright and killed her for that, then it would be a hate crime--beyond any shadow of a doubt. But savagely murdering someone because she disagreed with his sexuality is indicative of something far more serious.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 09:28, 13 December 2007 (EST)
::So the issues didn't involve hate at all? Did he kill her out of love? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 13 December 2007 (EST)

:::That is asinine! Of course he hated her. But he hated ''her''. Her the person. Her the person that ragged on him all the time for being gay. Does her sexuality come into play? Yes. But inasmuch as it was one of the driving forces behind her nagging along with her 'religious devotion'. Had that not occured and he not be as "troubled" as he is, this would not have happened.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 10:01, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::::What you're implying is when someone who is GAY kills someone straight it is not a hate crime, but it IS A HATE CRIME when someone straight kills the gay person. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:::::No. clearly, you've misunderstood what i wrote. but i'm guessing that there is very little i can do to convince you otherwise.
:::::A question, then. If the roles were reversed. If a gay person who tried to "convert" a straight person (putting aside your archaic view of morality for just a moment because i know that it will come into play) and the straight person kills the gay person: whould THAT be a hate crime? Or would the straight person be justified?
::::::There's no justification for murdering someone at all, and no, my morals are not archaic, and no, you are to cease rocking the boat here, because all you're trying to do is to put some sort of justification for homosexuality here...which clearly shows your own hatred for this site and the persons who hold fast to those morals you claim are archaic. It stops now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::i'm not trying to justifying anything. i'm stating my opinion. you would do the same and should do the same. I thought America still had the first amendment. Has this been revoked? Am i not allowed to say what I believe to be true? Should the fact that it angers people be enough for it to be censored? You have the right to belive and say whatever you want. This website is proof positive of that. What you don't have the rigth to do is tell ME what I CAN or CANNOT say. --[[User:Incide|Incide]] 14:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::Then tell me, Incide...do you have a First Amendment right to come on to this website and force your opinion on others? I don't think you do. The only reason you are here is because you cannot stand conservatism; you cannot stand those who criticise homosexuality for what it is and what it could do to people; you cannot stand those who created this website to promote those values you claim are archaic...and if we object to what you say and how you say it, well, then you complain it's your First Amendment rights that are violated. Have a nice day! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Oh yes, I forgot something...you have '''NO''' First Amendment rights here. Your IP hails from either Saint Laurent, Quebec, or Toronto, Ontario; both of which are in Canada, which means you're Canadian. Therefore, you are not an American citizen under our constitution by which you could have First Amendment rights. Bye. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::It's a private website, Incide, they control the content, and do not have to justify deletions. Unlike wikipedia, where more than one opinion is allowed and you can only be banned by blatant vandalism. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== Definition of a hate crime ==

Look, before discussing any ferther, I would like to just simply put down the definition of a hate crime. Here is, according to the American Heratige Dictionary (verbatim out of it):

n. A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group<ref>hate crime. Dictionary.com. ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.'' Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate crime] (accessed: May 03, 2008).
</ref>

:Irrelevant. At no point was the crime portrayed by the prosecution as a hate crime and the men were never convicted of any hate crime. The only people who called this a hate crime were pro-gay activists who were more concerned with promoting their agenda and forcing their views upon the public than with the facts of the case or even with Mr. Shepard's life. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::The men were not convicted of a hate crime because there was no law in place at the time stating that killing a homosexual for any reason besides they were a homosexual was a hate crime. Also, as was once stated in the article (I guess someone deleated it), it stated that they wanted to rob a homosexual man. This means that they did not just target Sheppard, but any homosexual man. Also, I only put that in there because of the conversation above because I wanted to make it clear what was a hate crime for them.

User:Rocky

2008-05-12T21:38:52Z

Rocky:

User talk:Rocky

2008-05-12T21:35:30Z

Rocky: /* Theistic Evolution */

User talk:Rocky

2008-05-12T21:35:18Z

Rocky: re:/* Theistic Evolution */

Amused To Death

2008-05-07T01:13:54Z

Rocky:

[[Image:Roger_Waters_Amused_to_Death.jpg‎]]

'''''Amused To Death''''' is [[Roger Waters]]' fifth [[studio album]] since leaving [[Pink Floyd]]. It was recorded between the years of 1988 and 1992. Like most other Waters works, it is a [[concept album]].

== Background ==

The album was inspired by the [[Neil Postman]] book ''[[Amusing Ourselves To Death]]''. The album explores how people come to watch a lot of TV and how we are sucked into the mass media. It goes on to criticize the First Gulf War ("The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range" and "Perfect Sense"). It also talks about the protests for democracy in China in Tienanmen Square ("Watching TV").
== Track Listing ==

#The Ballard Of Bill Hubbard (4:20)
#What God Wants, Part I (6:00)
#Perfect Sense, Part I (4:16)
#Perfect Sense, Part II (2:50)
#The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range (4:43)
#Late Home Tonight, Part I (4:00)
#Late Home Tonight, Part II (2:13)
#Too Much Rope (5:47)
#What God Wants, Part II (3:41)
#What God Wants, Part III (4:08)
#Watching TV (6:07)
#Three Wishes (6:50)
#It's A Miracle (8:30)
#Amused To Death (9:06)
 
Total Time-72:45

==BBC 1 ==
The [[BBC]] would not air the first single of the album, "What God Wants, Part I", because of its "touchy" lyrics. Waters was outraged.

==Track Breakdown==

===The Ballard Of Bill Hubbard===

This is a slower paced song on the album. This is the first song on the album, coming before "What God Wants, Part I". This song is about a man who, during war, had to leave a man who he liked very much in no man's land. It was one of the most horrifying experiences in this man's life. This is trying to show that war is not just in the past, but it leaves scars that stay forever.

===What God Wants===
What God Wants criticizes the church for being a hypocrisy. It is split up into three parts, making the total time of the song to be 13 minutes and 48 seconds.

===="What God Wants, Part I"====

This part of the song appears second on the album, after "The Ballard Of Bill Hubbard" and before "[[Perfect Sense]], Part I". This part tells us that the media has an effect on the person to the extent that the media choses what happens, even if that person does not agree. Roger Waters said about the first Gulf conflict, "I'm very upset by religious dogma, I get angry, gobsmacked in fact when I hear George Bush saying that God was on their side during the Gulf war. It's amazing that in 1992, one of the most powerful men in the world can reduce political rhetoric to that level. But that's what he has to do, to get votes and maintain power and then use that power to help the American automobile industry." This song says that we as human beings do not care about that and just live with it.

===="What God Wants, Part II"====

This part of the song is the ninth song on the album, after "Too Much Rope" and before "What God Wants, Part III". This part, much like the first part, tells us that although God wants good, God also wants bad in the world. The song begins by hearing an evangelical priest preaching on television. The priest says the following:

"Do you believe in a better day 
Do you have faith in a golden way 
If you do then we must come together this day 
Come together as one united 
Television audience 
Brought together by the sound of my voice 
United united financially united socially 
United spiritually and all possible ways 
Through the power of money 
And the power of prayers"

The priest not only replaces the word church with "Television audience", but also replaces the word God with "Money" thereby suggesting that God is money. This shows that the priest is twisting the word of God to simply fit his own need. Then, the song says that although "God don't want small potatoes", God also wants to associate It self with small towns that are filled with right-winged conservatives. The end of the song states that God wants for people not to find out what is really going on.

===="What God Wants, Part III"====

This is the final part of "What God Wants". It is the tenth song on the album, after "What God Wants, Part II" and before "Watching TV". This song has hope that someday, we (the human race) will be able to escape the influence of the media. It says towards the being of the song, 
"And in banks across the world 
Christians Moslems Hindus Jews 
And people of every 
Race creed color tint or hue 
Get down on their knees and pray".

Although the media is pumping out propaganda, the line, "But the monkey's not watching" seems to say that humans can, hopefully, be able to overcome the influence of the mass media.

====The Big Picture====

In all three tracks, the Alien profit tells the monkey "Don't be surprised", like it was obvious. In a few instances, the animal does what he is told to do. However, the last time, the monkey simply writes down what is being said, not absorbing it. 

===Perfect Sense===
Perfect Sense is split up into two parts. When put together, the total length of the track is 7 minutes and 6 seconds.

====Perfect Sense, Part One====

"Perfect Sense, Part One" is the third track on the album. It is preceded by "[[What God Wants|What God Wants, Part One]]" and is followed by "Perfect Sense, Part Two". It is 4 minutes and 16 seconds. It is about holy wars. In the first part, it says "Memory's a stranger/History's for fools", which probably is talking about the [[Crusades]] and relating it to George Bush Sr. going into the Persian Gulf. In the Crusades, the [[Pope]] told people that God was on their side to take over the Holy Land. However, they lost the Crusades. This is a comment that Roger Waters made regarding something Bush Sr. said:

<blockquote>
"I'm very upset by religious dogma, I get angry, gob smacked in fact when I hear George Bush saying that God was on their side during the Gulf war. It's amazing that in 1992, one of the most powerful men in the world can reduce political rhetoric to that level. But that's what he has to do, to get votes and maintain power and then use that power to help the American automobile industry."
</blockquote>

Then, after the kid says "Mama Mama, the President's a fool", a line which indicates that he thinks that Bush was out of his mind when he said that comment. Then, after that, the people of power (Wall Street, Joint Chiefs of Staff, et cetera) all say that the kid is insane for thinking that ("Don't make us laugh, you're a smart kid"). The song ends with them giving "him command of a nuclear submarine/Sent him back in search of the Garden of Eden", suggesting that the Persian Gulf War was fought simply for religious reasons.

====Perfect Sense, Part Two====

"Perfect Sense, Part Two" is the fourth track on the album. It comes after "Perfect Sense, Part One" and before "The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range". It is 2 minutes and 51 seconds. It is about how it would make perfect sense to attack because there would be money in the picture, as stated by the chorus of the song:

"Can't you see 
It all makes perfect sense 
Expressed in dollars and cents, 
Pounds, schillings, and pence 
Can't you see 
It all makes perfect sense"

Also, you can hear the audio of what sounds to be a soccer game, but what is in fact talking about blowing up an oil rig. The fact that it is announced like a game suggests that people in power do not care that people die in war, and therefore, they think of war as simply a game.

===The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range===
This is the fifth song on the album, coming after "Perfect Sense, Part II" and before "Late Home Tonight, Part I". The first verse of the song talks about the leaders of the countries loving wars, although they seem like they do not ("You wear the right masks") and about how they love wars ("A comfort a friend/Only upstaged in the end/By the Uzi machine gun/Does the recoil remind you/Remind you of sex"). The song's chorus states, "Old man what the hell you gonna kill next/Old timer who you gonna kill next", showing that they just kill for no reason. 
 
The next verse talks about how the troops are sick of what they are seeing and find it sickening (Sick of the mess they find/On their desert stage"). It also talks about how we are out of range and how for being the leader, you seem like you do something, but you simply are loving life while they are dying for us ("Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris/I swam in your pools/And lay under your palm trees"). 
 
The third, and final verse talks about how we simply talk about it like it is entertainment ("Just love those laser guided bombs/They're really great/For righting wrongs/You hit the target/And win the game/From bars 3,000 miles away").
===Late Home Tonight===
This is the sixth and seventh song on the album. Altogether, the track is 6 minutes and 12 seconds long.
====Late Home Tonight, Part I====
This comes after the song "The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range" and before "Late Home Tonight, Part II". This song talks about how you could be a military hero in this country, but nobody will care about the person that you killed on the opposite side. For instance, it says "The phantom in the hedgerow dip its wings", which refers to the person that he killed that was involved with the solder becoming a hero. Also, it says "The beauty of military life/No questions only orders and flight only flight" meaning that you don't think about if it is wrong to fight, just about impressing your commander. The lines, "When knives pierce autumn leaves/But that's okay see the children bleed/It'll look great on the TV" refers to how television stations only think about ratings and they put on pro-violence propoganda.
====Late Home Tonight, Part II====
This song come after "Late Home Tonight, Part I" and before "Too Much Rope". This track is about how you are a celebrated hero in America after you have just blown something up, thereby killing many people ("New boy you're a hero take this cigar"). However, it also says that there were Americans that were killed in the exact same why as the person killed the people America was at war with ("Our American friends are late home tonight").
===Too Much Rope===
This is the eight track on the album. It comes after "Late Home Tonight, Part II" and before "What God Wants, Part II". This song talks about how we give too much credit to certain speaches, and how people cannot think for themselves anymore ("They significantly edge/Closer to the gold/Each man has his price Bob/And yours was pretty low"). The song's chorus states, "Give any one species too much rope/And they'll f*** it up", which means that if you really care about the speech, even if it is trying to do good, you end up messing it up in some way. The song goes on to talk about how the things that we consider moving are not really moving, yet we find them moving because we bearly see things of compassion ("Tears burn my eyes/What does it mean/This tear jerking scene/Beamed into my home/That it moves me so much/Why all the fuss/It's only two humans being/It's only two humans being").
===Watching TV===
This song is the tenth song on the album. It comes after "What God Wants, Part III" and before "Three Wishes". This song is about the shooting in Tiananmen Square in which a college student was killed. The song is written with a sympathetic point of view towards the girl who was shot ("Lost my baby there"). It describes her as being a pastry cheif who was the perfect woman. The song talks about how, because she was shot on TV, people were much more sensitive towards it. It goes on to state that she is different than other people that die because she died on TV ("And she is different from Cro-Magnon man/She's different from Anne Boleyn/She is different from the Rosenbergs/And from the unknown Jew/She is different from the unknown Nicaraguan/Half superstar half victim/She's a victor star conceptually new/And she is different from the Dodo/And from the Kankanbono/She is different from the Aztec/And from the Cherokee/She's everybody's sister/She's symbolic of our failure/She's the one in fifty million/Who can help us to be free/Because she died on TV").
===Three Wishes===
This is the eleventh song on the album. It comes after "Watching TV" and before "It's A Miricle". This song is about how we are never satisfied with things, and how we want so many things that we cannot ever remember the people that are really important. The words that are stated at the begining are, "At first I wanted to buy a big one, but then, I hadn't got enough money so I had to buy a smaller one. And if I think, I bought the bigger one, then, it would've been the way I wanted it." This means that we are quick to judge what we want. The person later goes on to say that she is satisfyed with the smaller one. However, in the song, a gennie appears and says that he has three wishes, spending it on:

#"I wish they were all happy in the Lebanon"
#"Wish somebody'd help me write this song"
#"I wish when I was young/My old man had not been gone"

However, as can be seen from the song's chorus, there was another thing that he overlooked. It would've been for love, but he cannot because he has used up his three wishes. The chorus goes like this: 
 
"There's something in the air 
And you don't know what it is 
You see someone through the window 
Who you've just learned to miss 
And the road leads on to glory but 
You've used up your last wish 
Your last wish 
And you want her to come home"

===It's A Miricle===
This song is about how, under pressure, countries have stopped fighting because they want to keep up trade deals. Also, it tells about how some people chose to help people out instead of simply leaving them ("A doctor in Manhattan/Saved a dying man for free"). The song says, "By the grace of God Almighty/And the pressures of the marketplace/The human race has civilized itself", the line "By the grace of God Almighty" signifying that it hardly happens anymore that it is something, almost divine. It also has some lines about how Rogers strongly disliked Andrew Loydd Webber. Webber stole a thing from the [[Pink Floyd]] song Echos. Webber supposedly stole a part of the song and put it into one of his operas. On the matter, Waters stated,

{{Cquote|Yeah, the beginning of that bloody Phantom song is from Echoes. *DAAAA-da-da-da-da-da* [sic]. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. It's the same time signature - it's 12/8 - and it's the same structure and it's the same notes and it's the same everything. B******. It probably is actionable. It really is! But I think that life's too long to bother with suing Andrew f***ing Lloyd Webber.<ref>http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/ptr/pfloyd/interview/roger2.html</ref>}}

So, Rogers wrote the following lines into the song,

"We cower in our shelters 
With our hands over our ears 
Lloyd-Webber's awful stuff 
Runs for years and years and years 
An earthquake hits the theater 
But the operetta lingers 
Then the piano lid comes down 
And breaks his f***ing fingers 
It's a miracle"

===Amused To Death===
This song is the last song on the album, coming after "It's A Miricle". In this song, there are people asking doctors why they are sick. It also asks why is TV so important, and why we keep it so high in our lives ("What is the heart life of a colour TV/What is the shelf life of a teenage queen"). It also says that we are becoming more emotionless as time goes on ("Attracted by the peeling away of feeling"). Then, it goes on to having aliens coming down to earth and finding Earth completly dead. The aliens are confused and conduct many tests, which is futile at figuring out any information. (They ran down every lead/They repeated every test/They checked out all the data on their lists/And then the alien anthropologists/Admitted they were still perplexed".) It then says that the only reason is that, "This species has amused itself to death", refering to humans being stuck to the TV and other media.

== Charts ==
#"Amused To Death"-UK, 8th Place (1992) 
#"Amused To Death"-Billboard (North America), 21st Place (Billboard 200) 
#"What God Wants, Part I"-Billboard (North America), 2nd Place (Billboard Mainstream Rock)

== Singles ==

#Side A-What God Wants, Part I Side B-Three Wishes 
#Side A-What God Wants, Part I Side B-What God Wants, Part III

== External links ==

Please note, some of the links contain language not sutible for young children.

* [http://www.rogerwaters.org/atdanalysis.html Song-by-song analysis of the album]
* [http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/roger_waters/the_ballad_of_bill_hubbard.html The Ballard Of Bill Hubbard Lyrics]
* [http://www.lyricscafe.com/w/waters_roger/what_god_wants_part_i.html What God Wants, Part I Lyrics]
* [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Perfect-Sense-Part-I-II-lyrics-Roger-Waters/A2D843CF7198E09B48256C05000AE9AB Perfect Sense Lyrics]
* [http://www.lyricsdepot.com/roger-waters/the-bravery-of-being-out-of-range.html The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range Lyrics]
* [http://www.lyricsdownload.com/waters-roger-late-home-tonight-part-i-lyrics.html Late Home Tonight, Part I Lyrics]
* [http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/roger_waters/late_home_tonight_part_ii.html Late Home Tonight, Part II Lyrics]
* [http://www.lyricsdepot.com/roger-waters/too-much-rope.html Too Much Rope Lyrics]
* [http://www.lyricscafe.com/w/waters_roger/what_god_wants_part_ii.html What God Wants, Part II Lyrics]
* [http://www.hotlyrics.net/lyrics/R/Roger_Waters/What_God_Wants__Part_III.html What God Wants, Part III Lyrics]
* [http://www.lyricsdownload.com/waters-roger-watching-tv-lyrics.html Watching TV Lyrics]
* [http://www.lyricsdepot.com/roger-waters/three-wishes.html Three Wishes Lyrics]
* [http://www.lyricsdepot.com/roger-waters/its-a-miracle.html It's A Miracle Lyrics]
* [http://www.lyricsdepot.com/roger-waters/amused-to-death.html Amused To Death Lyrics]

[[category:albums]]

Aqualung

2008-05-07T01:12:40Z

Rocky:

Rocky Horror Picture Show

2008-05-07T01:09:16Z

Rocky:

[[Image:The_Rocky_Horror_Picture_Show.jpg‎|left]]
The '''Rocky Horror Picture Show''' is a 1975 [[midnight movie]], known for showing campy depictions of [[homosexuality]] and transexuality. The film stars [[Tim Curry]], [[Susan Surandon]], and [[Barry Bostwick]]. The film is a parody of cheaply made [[B-Movies]] during the 1950's. It is based upon [[The Rocky Horror Show]]. 
 
 
==Plot==
''This article is very short. You can help by expanding it.'' 
 
 
==Release==
The film was released by [[20th Century Fox]] in 1975. The film was not a success. Then, Fox tried to put it with [[Phantom of the Paradise]] and released on collage campuses. It was still not a big hit. However, it started to be released as a midnight movie, with people absolutly loving the film. People would go and "act out" the film. To this day, the film has never been pulled from theaters, and it is still showed as a midnight movie. It is the longest running movie today. 
 
The film was, and still is, usually panned by critics. Most critics did not like the oversexual nature of the film, as well as the lack of a definate plot. 
 
In 2005, the [[Library of Congress]] selected it for national preservation because the film was "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." 
 
 
==Cast==
* [[Tim Curry]]-Dr. Frank-n-Furter
* [[Susan Surandon]]-Janet Weiss
* [[Barry Bostwick]]-Brad Majors
* [[Richard 'O Brien]]-Riff Raff
* [[Patricia Quinn]]-Magenta
* [[Nell Campbell]]-Columbia
* [[Johnathan Adams]]-Dr. Everett Von Scott
* [[Peter Hinwood]]-Rocky Horror
* [[Charles Gray]]-The Crimologist
* [[Meatloaf]]-Eddie 
 
 
==Home Video==
Some parts of the film were released on Super-8 video. The film was released on video in 1994. The film is currently available. The 25th Annaversary Edition contains both the UK Version and the US version. In the UK version, it contains the song Superheros, which was edited out in the US version because it was thought of as being too depressing. 
 
 
==Songs==
* Science Fiction/Double Feature (Opening Credits)
* Dammit Jannet (The Wedding)
* Over At The Frankenstein Place (Going to Dr. Frank-n-Furter's castle)
* The Time Warp (At the party in the castle)
* Sweet Transvestite (At the party in the castle)
* Sward Of Damacles (Right after Rocky is created)
* I Can Make You A Man (Right after Rocky is created)
* Hot Patootie-Bless My Soul (Right after Eddie comes out of being frozen)
* I Can Make You A Man (Reprise) (As Rocky and Dr. Frank are walking to their "bridal suite")
* Once In A While (Deleated)
* Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a Touch Me (As Rocky and Janet are doing it)
* Eddie (Whilst at dinner)
* You'd Better Wise Up (Right after dinner and right before the floor show)
* Rose Tint My World (The floor show song)
* Don't Dream It, Be It (In the pool)
* Wild And Untamed Thing (Right after the pool sequence)
* I'm Going Home (Right after floor show)
* Superheroes (After Magenta and Riff Raff blast off into outer space)
* Science Fiction/Double Feature (Reprise) (End Credits)

[[Category:Movies]]

Rocky Horror Picture Show

2008-05-07T01:08:01Z

Rocky:

[[Image:The_Rocky_Horror_Picture_Show.jpg‎]]

The '''Rocky Horror Picture Show''' is a 1975 [[midnight movie]], known for showing campy depictions of [[homosexuality]] and transexuality. The film stars [[Tim Curry]], [[Susan Surandon]], and [[Barry Bostwick]]. The film is a parody of cheaply made [[B-Movies]] during the 1950's. It is based upon [[The Rocky Horror Show]]. 
 
 
==Plot==
''This article is very short. You can help by expanding it.'' 
 
 
==Release==
The film was released by [[20th Century Fox]] in 1975. The film was not a success. Then, Fox tried to put it with [[Phantom of the Paradise]] and released on collage campuses. It was still not a big hit. However, it started to be released as a midnight movie, with people absolutly loving the film. People would go and "act out" the film. To this day, the film has never been pulled from theaters, and it is still showed as a midnight movie. It is the longest running movie today. 
 
The film was, and still is, usually panned by critics. Most critics did not like the oversexual nature of the film, as well as the lack of a definate plot. 
 
In 2005, the [[Library of Congress]] selected it for national preservation because the film was "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." 
 
 
==Cast==
* [[Tim Curry]]-Dr. Frank-n-Furter
* [[Susan Surandon]]-Janet Weiss
* [[Barry Bostwick]]-Brad Majors
* [[Richard 'O Brien]]-Riff Raff
* [[Patricia Quinn]]-Magenta
* [[Nell Campbell]]-Columbia
* [[Johnathan Adams]]-Dr. Everett Von Scott
* [[Peter Hinwood]]-Rocky Horror
* [[Charles Gray]]-The Crimologist
* [[Meatloaf]]-Eddie 
 
 
==Home Video==
Some parts of the film were released on Super-8 video. The film was released on video in 1994. The film is currently available. The 25th Annaversary Edition contains both the UK Version and the US version. In the UK version, it contains the song Superheros, which was edited out in the US version because it was thought of as being too depressing. 
 
 
==Songs==
* Science Fiction/Double Feature (Opening Credits)
* Dammit Jannet (The Wedding)
* Over At The Frankenstein Place (Going to Dr. Frank-n-Furter's castle)
* The Time Warp (At the party in the castle)
* Sweet Transvestite (At the party in the castle)
* Sward Of Damacles (Right after Rocky is created)
* I Can Make You A Man (Right after Rocky is created)
* Hot Patootie-Bless My Soul (Right after Eddie comes out of being frozen)
* I Can Make You A Man (Reprise) (As Rocky and Dr. Frank are walking to their "bridal suite")
* Once In A While (Deleated)
* Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a Touch Me (As Rocky and Janet are doing it)
* Eddie (Whilst at dinner)
* You'd Better Wise Up (Right after dinner and right before the floor show)
* Rose Tint My World (The floor show song)
* Don't Dream It, Be It (In the pool)
* Wild And Untamed Thing (Right after the pool sequence)
* I'm Going Home (Right after floor show)
* Superheroes (After Magenta and Riff Raff blast off into outer space)
* Science Fiction/Double Feature (Reprise) (End Credits)

[[Category:Movies]]

Reefer Madness

2008-05-07T01:06:26Z

Rocky:

[[Image:ReeferMadnessPoster.jpg‎]]

'''Reefer Madness''' is an early 1930's explotation film. The film is about the dangers of doing marajuanna. However, because of the film's campy acting, the film has become popular amongst pot heads.

==Plot==
''This article is short. You can help by expanding it.''

==History==
The film was originally financed by church groups. However, when the budget got too big, the film was sold to a producer. The producer released the film on the explotation circut. The film did not do very well until the 1970's when it started being shown as a [[midnight movie]]. It became very popular amongst pot heads. This is because, the film is overacted and some of the things in it are compleatly outragous (for instance, the heroine jumps out the window instead of going to jail). In 2004, [[20th Century Fox]] as well as [[Legend Films]] released a color version of the film. The color is done very weirdly to keep with the campy style of the original. The film has fallen into the public domain, making it available for anyone to download or put onto DVD. On [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/reefer_madness/ rottentommatos.com], the film holds a 50% rating. On yahoo.com, the film holds a C+ rating from it's users.
==Availablility==
The film is currently available on DVD.
==External Links==
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6696582420128930236&q=reefer+madness&ei=J8ocSP_fAoGMrgK04eW-Ag&hl=en Reefer Madness on Google video]

User:Rocky

2008-05-06T01:27:13Z

Rocky: /* Pages Worked On */

Debate:Is War Murder?

2008-05-06T01:25:42Z

Rocky:

{{Debate}}
What is war? As defined by the American Heratige Dictionary as being:

"n. 
1. 
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. 
b. The period of such conflict. 
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. 
d. A condition of active antagonism or contention: ''a war of words; a price war.'' 
e. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: ''the war against acid rain.'' 
2. 
a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: ''a war of words; a price war.'' 
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: ''the war against acid rain.''

Is it murder?

==Yes==
War is nothing more than two countries that chose to kill each other over something stupid like land or religion. Wars is shooting people and ending people's lives. Isn't that murder? It is not considered murder because it is our enemies that are dead. But let's look at that for one second. That is someone's child dead. A mother's baby that was just killed. If that happens to an American solder, people dispise the Iraqui troops because a mother is crying because she has just lost her baby. However, when an Iraqui solder dies, fighting for what they believe in, we do not care, although their mother is crying in pain because her baby is not alive either. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Debate:Is War Murder?

2008-05-06T01:25:20Z

Rocky:

Debate:Is War Murder?

2008-05-06T01:24:14Z

Rocky: New page: {{Debate}} What is war? As defined by the American Heratige Dictionary as being: "n. 1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, stat...

{{Debate}}
What is war? As defined by the American Heratige Dictionary as being:

"n. 
1. 
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. 
b. The period of such conflict. 
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. 
d. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. 
e. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain. 
2. 
a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. 
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

Is it murder?

==Yes==
War is nothing more than two countries that chose to kill each other over something stupid like land or religion. Wars is shooting people and ending people's lives. Isn't that murder? It is not considered murder because it is our enemies that are dead. But let's look at that for one second. That is someone's child dead. A mother's baby that was just killed. If that happens to an American solder, people dispise the Iraqui troops because a mother is crying because she has just lost her baby. However, when an Iraqui solder dies, fighting for what they believe in, we do not care, although their mother is crying in pain because her baby is not alive either.

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-06T00:08:21Z

Rocky: /* Civil partnerships rather than marriages */

{{Debate-religion}}
{{Debate-politics}}
{{Debate}}
This is basically a forum. You can chat with your friends, and reminise with them about that special person that you will never meet because you were too busy here answering if gay marrage should be legaized. So, answer. The sooner you do, the faster you might meet that special someone. 
 
==Yes==
Yes, it should be allowed. For all too long, there has been discrimination in this country. For instance, racism was considered normal for a long time. However, although people might think that there is no discrimination going on in America today, there is prejudice against the homosexual population. The discrimination is that they are denied their free right to, well, equal rights. The right of being married. One of this country's fundimental principals was to have everyone come here and be equals. Although that promise wasn't nessicerally held up (slaves are still people, yet they were still imprisoned for many years after this country was founded), do we need to fight another war in order to try to get homosexual marrage allowed (a very long strech, but you get the point). Discrimination was tolerated at one point in America. Can't we leave that point behind us? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can. They already have the exact same rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another would be giving them special rights based on a behavioral preference. They choose to engage in homosexuality. Note that when I say they’re “choosing”, I’m not talking about whether they’re born that way or not. I mean they’re choosing their lifestyle. Born that way or not, they still choose to engage in that particular sexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose to engage in their sexual acts. So, it is a behavioral choice, and legalizing it would be giving them a special right based on a behavior. That is inequality. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't quite see why they would marry someone that is heterosexual if they are homosexual. I mean, look at it this way. Let's say that it was illigal for everyone that was not Roman Catholic to be married. Should it not be legalized for other religons to do that. Because, I mean, religion is simply the truth that you prefer to believe (for catholics, it is that Jesus was the messiah, for example). Should it not be legal for other religions to marry, even though they prefer not to be Roman Catholics? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

The point is that they can marry. You're giving examples of people who can't marry at all, but that doesn't fit the current scenario of things. Homosexuals might not want to marry the opposite gender, but they have the right to, just like a heterosexual person can. The point is that they all have the same rights, and to allow them to wed the same sex would be to give out special rights. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, homosexuals can marry those of opposite gender, but, if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender, so everyone will still have equal rights. If gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody, why shouldn't it be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Because you're giving out rights based on a behavioral preference. It's saying, "I prefer to do this, so it should be legal because I want to do it." Besides, who says that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone? I would dispute that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

If you want to do something why shouldn't it be legal? The only answer I can think of is if it hurts someone. If gay marriage indeed hurts someone, who does it hurt? (And I'm not giving out rights based on behavioral preference; everyone would get the right to a homosexual marriage just like everyone gets the right to a heterosexual marriage.) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It hurts society. We already have moral standards that are in place that have been there a long time. The standard for marriage is one man and one woman who are of legal age. If we redefine the standard, then we move the line back a little. If you set the precedence that it's okay to move that line in regards to morality as we see fit, then where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? And it is a special right, because it is giving out a right because a particular group of people hold to that behavior. It's like drug users who want drugs to be legalized because they like to use them. That's giving in to a person's behavior. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the Biblical standard for marriage is "One man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford". You need to start getting all huffy about how abandoning this Godly standard has hurt our country. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Is society really hurt just because it stops reflecting your morals? There have been other opinions that had "been there a long time" before they got changed: see [[slavery]]. The government has to protect its citizens and residents and so it cannot allow bestiality or pedophilia because neither a (non-human) animal nor a child is mentally capable of consenting to sex. Polygamy is a little trickier. While I don't object to it in principle, it generally seems to lead to abusive husbands and male-dominated societies and so the government could certainly outlaw it.
And homosexuality is not like drug use because drug users actually ''do'' harm society; they make roads more dangerous and tend to commit more crimes than non-drug users. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:56, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't forget that [[Miscegenation]] used to be illegal, too. :-P --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

How are you asking that first question? Are you asking my morals in particular, or in a generalistic sense? If it's my morals that society no longer reflects, well, I think it's morally wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. So, yea, socitey would be hurt real bad. What I'm saying about changing values is that it makes things easier to pass that were at one time considered terrible. Let me give you an example:

An 18 year old can marry anyone they want without their parents permission. But, a 17 year old can't. But is a 17 year old that much different from an 18 year old? Most would say they're not. So shouldn't a 17 year old be able to marry as he chooses as well? Really, that makes pretty good sense. But, a 16 year old isn't that different from a 17 year old, so why can't he marry as he wants? And on and on it goes until you get to, "Well, a 5 year old isn't that much different than a 6 year old, so hey should be able to get married." My point is that it's just a real slippery sloap. Simillarly, how do you tell the very next thing after homosexuality that they can't when you just made the exception for homosexuals? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, yes, I am asking about your morals. I really don't care what society thinks. If society thinks that it is okay to steal, rape, and murder, I don't care. I do care about what the government thinks, because, even if society condones murder, people will not be allowed to murder each other as long as the government opposes it. The government does not need any moral standard to outlaw theft, rape, and murder, as I said before: the government has to protect its citizens. As a result, the government should, and would, outlaw theft, rape, and murder without any morals.

As to your slippery slope example, in 1971 the minimun voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. 37 years later, there are still no supporters of suffrage for 15 year olds. I can't see why allowing gay marriage would be so different. Finally, I haven't made an exception for homosexuals until you prove that they harm society. If you do that I will oppose gay marriage. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:31, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait. Government doesn't need any moral standards? I disagree. There have been lots of governments that kill their own citizens when it's convenient for them to do so. Everybody needs an objective standard, otherwise your just making you morals up out of your own preferences. The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because 18 years olds were dieing in Vietnam but couldn't elect the officials who sent them there. That made no sense. The reason it isn't continuing to be lowered is because people realize that there must be some standard. If you lower to 17, then why not 16. If 16, why not 15? But we realize that you have to keep some standard otherwise where does it end? The same goes for marriage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to add something. If the government does not have any moral stadards, then the government will end up deciding to destroy it's people and if anyone speeks out against it, then they will stop at nothing to make sure you will not say anything. However, I would like to say this. In a way, heterosexual marrages are based upon one's behavioral preferance. For instance, let's say that a man likes women. Isn't that a preference? Why, then should a homosexual not be able to marry because of their behavioral preference? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::"Because gays are icky" seems to be the basis for all the arguments I've heard. If these folks REALLY think that gay marriage will Destroy the Institution of Marriage (possibly by giving it AIDS), you have to wonder why they don't try to outlaw [[Divorce]], FIRST. There are a LOT more divorced heterosexuals than there are gays, period.
::Especially [http://www.acupofambition.com/index.php?s=marriages celebrity marriages]! They're doing more damage to the Sacredness of Marriage than all they homosexuals in the world could. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, my morals say that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Since these are the same morals that are against pedophilia, wouldn't your slippery slope argument say that we must allow gay marriage or risk pedophilia becoming legal? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let me try to hit all those points one at a time. First off, yes, people being involved in heterosexual relationships is a behavioral preference, too. But, it's a little different in the sense that heterosexuality is generally considered to be the natural way. It's what we predominantly see in nature, the male and female bodies are obviously meant to couple, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, etc. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way. Then there is another lifestyle that is only preformed by a small minority, and they are engaging in an activity which they choose to do. (Not the choice to be gay, but the choice to "act" gay, or to engage in that behavior.) So for it to be asked that this alternative choice be given just as much legitimacy as the first option is somewhat of a push. It's almost as if homosexuals are saying "we choose to act differently then you, but we want you to treat us like we're not." But wait. Your making that choice, not me. I don't force it on you. You do it by your own free will. You can't turn around and then act like your not making that choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I can't speak for all, but I'm not against homosexuality because it's "icky". I'm against it because I believe it's morally wrong. Yes, divorce is bad, too. People treat marriage far too flippantly, with the attitude of, "if it doesn't work, we'll get a divorce". That's wrong, too. But the problem is that there are some scenarios where divorce could be legitimate. In cases of unfaithful partners, abusive spouses, etc. So there are cases that make it impossible to outlaw divorce.

I think that I get your point about turning my slippery slope argument against me. (Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.) No, the slippery slope doesn't occur because of my personal values or yours. It occurs because of what is already in place in society. What there is one man, one woman of legal age and they consent. That's the standard. So if you lower that standard to suit homosexual marriage, then where does it end? The slippery slope has to do with what's already in the society, not my personal beliefs. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:03, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, so we're talking about society's morals then. But wouldn't the slippery slope mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The argument is that anything will be allowed if you get on the slippery slope, because once you start down it there's no real way to stop. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that a yes then? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry; I think I'm missing the question. Yes to what? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 19:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't the slippery slope argument mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. The slippery slope is saying that if you get onto that road then you can't stop any possible outcome that fits within that context. Things still could get passed and changed, because society could get on the slope. It's just a caution for society to be careful of which way it heads because it might not like where it ends up. But it still could change and allow things. That's why the argument is there. There's no point in arguing it if it can't change anyway. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==No==
It's said that it is discrimination to be against homosexual marriage. But, whether you agree with it or not, you have to look at things from the Christian perspective to see where we are coming from. As a Christian, I see the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am against it. It's not about prejudice. It's just the fact I have a moral obligation to stand against anything that is wrong. I am against homosexuality in the same sense that I am against stealing. I consider them both to be wrong. Would someone say that I'm discriminating against thieves when I say that's wrong? Of course not. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated badly, or made fun of, but it is wrong and Christians have to say so.
: I do agree that Christians should say it's wrong if that is what they believe in. But I do believe that not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional, because of the first amendment that states "no law should be made enforcing or discriminating religion" (I'm paraphrasing here.) and if a law were to be passed, it would be enforcing a religious value on people that may not believe in what the people that put that action into law believe. But, even though I think gay marriage is OK, I also support peoples right to say its wrong, start up "rehab" for gay people (If the homosexual chooses to go there and its not tax-funded), and tell the world what they think about the issue. As long as the wall of separation between church and state is intact, and that homosexuals are not verbally or physically harassed, I believe it is OK for Christians (and any other religion) to say its wrong and not like it. --[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 18:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

The first amendment deals with not being able to keep some one from practicing a particular religion, or force to them to practice it. Homosexuality is not a religion. And although it is opposed on religious grounds, there are also cultural and sociological factors involved, so it really doesn't fit into what the first amendment outlines. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==It Depends==
*If the marriage is going to be carried out as a religious service, it should be up to the relevant religious authorities. If the marriage is nonreligious (carried out by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, for example), then it should be allowed. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

But a religious group can't refuse to follow the law. So if homosexual marriage is legal, they would be forced to adhere to that law, regardless of what they believe. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not the intent of homosexual marriage advocated, myself included. I fully recognize any religion's right to refuse to marry homosexuals. Marriage in the religious sense should be left up to each religion. If the Catholic church wishes not to recognize gay marrriage, that is 100% their prerogative. What I am advocating, however, is legal gay marriage. In that a gay couple can obtain a marriage license via the same requirements that heterosexual couple can. No church would be forced to perform a ceremony, and they would not be forced to recognize the marriage as marriage licenses offer legal, not religious benefits. Only churches that desire to perform gay ceremonies would. The gay marriage issue is about LEGAL rights and LEGAL recognition by the government, not RELIGIOUS recognition by any church or organization. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but it is about religion. Right now it's being pushed for homosexuality to be added to the list of hate crime victims. This means that if Christians don't like it and speak out against it, and then someone who overheard it went out and beat up a homosexual (I'm certainly not advocating that) , then the church that originally spoke out could be sued or shut down for promoting 'hate speech'. Similarly, if homosexuality was legalized, and a church refused to perform a ceremony for two homosexuals, then that could be labeled as discrimination and that church would suffer consequences. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So as I can tell, you fear that if gay marriage was legalized and if gays were added to hate crime lists, then churches would face discrimination? May I ask why it is okay that gays are discriminated against, but not churches. As to the specific cases you mentioned. In this country, we thankfully still have (more or less) have first amendment rights. Nazi groups, white supremacy (and I am not comparing the church to these groups, just using them as examples) still can exist, as they should be able to, as long as they don't actively advocate violence against Jews, African Americans, whoever. Much like any group (be it Nazis, gay rights advocates, or anyone else) churches could continue to speak as they will as long as they don't advocate direct violence. As to the marriage aspect of it, as long as the law clearly states that no religious organization can be forced to marry any two individuals, then there is no basis for legal discrimination. Socially, people who think that the church discriminate will continue to do the same, and those that don't won't. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:51, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I do fear that Christians will face discrimination. I think hate crimes are stupid (not to debate that; it's a different topic) because they deal will motivation and intent. If I as a Christian exercise my Constitutional right to free speech and say I think something is wrong, then I can risk punishment. I know you might advocate that churches should be able to still voice opinions, but not everyone thinks that way. And yes, discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, too. But the marriage thing is not discrimination, because everyone has the same rights. Giving homosexuals the right to marry based off of their sexual preference, which is a behavior, would be discrimination. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because not everyone believes that churches should be able to voice anti-homosexuality opinions does not mean they won't be allowed to. As before mentioned, other groups face much more dissent than the Catholic Church, but they are allowed to voice their opinions under 1st amendment protection. As to the marriage aspect once again. I wouldn't call gay marriage discrimination but I understand your point. However, history has shown that specific legislature is often needed to protect the rights of minorities. We have specific laws regarding women (although no equal rights amendment amazingly) that protect them and give them specific protections (not rights, just protections) under the law. The same is true for African Americans, and other minorities. Minorities often need to be recognized legally to ensure the mantainence of their rights. And to use a very popular argument on this site, if gay marriage were to be passed, then heterosexuals would have the same rights to marry someone of their sex. That may seem odd to you, but the argument that we gays have equal rights in that we can marry members of the other sex is equally odd.[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Your right in that just because some don't want Christians to be able to speak out against homosexuals doesn't mean it will happen. But there are signs that we, in reference to us Christians, are going to be in trouble. I've heard there's a law out here in California that if a homosexual feels he or she has been discriminated against, then they can file a law suit and the state will pay all their legal fees. The defendant, on the other hand, would have to pay their own way. This has scary implications, because a homosexual could file a law suit and be backed up by the state, which has in all practical terms unlimited resources, while a church would have to pay for itself when most churches are struggling financially anyways. And I know that the homosexual movement is sometimes compared to the black or women's movement, but it's not the same. Blacks were fighting against slavery, which was clearly wrong, as well as Jim Crows laws sending to the back of the bus, etc. And women for a long time couldn't even vote. But homosexuals aren't facing that. No serious person is saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to vote or should have to use separate facilities. It is simply in regards to marriage and sexual preference, which is a behavioral issue. And you could say that allowing homosexuality would still give everyone the same rights, but I could say that if murderers wanted to legally murder and a law was passed to allow it, then would it be okay because "you can now legally murder too?" (I'm not equating murderers and homosexuals, just using that as a rather extreme example to prove a point.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

To identify the issue with the whole California thing. This type of extreme legislature (which I am against by the way. If the state is paying for one side, it should pay for the other as well) is often suggested, and even if passed, quickly altered. For example, under LBJ's presidency, federal funds were given to schools to allow busing for inner-city schools to outer-city schools to try and reduce de facto segregation (I am using the Civil Rights movement because it is a good historical precedence. You say that the gay rights movement cannot be compared to the African American or Women's movements. Its specifics and severity is certainly different, however, the theory and ideology behind it is not). This law was overturned rather quickly. We find that this country operates in knee-jerk reactions and extremes. Yes there may be some extreme legislature at the very beginning, but such legislature rarely lasts. Time ultimately smooths out the extremes in social policy.

As to the murder idea, that is different in that murder (or other such crimes such as rape, assault etc) physically harm other people. I can hardly see an argument that gay marriage somehow directly, physically harms people.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that homosexual marriage physically harms people like murder does. Like I said, I wasn't trying to equate the two. The point was that you had mentioned if homosexuality was made legal, then everyone would still have the same rights because heterosexuals would have that right by extension. So I was just saying that is if murder was hypothetically made legal, then everyone still has the same rights because even non-murderers would be able to legal murder. My point is that, yes, the rights would still be the same, but that doesn't make murder right, and, similarly, homosexual marriage being passed doesn't make it right or beneficial to society. And the ideology of the black movement compared to the homosexual movement isn't quite the same. Blacks were being picked on because of racism and prejudice. When it comes to homosexuality, yes, there are some who are motivated by prejudice, but many such as myself come at it from a strictly moral stance. I'm against it because the Bible says it's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand that gay marriage is against your moral code, and I respect that, but what this country is based on is the allowance of multiple opinions to coexist in harmony. You don't have to recognize gay marriage, think it is right, think it is natural or any other such thing. It is you perogative to have any such views you desire on the subject. It is important to realize the difference between secular marriage (perhaps I should use the word union?) and religious marriage. The Bible indeed dictates religious marriage for christianity, but it does not dictate secular marriage. The Bible also says (correct me if I am wrong, I am not very versed in the Bible. I mean this seriously, not sarcastically) that atheism is a sin, as is sex before marriage? Yet you do not oppose the secular marriage of two atheists, or two non-virgins. Now to clarify my stance, I do not believe the Bible should have any authority in dictating governmental and legal marriage. In this socio-political climate, however, I must be pragmatic. Now my question is, why is it that homosexuality is cornered out as massively sinful and thus not eligible for marriage, when atheists and non-virgins are? By the way, I would like to thank you for being logical and rational in this debate. Both sides are much to prone to sensationalism; rational debate seems to be less and less common these days. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

As a Christian, I hold the Bible in the utmost regard. I consider it to be the holy word of God, infallible and inherent. But, this being said, I fully recognize that not everyone holds that same opinion. Your an Atheist, correct? I definitely don't expect you to hold the Bible in any special light, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own worldview. So I also wouldn't say that we should create any law "just because the Bible says so". I run my life, to the best of my ability, based on what the Bible says. But I don't want to force you to. I primarily oppose homosexuality because of Biblical reasons, but the reasons why I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized has to do with societal issues, such as I don't see it as being beneficial to society, etc. As for why Atheists can marry and non-virgins as well, it has to do with context. I wouldn't oppose two heterosexual Atheists marrying because heterosexual marriage is good, regardless of whether the participants are Christians, Atheists, or whatever. And for non-virgins, yes, it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. But there is nothing in the Bible that says that someone who has committed that sin couldn't later get married, so I see no reason to be against it. (Besides, the Jesus said that to lust after a woman in your heart is to commit adultery of the heart, so even if someone hasn't committed the physical act, everyone is guilty of lust.) And once they marry, then they're no longer committing the sin of sex outside of marriage, so it's better in that sense. So it’s about context. With homosexual marriage, homosexuality is the problem. Even if both homosexuals claimed to be Christian I would still be against it because homosexuality is the sin. And yes, thank you for being very logical and friendly. I often hear a lot of insults, (and they come from both sides), so thanks for being polite. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is this. I see some benefits to society to allow gay marriage, and I see no societal harms. Benefits include financial and legal aid which can be helpful for the raising of a child. One of the societal arguments I hear most often is that gay marriages cannot produce children (I would like to point out that neither can marriages in which the couple is sterile, or simply choose not to). Gay couples can adopt one or more of the hundreds of thousands of parentless children in the country and world as a whole. The idea that marriage is simply for procreation seems ludicrous to me, coupled with the fact that we currently face overpopulation, it seems as if the human race can surely survive. I am not quite sure what societal issues you are referring to when you say they oppose gay marriage. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first off I think that we can both agree that the male and female is the natural option. Obviously they're bodies are designed to fit together. And yes, there is overpopulation. (One of the reasons why I and other Christians would stress abstinence until marriage, for the sake of not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world.) And yes, a gay couple could try to raise the child, sure. But the question is: would a homosexual couple be as effective at raising a child as a heterosexual couple? And I think that the answer is no, they couldn't. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuals are incapable of raising kids, but rather that they would simply not be as good as a mom and a dad. Because no matter how feminine a man may get, he can't substitute for a mother. And no matter how masculine a woman gets, she will never be a true father. Men and women are different. One's not better than the other, but they do posses different qualities that when coupled together compliment each other nicely. They're like the two different pieces to a puzzle. They just fit together. So I would wonder if same-sex couples could adequately raise kids when they won't have the full range of characteristics that men and women together posses. And, considering how kids can get made fun of in school for practically anything, having homosexuals parents just adds one more thing to shoot at them. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:15, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Please keep in mind that many gay couples who want to get married don't do so to have (or get) children, but instead to receive recognition of their love to each other. In some countries non married couples including homosexuals are able to adopt children, so banning homosexual marriages will not stop gays raising kids, this is an entirely different issue. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 01:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Granted. But I was addressing a previous point about how homosexual couple could adopt kids and help with overpopulation and I was simply comparing parenting ability. As for what other nations do, I can’t really comment on that. I don't have enough knowledge about how they go about things to say one thing or another, so I can really only talk about what happens in the United States. That's what I'm familiar with. But to address just homosexuality in general apart from kids? I understand that they want to show their love, but that's not enough. Love isn't all there is to it. Should kids be able to marry just because they love one another? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

As to the children aspect of this conversation. You say that a man can never replace a mother and a woman a father. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of single parent families. Single people are allowed to adopt children and/or have children. If it is acceptable for a child to have only one mother and no father, what is wrong with having two mothers? @StatsMsn, yes many gay couples just want recognition of their love. But so do hundreds of thousands of couples who marry and choose not to have children. If they are allowed to marry for recognition why not gays? Finally, regarding the child marriage. Please do not insult this hereto rational debate. We are speaking purely in the realm of acts and legal standing of legal and consensual adults.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they're are lots of single parents. Many come by in the case of one parent dying. In those cases, you can't really say much, because they tried to raise the kids with both parents, but one unfortunately passed on. You can't really take kids away from them. Some are single because of divorce. I am against divorce, but as I've said before on this post, there are times when divorce is necessary. Adulterous or abusive spouses, etc, so you can't make divorce illegal because it can be legitimately necessary. And, even if they divorce, the kid still has a mom and dad. They might not live together, but they still have them.

Now, to what I said about child marriage. Please do not take away the courteously that we have so far had towards one another. That was a perfectly rational point. Yes, child marriage is not legal, but neither is homosexual marriage. If we can only discuss what's legal, then we shouldn't be having this debate at all. My point was that love is not all you need. It is certainly the single biggest factor, but there are other things that matter, too. If love is the only thing, then why can't kids marry if they love one another? It's a somewhat extreme example, certainly, but it's intended to show that more than just love is required. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I am not saying love is all that is required in marriage, one large aspect of marriage is responsibility, commitment, and maturity. That is why children are not allowed to marry. The country has deemed that children, and rightly (there are a few outliers, and I would include myself in this group, that are more mature) that under the age of 18, children are not legal adults. Thus they cannot sign legal documents without a guardian as well, they cannot enter contracts without a guardian, they cannot be treated as adults. The question of gay marriage is not are gays mature enough to enter marriage, but do we/should we have the right to under the US constitution. The reason why kids cannot marry is one of maturity, the reason why gays cannot marry, well I don't quite know, but it is not of maturity. Also I would like to ask, though I do not concur with your argument, how is a heterosexual couple getting married "just for love" any less threatening to the concept of adolescent marriage than homosexual couples getting married. I understand you think that "it is a slippery slope" but just on pure theory, where does that discrepancy lie.
As per the child argument, you have neglected the demographic of single parents that adopted/gave birth to a child purely on their own. Some people simply never find their life partner, and choose to have children on their own anyway. That is legal, and as it should be. If a single person all on his or her lonesome can decide to adopt/have a child, why should a two people of the same sex not have the same right? The child will undoubtedly receive more attention that way (seeing as there are two parental figures, not one) as well as enjoy the benefits of having possibly two incomes, or one income and one staying at home etc. Children of single parents by choice grow up into model citizens and valuable members of society every day, as do the children of gay couples where it is legal. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I know your not saying that love is the only requirement, and I'm not trying to advocate child marriage. I know why kids can't marry, and I think that the reasons for that are good ones. It's just that one common argument that I hear is, "They love each other so they should marry." But, as we both agree, there are more factors. As far as do homosexuals have the right to marry under the Constitution, it isn't addressed or defined. As I said before, the reason for gay marriage to not be allowed (at least in my opinion) is an issue of morality and the potential benefit for society. I'm not sure I understand what your asking about heterosexuals couples marrying "just for love". Can you specify that a little more? I want to make sure I accurately understand you so I can properly respond. The slippery slope thing is that hypothetically you should line up all the various issues of marriage in order of least harmful to most harmful, (heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.). Now, we've had a standard in place (one man and one woman). So if you move the bar down to allow for homosexuals, then it will make it easier for society to accept the next thing in line. After all, homosexuality was seen as being really bad but now it's okay, so why not _______. (Fill in the blank with whatever might come next.)

The child that is born of just one parent, presumably the mother, still has a mom and dad. She's not the virgin Mary, so there had to be conception. Now did the father take off or the parents don't want to marry, etc. I guess there's lots of theoretical scenarios there, so I can't possibly address them all. But if the dad takes off you can't punish mom and the child for that. Or if she doesn't tell the father and has the baby n her own, again, you can't take away the child and punish the kid because of the mom. Again, a single parent is not the ideal way to raise kids, either. A mom and a dad together are. But you can't reasonably say, "Single parenthood isn't ideal but it's allowed, so homosexual marriage should be allowed." That's creating more un-ideal situations and doesn’t help. And I'm certainly not saying that kids raised by homosexuals will grow up to be dysfunctional. It's just not the best way to do it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Civil partnerships rather than marriages==
I would suggest, to avoid the moral and religious issues associated with the term "marriage", that it should simply be removed from the whole question. Rather than talking about "gay marriage", there should be civil partnerships which are available to any two cohabiting consenting adults. This is the approach which has been taken in the UK, and which (as far as I know) some US states are considering.

People in a civil partnership will have the same legal rights as married people regarding inheritance, welfare, etc., but they won't be "married" as regards the religious sense of the term. Civil partnerships should also be available to people living together in a non-sexual sense, e.g. cohabiting siblings.

There is already a distinction between civil and religious marriage; for instance, if you are Roman Catholic, you may be legally divorced under the civil law but still married under Catholic canon law, unless you seek an annulment of your marriage from the Church. So churches and other religious organisations would ''not'' be required to recognise secular civil partnerships.

Thus homosexual couples can have the same legal/financial advantages as married couples, without redefining the concept of marriage or upsetting the many religions which disapprove of homosexual relations. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but that wouldn't work. (At least from my perspective.) That's still legalizing gay marriage and just simply calling it something else. It's not the word marriage that should be treasured, but the institution itself, regardless of what name it's under. Besides, everyone says that government doesn't have the right to enforce religious values on everyone else. But then government also doesn't have the right to enforce secular values on society. Legalizing gay marriage is the government putting a stamp of approval on marriage and saying that it is an acceptable alternative. But it's not. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I simply don't agree with it.

Besides, that doesn't address all of the other issues about child raising, etc. that were previously brought up. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT) 
 
Acceptible alternative to what? I think (and this is just me), if two people love each other, should they not have the right to be married and share that happyness in the greatest way. Besides, by doing this, it shows that two heterosexual people that hate each other have more of a right than two homosexuals that have a perfect right to get married. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Marriage is not a government institution and marriage should not be corrupted by sexual perverts, yes I said it, sexual perversion: deviating from mainstream sexuality -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Every time a liberal talks to me I get more conservative -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:45, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Debrah, no offense, but you kind of seem to be freking out. Let me just say, in defense to my liberal nature, that I am from Massachussets, the most liberal state in the country. Anywho, sexual perverts? Perverts, although I see what your saying, is very strong (then again, so was my comment on the front page). But, let's face it, does a homosexual have a choice in the matter? Before I would say that they are sexual perverts, lets take this into consideration, do you know any homosexuals and if so, have you asked them why they are homosexual? It seems to me that people don't listen to homosexuals enough and thereby try to make it seem that they are chosing it on their own free will. Am I saying they are not? No. What I am saying is that someone should at least find out. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I know homosexuals, and my best friend Jessica used to be a lesbian but became straight -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:How does one change? If one changes, would that not mean that she (and this is no offense to your friend) was bisexual? I mean, how is it possible for one to change the way that they love (and who they can love) in one thing. If she was, then does that not mean that she was part stright to begin with? This would not make her lesbien, but rather, bisexual. Again, this is all a spitball (I am going to ask a gay person I know tomarrow about this). --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-06T00:08:04Z

Rocky: /* Civil partnerships rather than marriages */

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-05T23:57:23Z

Rocky: /* Civil partnerships rather than marriages */