Your citations of dishonesty are derived from the biased proponents of neo-Darwin materialists living on the big science/Dawkins side of the isle. To be fair, there is another group living on the other side of said isle who support ID theory. In big media cases like this one, both sides will have plenty of representation claiming error for the other side, even if there is truth behind it all. Most of the time, the POINT is lost in all the bickering and pointing towards any little issue that can be used as leverage against the other side. You are championing this sort of junk in this conversation and you are also trying to use the very scriptures and principles attributed to the God you don’t even believe in against those who do. It’s a tired and old strategy, Steve. It’s divisive and short sighted, not to mention academically stifling.

I’m for presenting both theories in the classroom. Why? Because I’m willing to bet that a cold, neo-Darwinian materialism will loose out to ID when viewed through a lens honestly tilted toward real life and living and loving. Besides, none of us will ever figure out exactly how this universe and all its grandeur was created. It’s all theory, Steve. It’s all theory. I’ll bank on an Intelligent Designer; you can have chance.

You are grumpy. You stormed into this little community and started barking like a mad pit bull. You have zero room for discussion re: ID and you don’t believe it should be taught in any classroom, in spite of the many, many credentialed and educated scientists who espouse it (which is the point of Stein’s film, from what I have gathered). You also twisted the Bible in the name of one side’s biased apologetics and tried to use the Bible and its principles against believers in an accusing sort of fashion. That’s just pathetic, bro. It makes little rational sense to me to use the God you don’t believe in against those whom you wish to prove that there is no God. It sounds like an act that you can get a prescription for, bro.

So, rather than argue for the next ten years over this subject, I’ll bid you a good day, sir. Peddle this unfruitful dialog in the Unitarian Universalist sphere, where barren trees are plentiful.

My concerns were not over the intelligence of those promoting Intelligent Design in the movie “Expelled” — my concerns were with their honesty.

Is supporting dishonesty OK if it supports a cause one believes in?

We’ve all hear this before, Caldwell. You are a member of the Dawkins camp. Yippie! You have a problem with the ID! How surprising! Well, I guess you would! You are spouting all the predictable arguments against ID! How novel! And what am I to do? Spend my time arguing over things we both already know? No thanks! Am I to engage you and try to tell you that your godless materialism is pretty weak in light of things like Spirit, Redemption, Re-creation, Joy, Love, Charity, Empathy, etc., only to have you then accuse me of being some sort of mind-bent fundamentalist who just wants to change your beliefs and make you a Christian? LOL! Is that what you want me to do? It’s a lose/lose with individuals like you and I won’t be tossing pearls before swine this time ’round. I know why you are here and I won’t be playing that silly UU game. So, go sharpen a pencil or something, bro.

Wait! I’ll give you one - and only one - point, before you run off to find a pencil and a sharpener. I have already said it, but I’ll say it again, just for you. My point to you is that there are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate. I’m OK with that, are you?!? Obviously you are not because you have been ranting and raving here and even going so far as to quote bible verses and principles delivered by a God you don’t even believe in and demanding that followers of said non-existent God repent for baring-false witness against evolutionists!!! What are you even talking about!!! What the heck is your issue, bro? You make little sense and you call this rationalism? LOL! Oh how rich!

Anyway, back to my point: there are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate and both theories should be discussed in classrooms. If you say otherwise then it seems to me that you have proven Stein’s movie point valid.

If nothing else, you have proved how irritable you are about the subject.

Relax! Breath! Take an evening stroll in your Neo-Darwinian materialism and hold the hand of the mass of tissue, organs, and chemical reactions you refer to as wife or mate or whatever you call it these days.

Then scamper back to your Unitarian Universalist fold and make good with the witches and warlocks … surely their brand of supernaturalism is cool with you and your so-called scientific rationalism, right? Maybe you ought to team up with your fellow UUs and try to rescue a smidgen of sense from your own denomination before you go run around the blogosphere trying to force others to swallow your wormy and godless hooks.

Unitarian Universalists … you never know what you are going to get from them. Finding out should be a sport! … zany behavior.

PS> Yeah, I believe that there is a designer behind this universe we live in … Does my believing that keep you up at night? Sorry! I’m sleeping great!

Science is a human institution and isn’t perfect.

But the institutional self-correcting mechanisms allow both for changes in theories and for discarding of theories when better ones come along. Here are some real-life examples of scientists successfully challenging “big science” through the practice of science:

Challenging Science
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/challenging

The problem here isn’t with some so-called “big science” orthodoxy here.

The problem is with the Intelligent Design theories. So far, there are no empirical observations that are better explained by Intelligent Design theories.

For Intelligent Design theories to succeed, they need to make predictions and have these predictions be confirmed by empirical observation.

This is how Intelligent Design can succeed with honesty and integrity in science.

However, it may be easier to “succeed” outside the realm of science through slick marketing, bumper-sticker slogans about academic freedom, and being dishonest to the folks one interviews in a movie.

So I ask you one more time — is lying about one’s neighbors an acceptable thing for Christians and other people of faith to do?

Stein’s movie asserts that “big science” is trying to keep out new theories like Intelligent Design.

This assertion is a false accussation and I now guess that the Decalogue ethical constraint on spreading falsehoods about one’s neighbor is now optional for people of faith.

The so-called “Big Science” isn’t impossible to challenge if the challenger has done the research and found the facts to back up the theory that challenges the so-called scientific orthodoxy.

Have the Intelligent Design advocates done this? If not, why not?

The Expelled Exposed web site has a detailed section that shows how real science is done and how new theories are presented and defended. You can read about how science corrects itself and adapts to new knowledge and new theories here:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/challenging

This web article mentions several maverick scientists who challenged existing theories:

** Barbara McClintock (transposable genetic elements)

** Lynn Margulis (the symbiotic nature of eukaryotic cells)

** Barry Marshall (the bacterial infection cause of peptic ulcers)

** Stanley Prusiner (prions - an infectious form of life that reproduces without DNA or RNA)

** Motoo Kimura (random genetic drift and its effect on natural selection)

So — I would suggest that there isn’t an unchallengable “big science” orthodoxy. It’s simply a matter of challengers needing to do the basic scientific work needed to challenge existing theories.

The Intelligent Design proponents just are not doing the basic scientific work to support their theories.

Since they are not doing the scientific work required to prove or disprove an Intelligent Design theory, it’s pretty disingenious to say their research is being suppressed.

One cannot suppress non-existent research.

The Intelligent Design advocates’ arguements have been examined by the scientific community and found to be lacking in both utility and accuracy.

If mainstream science declines to accept intelligent design, it is the fault of the intelligent design advocates, who have not performed the research and theory-building demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise.

Even ID advocates like the immunologist Michael Behe was asked why he didn’t do any experimental work to test his ID theories during the Dover ID trial:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

He said “I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.”

So if ID advocates don’t consider their own theories worthy of exploration and apparently a waste of time, why should the rest of the scientific community spend reserach time on them?

It really doesn’t matter if “plenty of seriously credentialed and intelligent scientists who cite Intelligent design as a valid theory” — science isn’t determined by majority vote.

Scientific matters are decided through facts, observation, and how useful a proposed theory is at predicting things.

So — how would one test Intelligent Design as a theory? What findings would support a creator? What findings would suggest that a creatorless world (or at best a deist hands-off world)?

And if these ID experimental tests returned negative results, would that imply that the Intelligent Designer’s (aka “god” or “gods”) existence is less likely?

You zany Unitarian Universalist, you! Are you just trying to reinforce the New Testament idea that even the devils can quote scripture? You zany fellow, you!

Stein’s flick is about academic freedom and big science’s attempt to stomp out Intelligent Design from classrooms, right? I ask because I have not personally viewed the film with my own two eyes yet, but that is the gist of it, right? If you are pointing at the above linked web site as some sort of fact-sheet, then don’t waste your time. Anyone can spin things; you know that, right?

So, beyond Stein and his own film, why not have this conversation about academic freedom and competing theories in the science classroom?

There are plenty of seriously credentialed and intelligent scientists who cite Intelligent design as a valid theory. So, what’s the problem? Science is about theory, right? So why not make room in the discussion for it too?

… or do you want Dawkins to reign?

Check out the following web site:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

It explores the facts behind the fiction in Ben Stein’s movie.