I am especially excited about seeing Ben’s new movie, for i have long been in the fight against the lies surrounding evolution. In fact, i attended a rather liberal college here in my state that had this very topic as a term paper in my Origins Class. In my research the most interesting statement i came across time after time by the evolution was that even though the entire concept defied known rules of Physics (spontaneous generation, or something from nothing) and Biology (Biogenesis-Life only comes from life) along with many others, when you question these contradictions you are then told by this community of mis guided scientists that you “must have faith”. As Sir Fred Hoyle (well known astronomer and mathematician) once said on the topic of evolution, it is like rolling a perfect 6 on a dice 5 million consecutive times. That to me takes a great deal more faith than the biblical explanation. Go Ben Stein.

Thank you Thank you Thank you, Ben Stein, When my step-daughter pointed out to her 7th grade science teacher that his “Fact Sheet” regarding evolution and some of its processes were not facts but theories, she was ridiculed by her teacher and fellow students.
Fact means it could NEVER be another way. I stepped in and asked the teacher to revise his wording so my stepdaughter could accurately be taught this portion of science. He protested loudly and rudely, I apologized about questioning his belief system, his religion. I was told that fact did necessarily mean fact on his fact sheet…I still dont know what that means. He told me he was not going to teach the bible, I told him I was glad of that since I didnt think he would teach that properly either. After a very emotional discussion(on his part) he ultimately changed his “Fact Sheet” to an Information Sheet..or something equally benign. Very little changed after that , he continued to ridicule my step-daughter, but God Bless her she never backed down. Thank you Thank you Thank again.

Intelligent people of faith have always understood that a hyper-intelligent creative agency undergirds the physical universe, while at the same time not disparaging analysis of the processes that are the immediate causes for things that happen. While some criticisms of Darwinism are naive, there is a basic issue here: can the scientific method, as we know and practice it, give us exhaustive knowledge concerning all the elements and dimensions of physical causation? Even if certain aspects of Darwinism might enjoy widespread support from the scientific community, many in and out of that community understand the limitations of that way of knowing that we call “science”. The disciplines of the history and philosophy of science are replete with many important criticisms of those who try to use science to make quasi-faith claims that exceed the capability of the scientific method to explain reality. At least Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein understood these things – and now we have Ben Stein who can help a new generation to put things in perspective! GO BEN!!!

How could the opinionated and sophisticated Ben Stein offer up his views on creation while disparaging Darwin and the educational traditions of 100 years ? Easy, Ben Stein is opinionated and sophisticated- exactly what we need to stimulate our study and discussion about the origins of the world. If we accept that all we see and encounter in this life, including ourselves, is one long series of accidental formation and survival of the fittest then there is nothing for humans to aspire to. Accordng to Darwin and his legion of rote followers, “what will be will be”- we are doomed to our fate as determined ny the “stronger” of the species. Aspire to be better, to seek wisdom, and draw close to the Creator and a person is maligned by the strong, the political, and the powerful. If the beginning was devine creation then we will see the real survivors in their rightful place in the end according to the inspired plan and purpose of the Creator. See you in Paradise!(But first hopefully at the movies for “Expelled” !)

i realy would love to win the great movie

Personally I have removed myself from the debating society and quit asking myself which came first the hen or the egg. Obviously I have my own prejudices based on completely ignorant notions. All I know is there is a God and I am not it. This enables me to continue moving about in my life based on faith. Faith literally means a belief and I believe that this is innate and comes from the heart. To say that it is a mystery does little to extricate myself from the responsibility to continue to do what I was created to do, pray and further my vision quest which is to develop a relationship with this entity, whatever it may be. I heard someone say once that God created one race, the human race , He just made us different colors. Sometimes theories and dogma can hinder impartial learning which is what science is. A tree grows and I know I had nothing to do with it, Intelligent design? By all means!!!

Another place that all of you and us should check out is Dr. Carl Baugh on TBN, you will have to check the listing for his weekly program. He has a fasinating program that debunks Darwinism to great embarrasment for evolutionists .He himself ,Dr. Baugh,believed in evolution but the evidence of his very studies provide otherwise. Please check it out you will be very pleased with his presentation and his guests. And oh yes Ben , keep up the undeniable truth of creation need more voices like you, well what do you know I just became one right here.

I liked the show Ben Stein money and his intellectual talk on Fox Business channel.Your wit is good ,its going to get you in a lot hot water with the conservatives and liberals where you stand.God is the most powerful,and mighty,rightous ,etc…God gave us everything we have and free will to boot.

Okay, I’ve heard all the versions of how this earth came about and who our ancestors originally were. So, if I decide evolution occurred, or if I decide I will be reincarnated, or if I decide to following Darwinism, there is no real consequence. But just suppose there IS a God, and just suppose there IS a heaven and just suppose there IS a hell–which would YOU prefer? For me, I can tell you without a doubt I prefer to believe in God. After all, the word ‘belief’ means just that–a state of mind in which one has trust. Sure, there is a lot we don’t understand about God and heaven. I don’t understand how a bee is able to fly, but I know bees exist and they DO fly. I don’t understand why God allows certain things to happen–war, cancer, Aids, perversiveness, ugly living people–but I know there is a greater purpose of which I don’t underdstand now, but believe God will reveal me to later. So we can thank God for that ability to discuss this (compliments of our Constitution, which was thoughtfully planned by our forefathers who believed in God), whether we are on ‘God’s team’ or another team. It ALL was provided, good or bad, from God. Plus he provided us with a loving heart to tolerate and learn to live together with each other, no matter what we believe. How cool is that!

DNA? Well, that sure is Intelligent Design — good going, God! And evolution of species through mutation and adaptation — well, even MORE Intelligent design!
There’s no conflict between belief in God and acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. God set things in motion and let (and continues to let) them work through evolution.
The bogus scientists and bogus institutes going around promoting ID as science and pretending it’s not Creationism wrapped up in another name are just that — bogus.
Read Judge John E. Jones’ opinion in _Kizmiller v. Dover_ for the full information in the most-recent losing case for Intelligent Design deserving to be taught as science in schools. Here’s a possible link”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

I have never believed in it and I never will. Ben Stein has always given the right answers at the right time. No matter what scientists say, God always has the final say in what will happen. From the womb to the tomb, God is always in control.

Why can’t both camps be RIGHT? Intelligent Design AND Darwinism – the interpretation of what God’s ‘day’ is – was written by people who’s world didn’t extend beyond Rome.
Books that were not included in the King James version of the Bible mention ‘the dark times’. The Torah mentions times of angels ‘dating’ humans, giants, ‘great beasts’. Genesis doesn’t. Hence, ‘that was then, this is now’. So to speak.
I don’t believe we got here by accident. We have changed as our planet has changed. God gave us a garden. We are the ones that paved it over.

There is a God, why wood people believe in it if its not true at all. I think its a really good thing in think there is a god and his son die for all of our sins on the cross. but I think is why we are put on this earth to understand the people around us and to ask god to help us to see the true light in to heaven. and we are support to make the best out it. and if this is a movie god want people to see they will see it.

Our tenth grade teacher was starting to teach evolution, I be him it could be disproved with one question. He started with the evolving from fish to land animals and went backwards. He was at the mass of gases that started it all. I again asked my question. At this point he was very frustrated nd said, it was only a therory and he didn’t say it was true. My question was “Who put it there.”

I am thrilled that someone has made issue of this Darwin Theory at last. My ancestors came to this country because of freedom of religion and the wonderful opportunities America gave to everyone. Seems that many of those people have forgotten these things. Why does the majority constantly have to suffer and give up their rights because of a minority, why must we conform to their way of life? Believe what you want but if I beleive in God and his creation of earth and human beings then I should have a right to address those feelings or opinions in school, office and public arena. If Darwin Groupies can not answer the questions necessary to proove their evolution bunk then how dare they stifle our thoughts and beliefs.

I believe what the word of God says, “In the beginning….” That’s where the original “Intelligent Design” started, with the creator.(Genesis 1-2).

I don’t believe in the “Christian” concept of intelligent design for the following reasons:
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty–above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Gal¿pagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.
continued:

i find fault for the various reasons:
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty–above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

sorry for the double post, continuing:
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time–changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms–such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization–can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not–and does not–find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists’ comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals–which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould’s voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.
When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science’s current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence “TOBEORNOTTOBE.” Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet’s). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare’s entire play in just four and a half days.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.
More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun’s nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)–bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism’s DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr’s Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations–sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms’ physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.
Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection–for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits–and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils–creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds–it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features–at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels–that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This “argument from design” is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye’s ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye’s evolution–what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even “incomplete” eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)
Today’s intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
“Irreducible complexity” is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap–a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood’s clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum’s component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind–”specified complexity”–is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski’s argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.
“Creation science” is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism–it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover–their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)
Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life’s history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion–that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

The above information can be found at:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true
A personal issue i find with the “creationism debate” is that it represents only ONE religon, Christianity and their view alone. on the evolution/creation debate is has been asked several times, why only this one religious belief system when so many have a “creation myth” of their own. personally, i think it reflects some Christian sects to have all things reflect their beliefs and only their beliefs. While i am Wiccan and believe that all things were created by the Goddess and God, i’m not concerned as to how it happened. the matter of the fact is that we are here and should take care of the time we are given. my question is why do some feel/think that their belief must be thrust on the whole of humanity. Whose gain and glory is this for?

The best argument against Intelligent Design is that the Designer is clearly not intelligent.

Creation, evolution, intelligent design – who cares?
It is not the “how” (did it happen), it is the meaning and the why (it happened)

I do find it interesting that almost everyone here seems to take the idea of ‘Intelligent Design’ as being synonymous with Christian Creationism and as directly opposed to the Theory of Evolution. Especially when, whenever it is proposed for introduction into school systems, they try to be very careful to note that it is NOT Creationism.
In essence, the whole principle of Intelligent Design says NOTHING about who, or how the Universe was designed, only that it was. It is not, in its most basic form, even in conflict with Evolution, since all that is needed is to say that the ‘Designer’ decided that Evolution was how they wanted to design said universe.
Of course, the responses here are very indicative that ID is, and always has been simply a thin veil over the underlying position of theistic Creationism.

As we fool around with genetics, and show how possible it is to alter what up to now was always considered “natural”, it seems to me that seeding from an intelligent design sort of theory is more and more plausible, with evolution at work as well. The study of our universe doesn’t have to be an either\or situation after all. What people for thousands of years have intuitively known seems to show up in later scientific studies… we are complicated creatures, set in an interrelated and complicated world. An earlier comment made a point that the intelligent design crowd seems to attach itself to the Christian point of view– could be, although I have heard people of other persuasions also speak of similar ideas. Does it really matter? I’d like to think of a scientific community that absorbs all faiths, as our minds exist to solve puzzles, and who can say that is ever a bad thing, no matter what one’s religious beliefs?

I’m really looking forward to seeing this timely movie … thanks, Ben! Apparently, entirely too many people have neither had the opportunity to witness firsthand the birth of a baby, whether their own child or a newborn calf … an amazing miracle my husband and I experienced ourselves for the first time Easter Sunday on our friend’s farm … nor have they had the wonderful fortune to stand upon a seashore mesmerized at the Lord’s handiwork and perfection. Perhaps an afternoon spent with the loving family of a handicapped child could enlighten those who tend to put stock in the greater value of the physically fittest!

Intelligent design? It’s an oxymoron.

The short version of “intelligent design” is ‘whatever is beyond my education and understanding must be from God”. People who recognize that, in Shakespeare’s words, “there’s more to Heaven and earth than is dreamt of in (their) philosophy”, appreciate that there’s more to be known than we know right now. Saying “whatever I don’t know must have come from God” is a form of ultimate arrogance.

I am very much attuned to the comments of Karen Brown (above). Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are NOT per se the same or even similar concepts. I am a retired professor of Biological Sciences having professed for 40+ years. During my younger/atheistic iteration I was a card carrying Darwinian…and still find much to be admired in that school of thought as expressed by the Neo-Darwinians (ND). The major difference between ID and ND as I presently see it, is that ID proposes a “purposive/teleological” system and ND does not. I am a proponent of ID. However, I do not have a clue as to what its “purpose (s)” might be. That is the “why” question and is more appropriate to philosophy and not science.

Wow I am shocked by all of this. First because I am a huge admirer of Ben Stein & his Everybody’s Business column in Sunday Times. He always seems so rational, I hardly ever find reason to disagree with him. And now I learn that he’s a proponent of intelligent design AND does not believe in evolution? I have got to see this movie (which will never come to Pittsburgh in a million years). I’d love to hear his argument. Personally, I think questioning the theory of evolution flies in the face of scientific proof. Period. Intelligent design? I have read that everything in the universe can be explained mathematically, which may lend credence to the intelligent design theory. But I can’t help but agree with Boris, Woody Allen’s character in one of my favorite films (Love and Death), who famously remarked that if there is a God, he’s an underachiever. The plague, cancer, Nazis, floods, tornados, pedophiles, New Coke….these are not hallmarks of intelligence.

It is interesting that this contest has come when it has. I was watching a nature show about apes, and because they know how to survive, which is what I call it, they are our distant relatives!I am offended,my belief has always been ,and cannot be shaken, that this world and everything in it was created by God. and it does have to be one or the other, How can you believe in God and be convinced that our world was created through a “big bang” or apes? Sure, we have so much technology and great ways of doing everything now, but, we get that intelligence from God, not from a rock or early beast! Clearly everyone has a right to their opinion, but, don’t shut the professor or student up, or threaten their success because it is no longer cool to believe in the creation as it has always been! I do not want my child to have no choice in what they hear about our world and the creation. I question anything that wants to force others beliefs out and have only their own. Could it be that they are threatened by the truth?

Precisely, Shade. But, as you can note from most of the comments here, in PRACTICE, it seems that people (including those who are pushing it) are conflating ID and Creationism to the point where they are identical.
ID, in and of itself, does NOT say WHO the designer is, or HOW the designer did the designing. All it proposes is.. there is one, because the end results are too.. (insert compliment here.. good, complicated, intertwined, etc) to have just ended up this way.
ID is, again, in and of itself, entirely compatible with the Theory of Evolution, so disputing the TOE does not ‘prove’ ID is correct. Indeed, even though they conflict, disproving the TOE doesn’t prove Creationism. (Proving Joe didn’t do it doesn’t prove Jim did.)
So, not sure why all the posts that are supposed to be supporting this movie about ID are mostly about the Theory of Evolution.

“It is interesting that this contest has come when it has. I was watching a nature show about apes, and because they know how to survive, which is what I call it, they are our distant relatives!I am offended,my belief has always been ,and cannot be shaken, that this world and everything in it was created by God. and it does have to be one or the other, How can you believe in God and be convinced that our world was created through a “big bang” or apes?”
First, the characterization of the Theory of Evolution above is so off, that I don’t have the time or patience to address the fallacies. Let’s just say that apes certainly are not proposed to create anything, except, perhaps, in that movie with Charleton Heston. Secondly, for the actual theory.. It is easy, if you just think that’s HOW God created the world. I’m not exactly sure why the idea of descent from other forms of life is so offensive when the alternative is, well, dirt. (God aside, since, again, any theist can propose that God directed and initiated the evolutionary process.)
“Sure, we have so much technology and great ways of doing everything now, but, we get that intelligence from God, not from a rock or early beast! Clearly everyone has a right to their opinion, but, don’t shut the professor or student up, or threaten their success because it is no longer cool to believe in the creation as it has always been!”
Again, the characterization is incredibly off. But, be that as it may.. Science is more than someone expressing an opinion, no matter what the popular conception of what a ‘theory’ is might be. All that is required is that all the proposed scenarios undergo the same scientific process all the others did. Are you proposing that a class taught in science gets lighter rules and a lower bar for acceptance than others? And I don’t just mean Evolution. I mean Gravitation, Germ Theory, the Heliocentric model of the solar system..
Since its all just opinions, are you just as open to, for instance, alternative theories about Gravity be taught? Or the Geocentric solar system? Or how about a form of Creationism that comes from, say, the Bhagavad Gita instead of the Bible?
“I do not want my child to have no choice in what they hear about our world and the creation. I question anything that wants to force others beliefs out and have only their own. Could it be that they are threatened by the truth?”
They have all the choice in the world. They probably go to your church, and Sunday school. I’m sure they hear about it there. The same sort of place that Hindus hear their creation story, and Muslims, and Zoarastrians, and etc.
Is the reason we don’t teach that the Earth is the center of the solar system because we are threatened by the truth? Or that it isn’t supportable by the scientific process?

And let’s try this one more time, people.
ID is not Creationism. ID is not in conflict, necessarily, with the Theory of Evolution. All ID says is that something intelligent directed the process. It doesn’t say what process, when, or how.
So, all these posts about how awful Evolution is, or how they like Creationism has not one thing to do with the theory of Intelligent Design.
If you are thinking that support of ID is going to get Creationism taught in schools, it is only getting even a foot in the door precisely because they are saying it is NOT Creationism.

To me, creationism is an effort to challange science. This seemms silly. The idea that the world, as we know it was created in seven days by a superior being or intelligence in view of all the scientific data that we have that clearly indicates otherwise doesnt make sense…Much of science is fact, not speculation. To put forth an argument that creationism or intelligent design is the answer to all the questions that the human mind cannot understand is nonsensence.. Even sicience cannot lay claim to that idea………..Creationism is a matter of religiou faith. Faith and fact are like apples and oranges. Faith doesnt have to adhere to the rigors of science; all one needs to do is……….have faith. The idea that the universe (s) exist within the rules of some order, (or intelligence if you you wish) is acceptable; however, we can hardly reach the same conclusion based on the King James bible. Finally, most scientists whom I have encountered believe in God………even Einstein ! To those proponents of Creationism, or religion BELIEF………if you will ook in the mirror, you will see the enemy ! !

I thank God that we live in a Godly country,and were created by God to make Godly choices and to have opinions Godly or not you have yours and i have mine….

In my youth I was spoon fed the theory of evolution as an alternative to a biblical model of creation. Mind you this was the sixties and Walt Disney was showing us every Sunday evening at 7:30 PST (I grew up in La Puente, CA)dinosaurs “evolving” into mammals of various sorts, and birds, and “lesser” mammals evolving into the great apes and then into men and women.
In my naivte’ I accepted this drivel because I’d never in all my youth read the old testement and realized the plan tha G_d expresses in it. He tells us that every thing is part of a type or kind (for you Platonic thinkers- a “form”)so cats are cats, dogs are dogs, lizards are lizards, etc. We are also told that man(kind) is made in G_d’s image. Since G_d is formless the term refers to his thinking, reasoning, feeling, awareness, conciousness, and finally body type as hHe designed a perfect human, to exsist in a perfect, unpolluted world without the consumption of meat, without death or injury, with absolute synchronious existence with the rest of G_d’s creation. All of this we learn just from the book of Genesis.
If we are to believe that mankind has the intelligence to develop a “Theory of Evolution” it should could be posited that a man could recognize the folly of trying to refute the Biblical record as “Fairy Tales” or “Myth”,there is simply too much truth in it.
In the Book of Job G_d tells Job “Where were you when I cast the spheres into the heavens”, this is a book that some say may be the oldest record of the Jewish heritage predating Genesis in the oral record. LAter in the OT we find that G_d spans the heavens with his hand. And recently we hear that the universe seems to be expanding still. Ironic that the universe “science “tried to say is in a cyclic resizing isn’t proving the big bang. G_d’s hand is still spreading the curtain of the deepness of space. Likewise there is the idea of the firmament of the heavens. A unique attribute of space is that the further out in space we observe, the more stars there are revealed, there is an almost solid interior of the universe wherein a firmament is described.
Then there are all the various wonders of the human body and mind that astound and confound. The fact that the brain does an estimated 30 billion computations per second in the management and control of the body’s functions and realizations. Think about the abilities we have, to be writing this missive, hearing my gifted 7 year old play the piano, though he can’t speak or write, and also distinguishing the voices in “the Godfather”, and seeing the variation in light outside through the window, and hearing the dog bark outside. Through all this I can savor the heat from the salsa I had at lunch and the chocolate for dessert, the coffee smell at the side table , and remebering teaching all of this information to a suicidal inmate in 2000 in a private counseling session when he questioned his purpose in life. Meanwhile, my brain has me breathing, my heart beating, computing time for me to get to my motel today to look at the books and constricting and dialating my blood vessels to control temperature and oxygen flow to my muscles and brain.
The Bible says we’re fearfully and wonderfully made. Isn’t that the truth? What man or woman has devised so great a machine. Even in the human design of machization, don’t we use one design to improve upon and make more efficient, to accomplish great feats? Why wouldn’t a G_d designing His universe also use similar parts (Ie: bones, muscle, eyes, hair, joints, ligaments etc) to accomplish the same things.
I cannot help but believe that all things which follow the design of a great set of principles(The Bible)would be successful in all they do. Look for another post concerning Money and the economy.
Regards

Many people think that science is truth. Science is not truth; science is the search for truth. Those scientists who dismiss Intelligent Design have ceased searching. I don’t need to know how a blade of grass is implanted and grows. Reason and observation tell me it happens; faith impels me to the belief that it will continue to occur. Reason and faith impel me to the belief in ID. cientists will continue to believe in their article of faith; Darwinism. They will dismiss any theory that contradicts it just as they dismiss anything that seeks to contradfict human-caused global warming. I’m waiting to hear how they will spin the fact that China has just experienced its coldest winter in 100 years.

Well, I guess that didn’t work. Let’s try this again.
The movie is about INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
It is NOT about CREATION SCIENCE.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN (Otherwise known as ‘ID’) says, and ONLY says that there was an Intelligent Designer.
It does NOT say that designer was your God, or that the design involved was the one from the first few chapters of Genesis.
In fact, Intelligent Design is not at all in conflict with Evolution. Or with Creation Science, or with any other theory, proposal or opinion about how life developed you can come up with, as long as the proposal, theory or opinion doesn’t specifically say that there was NOT an Intelligent Designer.
Does anyone posting above get, at all, that ID has NOTHING to do with (or against) Creation Science OR Evolution?
At least.. it doesn’t as long as ID is what the proponents say it is, are insisting it is. As long as ID is just about that designer, and it isn’t some kind of Trojan horse. Isn’t, as I said above, isn’t just a lie and a disguise to try and hide the fact that all it is.. is Creationism with a different name.
You guys wouldn’t be part of something so deceptive as that, would you?

So the idea is (according to you) that there is an intelligent creator, there just isn’t a scientific answer for who or what that may be? Well it is my belief you cannot speak of a creator without believing in God as the creator.

The idea is, according to the ones who DEVELOPED the theory (your beef isn’t with me, this is the actual definition of the theory) only that something intelligent was involved in the design of the universe.
This could be ANY God (not necessarily yours), could be simply an intelligent and impersonal force, like the Deistic ‘Watchmaker’, could be an intelligent force or being that is no longer around.
There is nothing in the theory about what they do or did other than that designing.
If what you say is true, then ID proponents are liars, and they are just slapping a fake name on Creationism in order to try to have it fly under the radar.
Is that the point?

Designer, by the way, not necessarily ‘creator’. They need not even have started the process. Only guided its direction.
That’s the ID you are fighting for.
Nice to know what the theory actually is, isn’t it?

Here is Intelligent design, right from the FAQ that the link directs you to, right in the article. Not MY idea, the actual definition according to the Film, according to B-Net, and according to the ones who created the theory.
What is intelligent design (ID)?
Intelligent design is the theory that living things show signs of having been designed. ID supporters argue that living creatures and their biological systems are too complex to be accounted for by the Darwinian theory of evolution, and that a designer or a higher intelligence may be responsible for their complexity.
What do ID proponents believe about evolution?
Many ID proponents do not quarrel with most of Darwin’s original claims about evolution. They do, however, believe that random genetic mutation and natural selection cannot account for certain biological phenomena, such as the human eye or the body’s blood clotting mechanism. ID supporters argue that for these systems to arise via a gradual series of mutations is statistically impossible, which implies that a designer may have guided the process.
Is creationism the same thing as intelligent design?
No, although many critics of Intelligent Design conflate the two.
Creationism usually refers to the theory or belief that God created the universe and human beings in six days as recorded in the Bible’s first book, Genesis.
In the United States today, some creationists–called Young Earth Creationists–accept the Genesis account literally and believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, basing their calculations on the genealogies in the Hebrew scriptures. Young Earth creationists believe God created humans directly; humans did not evolve from other species.
Others, seeking to reconcile the Bible with modern science, believe that each Genesis day may have represented several billion years. (Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and Orthodox Jewish scholar, has calculated what the time spans may be.)
Intelligent design does not posit that the universe was created in six days; it does not contradict the commonly-held scientific view that the universe has been in existence for about 14 billion years. ID also does not challenge the idea that humans developed over time as a result of evolution.
However, critics of intelligent design have called it “creationism in a lab coat,” saying that to point to an intelligent designer as the cause of certain biological systems is to abandon scientific inquiry. They argue that, over the decades, science has frequently closed “gaps” and explained previously inexplicable phenomena.

You are correct,, my belief is not against you…but, it doesn’t really matter how it is said not knowing what the designer or creator is, says it could be anything,with saying that it seems no one is willing to take an actual stand that it could be God and my belief is just that.
this is not personal, show me where anyone is saying who it is. it (in my strong opinion). is God not an enigma somewhere out there.

The fact is that the theory, itself, is neutral on whether or not it is God, including your God. And your beliefs think that it is, but that is your belief, and that is NOT what would be taught in the schools.
You are perfectly entitled to hold your own opinion. People who believe it is Shiva are entitled to hold theirs. Those who think it is Allah are also entitled, as are people who think it is an impersonal ‘Watchmaker’.
But, we are not talking about ‘opinion’ class. We are talking about ‘Science Class’. And science has rules, and standards that anything taught in that class.. and I mean ANYTHING, whether its about the origins of life, or the composition of a rock, or the distance from the earth to the sun, must comply with.
Do you think any and all opinions should be taught in your science class? Do you think that those who think the Earth is flat should have their opinion represented? (They do exist, you know. Whole society of them.) Or people who believe that it is mindset, not bacteria or virii, that cause disease should have their opinion taught in science class?
If not, why not, using the same logic used to state that ID or Creationism should be taught.
Either one could, all they have to do is to conform to the same exact standards that any other theory goes through.
BTW, a ‘theory’ is NOT an ‘opinion’.
An official theory is defined as.. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Not ‘blind guess’ or ‘opinion’, or ‘idle speculation’.

My dictionary says “theory ” is speculation,guess, contemplation or conjecture. I Was asked to give my OPINION of intelligent design and i have.

I’m a huge fan of Ben Stein as an actor and financial guru, but I will withhold judgment on his credentials as a scientist or metaphysician until I see the film.

There’s more than one definition of ‘theory’. Most of them have nothing to do with science.
Good example of that is ‘charge’.
A charge can be a build up of energy, like an electrical charge. It can also be rushing toward something, like a military charge. It can also be a legal claim against someone. Such as being ‘charged with a crime’. Using one definition when another is called for can be confusing.
If I say I was ‘charged’, do I mean I was filled with electricity, someone ran at me, or that I’m going to have to appear in court?
The use of the word ‘theory’ in science is exactly what I stated it was. And since we are talking about a scientific theory taught in a science class, then the scientific definition is what is important.

Intelligent Design… of course this was made by an intelligent,loving God. The human body itself, with all its intricasies, down to our microscopic cells, all working together to form our being. If any one has ever seen the body working on the inside, they would have to agree. Vessels feeding our entire system and if we gain weight, more vessels form to feed the extra tissue. Every body system working simultaneously to give our flesh life. Now lets add the fact that we all have unique looks,fingerprints,DNA and a personality similar to, but unlike anyone else. Now add the world with each creature, all unique. Not only intelligent design but with a sense of humor. Take for example the platypus . How about sunsets, ever see one exactly like another? A rainbow in the same place? A smile on the face of a child? Love in anothers eyes? Love… our world and us created by a loving intelligent omnicient,imnopresent God who wants us to know him. All the cells in the human brain can fight against what is written on our hearts, but we all know the truth. Whether we admit it or not is another sign of intelligent design, known as freewill.

I have not seen anything in this forum that says that scientific theory or definition is what is in important,once again this forum asked to give an opinion on intelligent design. and my opinion is that it was not created by chance or undirected natural process.

Jacqui…..Well said

The issue wasn’t what you thought of ID. That is an opinion. It is WHAT ID claims to be. Which is where the word ‘theory’ comes in. If ID claims to be a scientific theory, and it doesn’t conform to the standards any scientific theory is supposed to, then it is, at least, inaccurate.
Of course, if what science is, and what theories are, and should there be standards in science, and in the teaching of science aren’t important to people, well, nothing can be done there.

So, Jacqui, do you think people who don’t come to the same conclusions that you do upon seeing those things are liars, or just in denial?

Wow! if you will look at the top of this page it does say give us your opinion and win movie tickets……

Sure. I’m not, again, talking about your opinion. I’m talking about ID, and that a scientific THEORY isn’t an OPINION. People can certainly have an opinion about a theory, but a theory and an opinion aren’t the same thing, at least in science.

I’m looking forward to this movie. Nice to see someone sticking up for scientists that hold different theories than the current popular theories.

I would love to see the movie. As much to see if it really is fair, or if it is whining about an unsupported opinion not being taught as an official theory in science class.
Myself, I think ID does belong in college. But in a Philosophy class.

It is amazing what the “Right” comes up with in using terminology. “The Path to Peace” is war. “Stand Down When They Stand Up” means we’ll be mired in a region that hates us for a 100 years. “Robust Economy” means the rich got richer and the poor are losing their houses. And so it goes.
“Intelligent Design” is another example. It is the opportunity for powerful people (I’ll not use “leaders”) in the Religious and Political Right to tell others to watch out for liberals and don’t think. A genuine examinination of ID shows that it is not a scientific theory; it is religious dogma and a political tool. The only thing the religious right has that connects it to Darwin’s theory of human evolution is an opposable thumb. The evolved brain that thinks and reasons has been left behind.

“Stein, an intelligent design advocate, publicly denounces the theory of evolution.” That’s what the movie is about, according to the article above that started all this.
Karen Brown above says “Intelligent design is not at all in conflict with evolution.”
I guess Ben Stein would disagree with you. We’ll have to see the movie and find out. I see what you are saying though. That evolution could be part of the intelligent design that brought the universe where it is today. Or not. But I personally believe the intelligent design crowd has simply adopted a new moniker because calling it creationism wasn’t getting them anywhere.

Where is it written that they are mutually exclusive? It is my belief that, in a way, both camps are correct. I believe that there is a divine force behind the act or acts of creation. I also believe that it is not blasphemy to consider that the original design has changed/adapted over time, and that this adaptation is a PART of the original intent of the Designer. But what do I know?

I guess Ben Stein would disagree with you. We’ll have to see the movie and find out. I see what you are saying though. That evolution could be part of the intelligent design that brought the universe where it is today. Or not. But I personally believe the intelligent design crowd has simply adopted a new moniker because calling it creationism wasn’t getting them anywhere.
Well, that is Ben Stein’s personal opinion and not part of the theory of Intelligent Design. He can disagree all he wants, but he can’t change what the theory he is pitching actually is.
Besides, he’s an actor. Not a biologist, not a cosmologist. He may be smart, or not, but all we really know about him is that he plays one on tv.

So, I think its a valid question, and interesting to find out in the movie if the movie is actually talking about Intelligent Design, or are part of the ‘Intelligent Design Movement’, which is a specific subset of those who agree with the theory, all who are 6 day literalist Biblical Creationists who see ID as a deliberately deceptive ‘wedge’ to get Creationism taught in schools.
Given who is involved, I’m betting on the second.
Again, read B-Net’s already linked FAQ that will fully describe what ID is, and what it is not. I’m not making this stuff up, you know.

speculating and formulating multiple theories on creation is the nature of man…
true knowledge and true creation is the nature of God…
we are fools to pretend otherwise.

I am glad that Ben Stein is coming out with a movie to support a creator. I so have a science backgroung and am familar with evolution and creationism. I do not believe that the earth is millions of years old only thousands. Darwin belives in Natural selection that a species mutations cause and genetic drift. I do not believe that we are decendencts of birds. There is a a creator just look at the beautiful trees this spring. A creator made them perfect and budding with life. I have seen the eye development in fish and in humand in my work. It is an intriciat process. It is beautiful It is similar in fish and humans. It can come from a big bang or mutation. It is a a process that begings at gastulation. There is a intellectual science behing it. As educated people we have to look at all therories. I am not say the intellectual design is right or evolution is right. We will just have to watch the movie.
Best Wishes,
Ben

Ben Stein is an actor, economist, writer and lawyer, according to his byline in the NYTimes. I don’t know if he’s right, but he is definitely smart.

Intelligent Design proves once again man’s infinite capacity to believe nonsense. Faith based religions need propositions (tenets of faith) that are inherently illogical. One can only have Faith in the absence of reason and knowledge. Because 2 + 2 equals 4, no one needs Faith in that proposition.
On the other hand, “Jesus died for your sins,” is a group of words devoid knowledge and reason. “Buring witches at the stake purifies their souls and gives them life everlasting” is another religious belief devoid of knowledge and reason. Faith based religions subvert reason so that their followers will abdicate their minds. When knowledge advances and shows that a religion’s tenet is factually wrong, faith based religions deny it. The more a religion can deceive people into believing nonsense rather than fact, the religion is strengthened. Then it can convince young men to blow up children in Israeli pizza parlors as the Will of G-d.
The Theory of Evolution is based upon knowledge and reason. As a result, it changes as the knowledge expands and new logic supplants older reasoning. Faith based ideas are static. Ironically, the Faith based Intelligent Design claims to have the Truth, while scientifically based Theory of Evolution is perpetually open to modification.

Anything Ben stein is fine with me. I read all of his articels in N.Y.TIMES AWESOME !

When we look at a wrist watch we know it was designed by someone. When we look at the patterns and colours of a painting or the shape of a sculpture we again recognize that there is design. When we look at biological systems, many recognize patterns that make one wonder if there is design behind them. Even the mathematics of biological systems are so amazing that one has to wonder how this can be without design.
Note that the simplest form of life, a single celled organism like the amoeba or the like, is still so extremely complex with biological systems that in themselves are very complex, like the processes of meiosis and mitosis (different forms of cell division), that involve DNA that is so complex which contains not only all the information that defines these processes but also defines biological functions of every part of a living being, cell structure, metabolic systems, nervous and mechanical systems. brain function, and so much more, all encoded in a biological mixture of molecules (and this does not even include the subatomic complexities, including quantum physics that make this all possible). There is no evidence of any simpler form of life. So how can this be so?
I’m not saying that all the proponents of Intelligent Design are correct but the concept is an attempt at presenting an alternate way of looking at life that is a believable way of explaining a lot of what we know and do not know that is even supported by science.
Though many would argue against this, evolution is very much a faith based belief system, though it is supported by a certain types of objective observation. When it comes to evolution, there are so many gaps in its body of evidence that one must have a basis of belief in it to bridge the huge chasms that exist in its evidence. Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot that can be used to support evolution, but there is so much more that is missing to make it hold together. And even what exists, some question whether the right conclusions are being drawn.
And contrary to what has been said above, which is outdated, there are evolutionists that are either questioning their own field and even some that have abandoned their view points because the evidence for evolution is so sparse and incongruent that it takes more faith to believe in it that an alternative. And again, some really have written scientific books, articles and papers to refute their previous positions. This is being done by well educated people on the topics with thinking minds.
So the consideration of alternatives that do not support evolution does not automatically make you a non-thinking person. And to those who might think it is not an alternative to evolution consider this; Intelligent Design infers that there is intervention in the presence of life as we know it, evolution infers that there is NO intervention.
And though I agree that any discussion regarding WHY we are here is more a matter of philosophy (any religion is a philosophy of life), Intelligent Design is science because it address how things work or came to be.
In the Judeo-Christian faith the scriptures say “Come let us REASON together” (God speaking to man) and “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, MIND, soul and strength”. There is very much the notion that we are to engage and fully use our mind in our faith. It is very much a faith that requires one to think about in the pursuit of a relationship with God. Unfortunately, this was not always so as there have been many issues of control that has tried to suppress this notion over the centuries. Fortunately this has changed a great deal in the last 25-50 years. But behaviour of individuals should not be the basis of testing the veracity of something.
Again, Intelligent Design is another theory that may be worth consideration. For each theory, there are always extremists that go beyond reasonable conclusions that can be derived from the evidence but a person should not be afraid to examine the evidence of each theory and decide for themselves if the theory stands on its own merits.

That’s great, it’s about time that we started seeing intelligent movies about intelligent design. And with Ben’s comic dryness, I am sure it will be a winner!

I concur with Pope John Paul XXIII: there need be no contradiction between evolution and the creation described in Genesis. Whether the process took seven days, seven solar years, seven universe years, 7 generations of mutations, or 70 million years is of little relevance. A supreme creator could have just as easily created the magnificence of the universe through a process we describe as “evolution” as by any other means. Sadly, getting so entrenched in defending the mechanism diminishes the awesome on-going act of creation, of which we can all be reverent and profoundly moved regardless of how we attempt to explain it.

THE EVOLUTION OF BIBLICAL CREATION
Ever since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution, the creationists and the evolutionists have debated the creditability of his ideas. Never, in the creationist’s mind, would the biblical creation be usurped by this demonic idea. Even though no correlation has ever been found in the Bible, scientific evidence tells us there did exist, millions of years ago, creatures that roamed this nine-billion-year-old planet. If this be true, then why can’t the creationists cut some slack for the evolutionists and concede that maybe, just maybe, both theories might have some validity? In the first Book of the Bible, Moses describes events which took place approximately 2500 years prior to his birth (passed down by word-of-mouth?). Regardless of the creation time frame, which may or may not have been six days as we know them, the creationists have either not considered or failed to realize that God is THE Creator and He can do whatever He wants. When He created the heavens and earth, it is quite feasible He created them billions of years old to begin with and set forth the evolution of man. This gives past and present scholars a reason to examine the earth and the heavens trying to determine their exact age.
Consider this possible scenario:
About 6000 years ago, the approximate time of the biblical creation and before God created man, God looked at the earth and said to Himself, “Hmmm, it doesn’t look like this experimental evolution thing has gone as well as I would have liked. Therefore, I will create a man in my image and let these others just keep evolving.” And so it was, God created Adam and put him into a garden called Eden. Then a little while later he created Eve and after the sins of these two, God banished them from Eden and instructed them to have children. Cain and Able were the results of these instructions. But Cain had problems and he slew his brother Abel. God declared Cain a fugitive for this dastardly deed and caused him to roam the earth.
Now Cain traveled east to the land of Nod. There is no explanation of what the land of Nod is or who named it. At any rate, Cain “knew his wife”. No explanation for this exists in the Bible, only differing interpretations by the clergy. It has been suggested that it was his sister that he may have taken as a wife. Did Cain take a wife with him or did he find a wife after he arrived in Nod? The Bible is unclear where his wife came from. However, it is quite possible Cain discovered God’s first experiment, a tribe of evolved humans from which he selected a wife. Subsequently, a son, Enoch, was born of this union. Cain established a city and called it Enoch after his son. Cain’s descendants continued for about 1600 years. What was the source of these historical events which inspired Moses to write about?
After 1600 years, Adam’s descendant, Noah, appeared on the scene and we all know what happened next. Yep, you guessed it! The Big Flood came and all of Cain’s descendants as well as all the evolved species were destroyed. Repopulation of the earth was accomplished by the descendants of Adam and Eve. This might also explain why archeologists have never found the evolutionary missing link. The link was never established with Noah’s descendants and therefore doesn’t exist. The link was there with Cain’s descendants but never got past the flood.

Creationists and people who believe that the Torah/Bible is literally correct are not necessary the same. One can be a creationist and disbelive everything in Genesis. We do know, however, that the first line of Genesis is false. “In the beginning, G-d created the Heavens and the Earth.” Since the Earth was created several billion years after the universe began, we know that the Heavens and the Earth were not both created “in the beginning.” Hence the opening word of Torah is false. Even Maimonides criticized as fools people who believed the Torah was literally true.
Creationism, and Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism, is not a scientific theory. It is a religious belief which some people like to pretend is a theory. If anyone is interested in the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief, they can easily study the features of a scientific theory without regard to creationism and/or evolution. Once a person understands what is required to have a scientific theory, then they can test Intelligent Design for themselves. Don’t rely on what people who have an axe to grind proclaim on discussion boaaards like this one. Instead, consult people who have no stake in Creationism or Evolution but who do understand science.

Social Darwinism, which espouses that some people are genetically more fit than others, has been and still is, a dangerous mis-application of evolutionary principals.
As a faithful Roman Catholic, and as a person who reads, I am quite comfortable with the Science of Evolution. It is fascinating to watch the workings of this natural world we live in. From The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin to James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis: Theories that explain why creation unfolds as it does are useful and inspiring.
All that Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” means is that over a lot of time species change because of an inherited characteristic that allows said species to live longer and leave more descendents… who in turn live longer and reproduce more, etc,etc. Who can argue with that?
It is an altogether different matter to propose that we should use this information to decide who should live and who should die.
To this Catholic it sounds like Ben Stein got it right in his soon to be released movie, in that Hitler’s concept of a genetically superior “Master Race” rightfully indicts Social Darwinism.
My only question is, why stop there?
Eugenics in America today has become commonplace with late term abortions in 85-90% of Down Syndrome babies whose mothers were over 35 and had amniocentesis. (Even though the studies don’t include babies being born to mothers who refuse amniocentesis, or are too young to be offered it, those percentages are high enough to merit a close watch.)
In fact, as with Fascism in the 30′s in Europe, we should always be wary of the dark side of Darwinian Evolution. Any time the question gets raised: Should these people live? – We should be very wary indeed.
That includes, but should not be limited to: Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, Homosexuals, the imperfect, the unborn and the old and suffering.
Members of the human community like Ben Stein only get it half right when they recognize the historic mis-applications of Darwin. Ben, look around you at what is today! Don’t stop at Darfur!
Ridiculous arguments about “when life begins”, or “who has the rights” only detract from the real issue –”whose lives are we willing to keep paying for”?
Yesterday it was Hitler while today it is “life rights.”. Or, too quote a greater thinker than I am: Whenever a majority can vote a minority out of existence, tyranny, and worse, follows.

Intelligent Design? Well, d’uh!

The reason Intelligent Design has been expelled from the scientific community is because it hasn’t produced any science. No testable theory, no model that is falsifiable, and no positive evidence for its own claims. Instead, its proponents have sought to highlight gaps in our understanding of evolutionary theory (though we know evolution happened and continues to happen, there are still debates over exactly how it happened) and confuse those weaknesses for evidence in favor of Intelligent Design – an example of the either-or fallacy.
Rather than engage on the scientific front, Intelligent Design’s supporters have launched a public relations campaign to force their way into science classes, citing “fair play” issues. But that’s not how science works – not because scientists are meanies who won’t play fair – but because science is about evidence and reason, not popular opinion.
Furthermore, the ID community has linked itself with a reputation for dishonesty (read the Dover trial decision), hypocrisy (the filmmakers expelled PZ Myers, who’s in the film, from a screening of Expelled), and tired old canards about how somehow the Nazis were inspired by evolution (rather than an underlying animosity that dates back way before evolutionary theory and has strong roots in Christianity – see Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies”).
ID backers have every right to produce scientific papers or even books and documentaries, but they don’t have the right to muscle their way into the science class with unproven nonsense. I’d love to get a free ticket to see the film (because I will see it to judge it on its own merits), as I’d rather not pay for it.

As a longtime Ben Stein fan, I am greatly pleased that he has the guts to question establishment dogma with this movie. I am not an acceptor of religious precepts but, do believe in the libertarian right to espouse alternative theories to Darwinism. To suppress other voices (and may I remind you that our country was founded on religious precepts), is arrogance at its highest level. Bravo to Ben Stein and to others who will not be pressured into meek submissiveness.
J.C.Moore, Cpo USN Ret.
PO Box 5
Lake Ariel, PA 18436

There most certainly was an intelligence active behind the creation of our universe and the life within it.
The Norse Creation Myth
abstracted from The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson
by
D. L. Ashliman
© 1997-2003
Muspell
The first world to exist was Muspell, a place of light and heat whose flames are so hot that those who are not native to that land cannot endure it.
Surt sits at Muspell’s border, guarding the land with a flaming sword. At the end of the world he will vanquish all the gods and burn the whole world with fire.
Ginnungagap and Niflheim
Beyond Muspell lay the great and yawning void named Ginnungagap, and beyond Ginnungagap lay the dark, cold realm of Niflheim.
Ice, frost, wind, rain and heavy cold emanated from Niflheim, meeting in Ginnungagap the soft air, heat, light, and soft air from Muspell.
Ymir
Where heat and cold met appeared thawing drops, and this running fluid grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir.
Frost ogres
Ymir slept, falling into a sweat. Under his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres.
Audhumla
Thawing frost then became a cow called Audhumla. Four rivers of milk ran from her teats, and she fed Ymir.
Buri, Bor, and Bestla
The cow licked salty ice blocks. After one day of licking, she freed a man’s hair from the ice. After two days, his head appeared. On the third day the whole man was there. His name was Buri, and he was tall, strong, and handsome.
Buri begot a son named Bor, and Bor married Bestla, the daughter of a giant.
Odin, Vili, and Vé
Bor and Bestla had three sons: Odin was the first, Vili the second, and Vé the third.
It is believed that Odin, in association with his brothers, is the ruler of heaven and earth. He is the greatest and most famous of all men.
The death of Ymir
Odin, Vili, and Vé killed the giant Ymir.
When Ymir fell, there issued from his wounds such a flood of blood, that all the frost ogres were drowned, except for the giant Bergelmir who escaped with his wife by climbing onto a lur [a hollowed-out tree trunk that could serve either as a boat or a coffin]. From them spring the families of frost ogres.
Earth, trees, and mountains
The sons of Bor then carried Ymir to the middle of Ginnungagap and made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken.
Dwarfs
Maggots appeared in Ymir’s flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks.
Sky, clouds, and stars
From Ymir’s skull the sons of Bor made the sky and set it over the earth with its four sides. Under each corner they put a dwarf, whose names are East, West, North, and South.
The sons of Bor flung Ymir’s brains into the air, and they became the clouds.
Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths.
The earth was surrounded by a deep sea. The sons of Bor gave lands near the sea to the families of giants for their settlements.
Midgard
To protect themselves from the hostile giants, the sons of Bor built for themselves an inland stonghold, using Ymir’s eyebrows. This stonghold they named Midgard.
Ask and Embla
While walking along the sea shore the sons of Bor found two trees, and from them they created a man and a woman.
Odin gave the man and the woman spirit and life. Vili gave them understanding and the power of movement. Vé gave them clothing and names. The man was named Ask [Ash] and the woman Embla [Elm?]. From Ask and Embla have sprung the races of men who lived in Midgard.
Clearly, the intelligence behind ID are the sons of Bor, just as the ancient texts tell us.

If G-d is infinite and incomprehensible, He/She/It/They is/are not unique. As belief in Intelligent Design shows, the human capacity to deceive itself is similarly infinite and incomprehensible.
If I donned a cleric’s robe and preached that the A in Ask and the E in Embla stood for the A in Adam and the E in Eve so that the Norse Myth of Creation was really the Torah myth of creation, a lot of people would believe me.
Faith makes people feel good and when people feel good, they can ride out the bad times. Thus, belief in total nonsense is a product of Evolution. People who have Faith in nonsense were more likely to weather life’s storms. Belief can alternate brain chemistry so that men persist. It is ironic that the the Theory of Evolution explains why many people believe in the foolishness called Intelligent Design.

Ok, there’s a logical contradiction between my saying belief in Intelligent Design is incomprehensible and then explaining why people believe Intelligent Design.
What I find incomprehensible is why people choose to believe such utter nonsense. Space ships hiding behind a meteor so an entire sect commits suicide thinking that’s their boarding pass to the space ship. That is really no different that believing that G-d transformed himself into another being so that he could murder himself in order to relieve people of original sin which he imposed upon them in the first place. The moshiach is going to come. Give me a break. If he was going to come, he would have arrived in the 1930′s. Ring a bell and a wafer and wine turn into human flesh and blood. I’ll take the ever-late Moshiach over cannibalism. Kill a Jew, get 72 virgins. The list is endless.
If Intelligent Design were correct, then we would have the capacity to distinguish between science and nonsense.

i like intelligent designs better than stupid designs.

LOL – Yes intelligent designs are better than stupid ones! Thanks for that. Personally I do not understand what all the big fuss is about – intelligent design or Darwin’s theory. Why are we limiting G-d – (as if we could)? Anyway, how that it happened it happened period and however G-d did it He did it and who knows what science may discover or come up with next. RELAX and enjoy it! The Universe is here – we are here with probably a lot more to discover. How it all got here does not concern me – how we take care of it does. Shalom ALL

IF THEY SPENT THE SAME TIME LOOKING INTO THE SEA THEY WOULD KNOW IT WAS BY GODS DESIGN. MAN WILL ALWAYS COME UP WITH SOME THEORY THAT STUDENTS HAVE TO MEMORIZE AND LEARN .JUST ANOTHER WAY TO SELL TICKETS.

Darwin knows the truth now.funny that if we look at the world today, events are occuring that were written about over 2 thousand years ago.If the theory of evolution were true then why are creatures still not evolving? Or did that stop when we became so intelligent ourselves that we have it figured out. A fish is still a fish, a bird is still a bird, a gnat is still a gnat. We have yet to evolve in our bodies to fight off disease, death or the incapacity to turn to a loving creator who yearns for relationship with his creation.

Jacqui: Creatures are still evolving. Perhaps you should learn science.
Faith should stay out of the realm of science. By its nature, a Faith Based Religion requires its adherents to believe in nonsense. A religion which is based on reason cannot support any Faith. When something turns out not to be scientifically accurate, a Reason Based Religion would change its position. Recently the Dalai Lama suggested certain portions of Buddhism be deleted as science showed them to be wrong. In order to have people abdicate their ability to reason, however, Faith Based Religions all requires their members to believe intellectual gibberish. Thus, Fundies attack the Theory of Evolution and promote their Faith as if it were science. Because the adherents of Faith based religions have abdicated their minds, the cheer on ignorance as if it were a virtue.
Faith based religions often pretend that they have some inside-track on The Truth. When the real world shows that one of their beliefs is false, they then attack science. That is what we see with Intelligent Design. The Theory of Evolution contradicts Christian dogma abut creation, which means the Bible is literally true. If the Bible is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Jesus died for their sins, and their entire religion is reduced to intellectual junk.
Jews on the other hand have no excuse to believe that the Torah is literally true. A thousand years ago in the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides said that only fools believed the Torah was literally correct. Over the centuries, however, some Jews have adopted the Christian thought pattern deceiving themselves into think that they know the Truth and the Torah must be literally true. We are, however, a people with no theology. We do not believe in Heaven or Hell. Doing mitzvot requires not belief in the literal truth of the Torah. Because we are a people and not a religion, Jews who want to adopt Christian thought patterns remain Jews as long as they do not convert. Although the right wing idea that The Moshiach will come prevents their conversion, one can see that there is no substantial difference between their Faith in The Coming of Moshiach and the Messiah Has Already Come. Both are Faith based religions which require the abdication of the mind.
It is interesting to note that the United States rates low among industrialized nations in math and science and high in church attendance.

Ruvain…ask God. Can’t hurt to ask. Truly ask, your heart yearns for fellowship

It truely is interesting to note that the United States rates low among industrialized nations in math and science and big in church attendance. It’s also interesting to note that we are still the most powerful nation in the world and millions of people from other nations are risking life and limb to live in our country. Hmm…I wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that we are also the most blessed nation in the world? Praise God, not math and science, for that!

The people who are risking life and limb to come to the United States are not from the industrialized nations. Europe has its influx of immigrants from the more ignant and backward countries.
Math, science, W. Edwards Deming, Liberty, and the founding Fathers who knew the evils of religion and created the Separation of Chruch and State (and No, they were not all Christians). G-d did not make America what it is today. Faith in G-d made Mexico what it is today.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Since humans share many characteristics with primates, we could have evolved from them. I think Ben Stein is very intellegent, (I used to watch his game show, “Win Ben Stein’s Money”), and I am surprised he doesn’t think evolution occurred. As far as I am concerned, it has scintifically been proven. I think there is sufficient proof of evolution all around us. I am very interested in seeing what this movie has to say about evolution.

I want to clarify that if this section were dicussing religious beliefs, I would not be so harsh. When religious beliefs like Intelligent Design, however, intrude into the realm of science, then they waive the normal deference which we afford them.

How can evolution be a fact? That is untrue, it is only a theory. There are several quots from athestic evolutionalist that stae….We have no proof. And if evolution is true, how come nothing is evolving now? How many monkies do you see changing into humans on a daily basis? or even in the past 300 or 400 years or so. Or even in th last 800 years? How long does it take a monkey to evolve into something else? Yes, now we have so much scientific evidence of sooo many things and people are creating sheep from sheep, but no one has been able to recreate the sperm or egg that creates a human body.
And peolpe say that people evolve to live in climates. Well, I do believe that we all can adjust, but Eskimos still look human and have the average Human hair, and my father-in-law is Puerto Rican and has more hair on his body than I hve ever seen. Yet he livesin PR, hottest place…..and tons of hair, How come that is? We have an inteligent creator, and artist that created HIS master peice similar and beautiful in each individual way. Check out Institute of Creation Research. Full of highly educated scientist that could not escae the truth. Romans 1:21

If you took 1000 of the most intelligent people in the world, they would not be able to create life. How can they say it was created by accident? If you took 1000 of the most intelligent monkeys in the world, you would not be able to breed a human in a million years. Animals will never change species. We have never seen it happen, we cannot make it happen, and it never did happen. Show me some proof, not preconceived ideas of what fossils show.

Many of the comments about Intelligent Design are in fact expressions of extreme ignorance. If you do not understand algebra, that does not the equations are wrong. It means you do not understand algebra. If you do not understand science, that does not mean science is wrong. It means you do not understand science.
Different disciples have different modes of thought. Legal thinking is different from scientific thinking. Law and science are different from Faith. Faith has no place for proof, for facts, or for independent verifications of its beliefs. Most Faiths are self-contained systems based upon certain unquestionable beliefs. Because Faiths are self-contained, they reject all outside evidence that their beliefs are incorrect. (Not all religions are Faith based and not all believe that they have an exclusive on the Truth.)
In fact, when events prove their Faith to be wrong, many people will hold their disproved beliefs much more strongly. Some people of Faith have invested too much time and effort into their religious beliefs to abandon them when they are proven wrong. Far more important than time and effort is the psychological investment in the belief system. People who have been taught from childhood that the Bible is literally true and who were taught to thank Jesus whenever something good occurred cannot bear the idea of living without the idea. Some people who believe that they are saved, and hence that they are special, cannot live with the idea that there is no such thing as salvation, and that they are not special. If they depart from the “faith,” what will they have? The context of their lives may be lost. Alienation of the Self is one of life’s most fearsome experiences. Thus, it is understandable that some people will go to extreme measures in order to deceive themselves so that they may hold onto their Faith.
Other people believe that their Faith is holding their personal demons in check. Being Gay is “evil,” for example, and thus, by having Faith in G-d, they can repress any Gay impulses. This phenomenon is so common that one of the most common indicators whether a teenager is Gay is if he considerably more religious that his classmates. He often says that he is saving himself for marriage. In reality, he is saving himself from having sex with girls. It is more socially acceptable to claim a holy motivation than to say, “I don’t like Sally, I like her brother Steve.” For young people, these are very practical considerations. The majority of Gay teens can stay in the closet. The existence of a few “stereotypical queers” makes it easier for the majority to pass, especially they’re jocks. Adapting a very religious orientation will explain why they’re not constantly after the skirts.
What happens when a Faith, upon which one’s lives depends, is found lacking? Any facts which disprove that the religion’s beliefs must be attacked. After losing the battle to keep evolution out of the schools, the Creationists have devised the next best thing, the elevation of the Faith to equal scientific status as The Theory of Evolution. This campaign to have Intelligent Design declared equal with The Theory of Evolution serves some practical purposes. By casting themselves as persecuted, they avoid the fact that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. People behind Intelligent Design take it on faith that Intelligent Design is scientific. More importantly, it allows them to pretend that their beliefs are factually correct. “Jesus died for their sins” is no longer threatened if Creationism is science. Then the New Testament must be true. If the Bible is literally true, then they are saved and they are special. Thus, Faith based people, who deceived themselves into believing that they alone know The Truth, need to have the educational system recognize Creationism – Intelligent Design as a science.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and merits no respect in the field of science.

As A middle school science teacher I teach my students about how to conduct a scientific investigation. I tell them that they need to develop a question followed by a hypothesis. They then need to design a test which will answer the question they began with and which will prove whether their hypothesis was correct. They also need to perform this test several times to make sure their first result wasn’t a false negative test. If the hypothesis is true it should be true over and over.
How does this relate to evolution? Simply that no test exists to create life from non-living matter. Otherwise an investigation of the past through evidence and data is just that, an investigation. The results of which are subject to the presumptions, interpretations and dare I say it, even the desired outcomes. I recently watched an episode of NOVA in which two scientific teams were investigating a fossil found in Northern China. Both teams were using the scientific method to explain how the fossilized animal moved and fit into its environment yet they were coming to separate conclusions.
I recently also heard a lecturer at the National Science Teacher Associations national conference in Boston. This gentleman was studying the evidence for terrestrial planets, like earth, orbiting others stars. One of the first things that he stated was that new evidence shows that our presuppositions about how solar systems are organized were wrong. The lesson here is that most of science, as well as other academic disciplines, is in flux.
I have a History degree even though I am a science teacher. One of the major ideas I came away with from my history degree is that every event in history can be viewed from a myriad of perspectives resulting in an equal number of thesis regarding the truth. The discipline of science has shown itself to be no different. Anyone who states otherwise has an ulterior motive

Ok, so I don’t really care if you believe evolution or creationism, you can believe what you want. However the claim that somehow darwins’ theory led to genocide or the holocaust is frankly ridicolous. I can’t imagine what kind of crazy twisted mental gymnastics you have to make to connect those two things. It’s hard to belive that anybody who considers themself ‘christian’ or whatever would make such a slandarous claim. Frankly its amoral. If you really believe your religion thats fine, but you don’t have to go around demonizing other peoples truths. Instead of making their point, they are just coming out looking like liars.

I believe science and scientists should involve the Intelligent Designer in thier endeavors

So-called “intelligent design” is a very stupid non-science non-theory religious nonsense scheme to undermine science education.