I do believe in intelligent design despite what the diehard evolutionists want to impose on everyone as fact because there is just no way the universe and life here all just happened by some accidental random chance of dumb luck, but that's just me.
So you believe that an (extremely) intelligent designer just appeared by some accidental random chance of dumb luck, but some mindless energy and atoms could not?

This documentary makes me puke.

At the risk of being scorned and ridiculed. Documentary aside, our limited human brains can't always grasp ideas beyond what the 5 senses provide so we limit what we perceive "the universe" to be, conforming it to our physical perceptions and expectations of what it should be. Despite the fact that new discoveries seems to surprise and throw an occasional monkey wrench into conventional wisdom. The possibility of something more than just the physical can exist scares some people and is outright rejected by others as fantasy because it can't be measured in a test tube. That being said, the idea of something or someone having no end is an easy concept to understand but the idea of something or someone without a beginning is more difficult to grasp. Non atheists have no problem with that idea but atheists do because atheists in general close their minds to the possibility of existance outside linear time and the physical world and therefore dismiss the whole idea outright as religious folklore. Anyhow that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

That being said, the idea of something or someone having no end is an easy concept to understand but the idea of something or someone without a beginning is more difficult to grasp. Non atheists have no problem with that idea but atheists do ... Atheists have no problem grasping "something without a beginning": I happen to believe in an eternal universe. I see that it is, and that's good enough for me; as we learn more about it, that's even better.

It's non-atheists who have the problem: They shun the "something without a beginning" nature of the universe and, instead, cling to - and make obeisance to - numerous mythologies of "loving creators" and "intelligent designers" in order to make the cold, impersonal nature of an eternal universe more appealing and comforting.

Atheists have no problem grasping "something without a beginning": I happen to believe in an eternal universe. I see that it is, and that's good enough for me; as we learn more about it, that's even better.

Very well put. Agree 100%.

Okay, lets leave it at that.

All future posts that aren't specifically discussing the movie and what's on screen will be deleted.

Just heard on Sirius the Yoko is suing the producers for using music from Imagine without permission or royalties. Producers said "We're only using a little bit of it.":D

Good news for those who have been wondering if this Moore style documentary would make it to the big screen in Canada. It's coming, and will be released June 6. (http://www.tribute.ca/movies/Expelled%3A+No+Intelligence+Allowed/16591)

The release in Canada has been changed to June 27 FYI.

Yoko won her injunction. I think she will be deciding if it opens anywhere else.


Beware fundamentalist conspiratorial Beatle fans!!!

Any news on if the injunction stopped the movie from being shown in US theatres, or being released in Canada?

Ben was on Canada AM doing a promo "interview" with Beverly Thomson this morning. Softball questions, just the usual vapid agreement with everything he said. I know where Ben is coming from, but she did not seem equipped (or willing) to offer any challenges or rebuttals to his arguments. She talked about the "journey" his film took her on.

The video is on their main site, just browse the right-hand column under the video box:

http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam

This would be a publicity tour. I have almost never seen interviewers give critical views or questions during these kinds of interviews, these things are for promotional purposes.

This would be a publicity tour. I have almost never seen interviewers give critical views or questions during these kinds of interviews, these things are for promotional purposes.

John Moore on CFRB didn't lob too many softballs:

http://www.cfrb.com/player/ondemand/files/srimedia/Ben-Stein-With-John-Moore.mp3

See also Moore's piece (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=607100) in today's National Post.

Mark

So do you disagree with my premise that almost never do you see interviewers give critical views or questions, or are you saying they often do?

So do you disagree with my premise that almost never do you see interviewers give critical views or questions, or are you saying they often do?
Er.... neither? Just providing a link I thought would be of interest.

I just saw the movie. In considering some of its main points, I have read over the comments on this thread. Belittling, condescending, close minded, and supporting opposition of Intelligent design with religious like fervor.

This is exactly what is happening to scientists and professors who when looking at the data, simply ask a question, was there intelligent design. Why does asking this question bring about the repression of free speech and freedom of inquiry? Why is it so scary and threatening to allow scientists the freedom to follow the evidence where ever they find it goes?

And at the end of the movie, Ben Stein sits down with one of the biggest guns in the evolution army, Richard Dawkins. This man is a god to evolutionists and atheists alike and when pressed on the origins of life, supports a possible theory. That aliens from another planet may have been intelligent designers and started life on earth. But he can't see how this is similar to another possible designer, God.

Weird. Also, most ID supporters agree that Darwin's evolution within species is reasonable, but then he took a great idea and used it for everything, including the genesis of life, which is bad science, because it can not explain the origin of life, the very very first cell. Evolutionists say it could have been mud with the appropriate ingredients hit by lightening, but they can not replicate this in the lab and gave up. Or they say it could be the mystery of mud on crystals, and somehow the crystals started the first cell, and of course the above mentioned aliens.

But in all of this the very thought that maybe ID could be explored as a possible weird theory in light of all these weird theories they explore is forbidden, and scientists are getting fired for their ideas and thoughts. The ACLU has tried ID in the courts, as if a judge could decipher such complex scientific data. They know he can't, but it's not about that, it's about shutting up certain thought and inquiry.

An interesting look at the struggle for freedom of inquiry, but I recommend that if reading this post has pissed you off you better not watch the movie.

I still plan to see the movie, but you might want to read this site:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

runnin'
"This would be a publicity tour. I have almost never seen interviewers give critical views or questions during these kinds of interviews, these things are for promotional purposes."

When some movie star appears on Jay Leno promoting a movie I've yet to see Jay say, "What were you guys, thinking?" "That's got to be the lamest piece of drivel I've seen this year!" The guest usually shows a 40 second clip that turns out to be the only decent part in the whole film as the rest of movie is pure crap.
There's also a lot of cross-promotion on television. I've noticed when a TV star comes on any of the chat shows promoting their new show, it invariably is going to be on the same network. e.g. A soon- to- be -aired CBS programme is promoted on different CBS owned shows. An up-coming Disney film is highlighted on ABC which owns Disney etc.
The only time I've ever seen a disclaimer is on news shows like 60 Minutes or Dateline where the host will say: CBS(or NBC) is the parent company of .......

technut, this movie cost about 3.5 million, and so far has done 7 million at the box office. Really, really small potatoes is this movie. No one is seeing it. So ask yourself, why are there entire websites devoted to opposing this tiny out of the way movie? There is even a page on wikipedia!

I know the movie is not without faults, but for people to get in such a lather over a movie no one is watching is just more of the same suppression of thought. It is debatable whether nazi eugenic scientists were taking evolution one step further when they began killing off the diseased, the mentally insane and the handicapped people. However, it is not debatable that a scientific community that accepts the theory that an alien may have intelligently designed life on earth is repressing and shutting down any study of ID if that alien might be a god.

However, it is not debatable that a scientific community that accepts the theory that an alien may have intelligently designed life on earth is repressing and shutting down any study of ID if that alien might be a god.

First, show me evidence that the "scientific community" accepts any such theory. Second, show me where the theory of alien designed life is being taught in schools as science. ID/Creationism is not science. Neither is the idea that aliens created life. Dawkins may believe it, I don't know, but he doesn't force his personal beliefs on others & call it science.

The reason such a small time movie has such impact on the internet community is because the underlying Creationism movement is trying so hard to have a great impact on what is being taught to children. The movie is just the tip and if it is not refuted it may gain a foothold & people will start to accept the blurring of science & religion. There is a difference & there's no reason why Creationism can't be taught as part of religious studies. But that's not good enough for those that have faith that God created Life. They have to wrap it up in fake scientific theories that are unproven, untested & untestable and force it on the populace. That gets people's attention.