Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Movie Review Message Board and Comments

One of the truly strange things about this "documentary" is its failure to create a companion website with the facts mentioned in the film. There's good reason for that failure! Each of the stories of the five "expelled" is fundamentally flawed. The actual stories of the five are well-covered, with footnotes, in the Wikipedia entry for this website. Just go to wikipedia.org and search for expelled no intelligence Most egregious is the story of the "fired" Smithsonian researcher. He was never ever an employee of the Smithsonian in the first place, and continues to have what he always did: a volunteer position with that institution. The webpage also documents the gross distortions to Darwin's quote: it shows the words the filmmakers "quoted" and Darwin's actual words. One must ask: if this "documentary" had a case to make, why didn't they bother to do a fundamental fact-check on what they presented? To anyone wanting to watch this film, I strongly recommend checking this website FIRST.

Stein is no dummy. In fact he was the top of his class at Yale Law school in 1970. No one is debating that change happens over time. What is in question is whether or not it is random mutation or the intentional effort of a creator that is responsible for the design which we see as scientists. It is the theology of Darwinism that has become problematic. If the hypothesis is that "random" action and mutation caused the life and the complexity we see around us and under the microscope, then we must PROVE that this is likely. We can't begin to do so. Darwinist have no idea how life began. No idea how all the information provided by DNA got there in the first place. NO IDEA. Some of us think we see evidence of a creator in the evidence that is comin g forward. We think the evidence points toward intentionality and stands against those who claim the complexity we see is an accident. One could argue that this doesn't add much to the scientific endeavor, and I might agree. However, an atheistic interpretation doesn't add a lot either. Dawkins is a philosopher pretending to be a scientist. His evidence does not prove that God is not involved in the creation of life or its progress across the ages. I don't have a problem with many of Darwin's ideas, but when Darwinism crosses over to metaphysics it has ceased to be science and it is increasingly obvious that it can not sustain its metaphysical claims. Because this is true, a debate of other options seems appropriate.