Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed For Teachers!

[hznfrst]

Creationists are known as cretinists by people with functioning brains, just as IDers are called IDiots!



[socceric17]

Wow this is very misleading. It's trying to make it sound like Christians don't want science in schools where as the real issue is that Christians want creationism taught in schools along side the theory of evolution. But then again, all mainstream media is misleading.

[Xlivesforever]

@socceric17 creationism isnt science and does not belong in the classroom whatsoever....evolution is a fact....it can be proved....observed, tested, and repeated in a lab......id like to see your god do that.....

[sagitarian000028]

google astrotheology and jesus

[LadiesmanB007]

wow... this video is incomplete. where is this woman teaching at, where are the attempted interviews with the school to confirm that this was why she was fired instead of her making up a reason (something I've seen plain old bad teachers do), and for that matter, to the author of the vid, stein's movie isn't about creationism at all for starters, but intelligent design (yes there is a difference) and not even that, but the lack of scientific freedom, of which this would also be an example

[SugarCookietarian]

That's so disturbing. My high school biology text book only had one chapter on the origins of life, and it gave equal time to evolution, intelligent design and the theory that we were brought here by aliens.

I saw "Expelled" and it infuriated me. The people who made that movie would have you believe that evolution has a strangle-hold on the country, when in reality only 14% of Americans accept it as fact. That's among the lowest percentages in the world. Evolutionists NEED to fight back.

[kittycatearmode]

I am very sad this hapend I am Pagan and belve in evolution and belev that it shuld be tot in school not religen.

[lolrofl5]

Shut the hell up right now. Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory. I simply cannot believe that everything that we see around us today was formed out of mud, like evolution says. How does mud = everything? How did mud, grow feet and start thinking for itself. Shut up evolutionists. Your theory is a religion in itself.

[herbiethebarber]

LOL, you obviously DO NOT know what a theory in science is. It is of the highest regards. Some examples include: Atomic Theory (how we know atoms exist), Heliocentric Theory (How we know about the planets revolving the sun), and Music Theory (The "guess" that instruments play notes in patterns).  So, you should go read a book. What you are referring to is ABIOGENESIS, NOT EVOLUTION! Evolution simply states that animals change over time, it has been observed, tested, and is taught to your kid

[Annahliz]

It has been observed and tested- but not fully proven. What lolrofl5 was trying to say (rather rudely) was that since it hasn't been absolutely proven, it cannot be stated as fact. Therefore, it is a theory in that sense.

[herbiethebarber]

You obviously don't know what a Scientific Theory is. It is not defined the same as a "theory" in general terms. A theory is an explanation of facts, thus it is THE HIGHEST form of science there is. Now, it is true that some theories have less facts to back them. BUT! Evolution is not one, if you are asking whether it is a fact that evolution occurs or not.. the answer would be YES, it is a fact.

Whey you say "not fully proven" what do you mean? Is 2+2 =4 "fully proven"?

[herbiethebarber]

NOTHING is "absolutely proven" in science. NOTHING. The word "THEORY" was chosen to replace Scientific "LAW".

How? Well, Einstein's Theories of Relativity CHANGED Newton's so-called Laws.

Thus, Theory is a formal title, to allow room for improvement NOT because it is subjective or "a guess" It is the highest level of "proof" that exists, and arguing otherwise is purely ignorant. So, please, don't take my word for it; investigate it yourself.

[Annahliz]

I agree- science cannot prove anything. In the end, then, all the conclusions that scientist draw are tentative.

Science is used to draw conclusions that are reasonably reliable. However, one experiment can prove anything incorrect. All I was saying, sir, was that evolution is, at best, 'reasonably reliable' and 'tentative'. It is not a fact. It is a theory that could obviously be wrong. Or not. We don't know. We assume.

[Annahliz]

Theory replaced law because science cannot prove anything. Therefore, it is the highest level of 'proof' simply because we can't GO any higher than an assumption.

[Annahliz]

P.S. Don't worry- I'm not going to take your word for it.

[herbiethebarber]

We do ASSUME but not only about certain evolutionary aspects, NOT about whether it even happened. We KNOW that it happened. I hope you're not taking this the "nothing can be proven" and "everything is faith" so evolution is a faith issue... IT"S NOT. Evolutionary biology is based on facts, the process itself is factual, it uses facts to explain itself, and Theory is simply it's formal title. It is NOT an assumption because assumptions can be made from it.

[Xlivesforever]

@lolrofl5 see comment above just replace the word religion with faith and youll understand

[Annahliz]

This video is hilarious... evolutionists getting a taste of their own medicine and freaking out about it.

[Opiedid]

How would you like to lose your job because some worthless fools cannot come to terms that their religious dogma is incorrect?

[Annahliz]

How would you like to lose your job because people who preach tolerance are afraid to allow students to choose for themselves what they wish to believe?

[Opiedid]

The difference is that one is a purely religious view, which has absolutely no place in education. If you want to study creation, do it in a place that does not take education seriously.

[Annahliz]

Evolution requires faith just as much, if not more, than creationism. Therefore, they are both just as 'religious'.

Regardless of whether you perceive creationism to be religious fluff, it is still another 'version' of science. Students deserve the right to know both fully, and then, if they think it's fluff, fine. That is their choice.

But they have the right to choose.

[Opiedid]

Creation is not science by any means and should not be taught in a science class. Not even close. Period.

[Annahliz]

That is your viewpoint. You are not the final word. Catastrophism, just so you know, is indeed considered science. Research before you speak. Remember, too, that this is a free country. People have the right to believe what they wish.

How do you think that the earth began?

[Opiedid]

I didn't say that you can't believe what you want to, I'm perfectly fine with that. Creation just shouldn't be taught in schools. How do I think the Earth began... Where would you like me to start?

[Annahliz]

So you're saying that people can believe what they want, but they have to be taught only what you believe?

As for where to start- wherever you wish.

[Opiedid]

You can believe what you want, but teach what is actually credible and completely scientific for the classroom. Unless creationists prove that they have any evidence to back their claims, they should keep themselves out of schools. As for our universe:

1. Singularity

2. Big Bang

3. Accretion disk

4. Evolution

I can already feel you licking your chops and getting ready to pound out a nice strawman for me.

[Annahliz]

As I was saying to herbie, since science cannot prove anything, everything 'scientific' is simply reasonably reliable.

Evolution is reasonably reliable. So is Catastrophism.

Please, explain #1 for me.

[tingtangs]

@Annahliz

Stop being retarded.

You are clearly a hater of science, which is ironic considering that you are using a PC, a product of science, to spew venom against it.

Hilarious.

[Xlivesforever]

@Annahliz um no they have to be taught FACTs and whats TRUE.......not believes and what people claim is true.......so based on facts and evidence.....you like to show me how creationism is ANY kind of true.....ohh and dont hit me with any faith bullshit along the way ok

[Xlivesforever]

@Annahliz dude go the a dictinary and look of the word faith......faith is believe with no evidence......seeing as theres TONS of evidence that evolution happened and is happening right now and will continue happening so long as life exists..............means that evolution requires NO faith

[gizdaleroy]

all militant atheist can kiss my utube ass now that I have said that I have 2 say EVEN louder evolution is NOT A THEORY it is a scientific fact.If we dont teach it as so we r handy capping our children on the world science stage.we will have 2 pay other countries 4 cures 2 diseases because we will not have the understanding of how genetics work.genetics shows life on this planet is much older then 8,000 years old and thats why SOME have a problem with it.religion is not bad discrimination is

[tingtangs]

I don't even understand what you are trying to say. Could you try again in English?

[gizdaleroy]

science is a method almost always used in correlation with mathematical statements but religion is best described as a "personal" experience with ones creator.A peronal experience can not be mathematicaly described.genetics has a mathematical truth in it that shows man as a species has been around much longer then 6000 years.thats what some religious ppl cant handle.but it is wrong to teach that 1+1=3 just because you dont except 2 as a real number that will handycap the students math ie science

[dhartin]

tingtangs, I like your video and agree with the basis of most of your comments but talking shit to everyone who comments here and being an over the top asshole isn't going convince anyone, take a deep breath, do some research and answer people in an intelligent way, quit arguing and let the information speak for itself. I know some IDers comments are stupid and uninformed but they cant deny the facts, that your ammo, not name calling.

[tingtangs]

I'm not trying to convince the jackasses who lie and deceive in my comments. They are brainwashed and cannot be saved from their own stupidity. I am merely supplying other like-minded people with things that they may be able to use in their own debates with brainwashed morons. Let's hope that they have more patience than me with these fools.

Creationists not only can, but they DO deny the facts. That's why they are creationists.

[KrisMayeaux]

It is ludicrous that the discussion of Intelligent Design is forbidden in schools when there are large holes in Evolution Theory. One recent example: Dinosaur fossils dated at 65, 66, and 80 million years old were discovered to contain soft tissue (blood vessels)! Well, current science teaching claims that no soft tissue remains past 100,000 years. But the dating methods are not being questioned because it would disturb evolutionary theory.

[HelixTheThinker]

Ug. First of all, ID is forbidden in schools because it is religious doctrine, not science. Teaching ID in public schools would violate the constitution.

Also, you should re-check your "soft-tissue" story from non-creationist literature. How about reading about it from actual scientists who actually were involved with that bone? You will find that the 'soft tissue' was not soft at all. Seriously, educate yourself on your own arguments.

[KrisMayeaux]

To Helix: My soft-tissue stories were not from any creationist sites. I first read it in my newspaper. I did a google search for:Dinosaur Soft Tissue discovered. Try it yourself! Click on the msnbc link for color photos. My point is Science teaches no soft tissue is preserved beyond 100,000 years and these dinosaurs are dated 65-80 million yrs. So ID rightfully is questioning whether the dinos are really that old, but it would disturb the evolution theory, so no one else is questioning it.

[tingtangs]

Holes in science does not allow for religions to be plugged into those holes. In fact, ALL of science has holes. That doesn't make it right for religious fundamentalists like you to force your religions on other by pretending that your superstition can explain those holes.

ID is questioning jack shit. You don't need ID to look into soft tissue in dinosaur remains. All ID does is to confuse the issue by introducing religion.

ID = 'soft tissue, THEREFORE GOD'

Retarded.

[KrisMayeaux]

ID is against anyone's religion being taught. Only Facts. But just because soft tissue opens the question of whether the dating methods are accurate, no one else is questioning it because the main ingredient in the evolutionary theory is magical time. Millions and billions of years. If the dinosaurs are really only 50,000 years old, for instance, there wouldn't be enough time for molecules to man evolution. You don't know anything about Intelligent Design.

[tingtangs]

ID *IS* religion, you moron. Soft tissue, therefore God, remember? Even the Discovery Institute admits that ID is religion.

And you know jack shit about what scientists are questioning. You are clearly completely ignorant. Stop making claims that you have no fucking basis for in the first place.

[tingtangs]

In any case, KrisMayeaux, you are a retarded fucking liar if you claim that 'no one is questioning it'. What the fuck do you think happens when scientists come across something unexpected?

THEY DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH!

All the religious ID movement does is to prevent research by using appeals to ignorance and actively spreading lies.

Now fuck off, idiot.

[KrisMayeaux]

They aren't questioning their dating methods at all. They are saying stuff like, "Maybe we don't know as much about decay as we thougt", because they know the implications of questioning dating. If dating is wrong, the whole theory of evolution crumbles.

[tingtangs]

Again, you know jack shit about what they are questioning.

Now fuck off.

[Annahliz]

Whoever, you are, sir, you are obviously an ignorant fool who uses swearing to attempt to prove his points instead of intelligent conversation. It takes just as much faith to believe that somehow ancient 'soup' (where did it come from?) evolved into people as it does to believe in ID. You may have evolved from soup, but I did not. Anyone who actually learns science can see the obvious complexity. Scientist cannot come anywhere near creating anything remotely close to life. Yet mud becomes life?

[goreprosthetics]

@anna

ok so, just because we are too infantile to understand the workings of the universe, we must therefore assume that some fairytale a bunch of us made up two thousand years ago must obviously be the answer, and now we should all just repent and line up to give jesus handjobs for all eternity?

[Xlivesforever]

@Annahliz so anything that science cant explain somehow god did it huh...or no wait we cant see the STARS at night cause somehow to you the earth is 6000 years old......you realize any star that was further then 6000 lightyears away wouldnt be able to be seen from earth right......or how about original sin....yeah so all babys that die go to hell for not repenting thats in your creation story as well ya know i could go on and on and on the point is keep this shit out of the fucking classroom

[herbiethebarber]

Thankfully, we have 39 methods of radiometric dating BESIDES Carbon Dating. Plus we have Dendrochronology, Plate tectonics, Varves (look it up), Ice cores, oh yea... the GEOLOGIC COLUMN! ... and many, many, many other dating methods; like thermo-luminescent pottery dating. All of these agree. The earth is old. Period.

[EvoBiologist]

to bodiezoffa: next sentence: "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Then, Darwin goes on to explain what we expect to see in the fossil record, which we DO see. We don't see fossils filling the geological layers because fossils are rare, and only occur in some very specific situations.

Quote mining is evil - it's a form of lying. It's particularly bad when you leave out the next sentence that explains things - as you've done here.

[bodiezoffa]

The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record

This does not change the context of the quote. If it would have remained then you would accused me of leaving out the sentence after that, and then the sentence after that and...

The geological record was imperfect then, it is imperfect now and will probably be so forever. This presents as Darwin describes a challenge to his theory.

It is not the greatest challenge, however, but one noted by Darwin.

[EvoBiologist]

Well bodiezoffa, ending it with what I added would end the quote at the end of a paragraph, instead of cutting it off in the middle. By removing that bit, you intentionally make it seem like Darwin had no solution to this problem, when he did. The imperfection of the fossil record doesn't present a challenge to Darwin's theory, and never did. The imperfection of the fossil record is a logical outcome of the rarity of fossilization. Despite that, we have tons of transitional fossils.

[tingtangs]

bodiezoffa is an ignorant retard. The fossil record has grown INSANELY since Darwin said that.

[bodiezoffa]

The explanation lies as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record

This does not change the context of the quote. If it would have remained then you would accused me of leaving out the sentence after that, and then the sentence after that and...

The geological record was imperfect then, it is imperfect now and will probably be so forever. This presents as Darwin describes a challenge to his theory.

It is not the greatest challenge, however, but one noted by Darwin

[EvoBiologist]

bodiezoffa, why are you repeating yourself?

It DOES change the context of the quote, because it implies that Darwin thought the fossil record doesn't support his theory when he clearly argues that it does. If you had included the last sentence of the paragraph, then I wouldn't accuse you of quote mining.

Of course, if you had included it, it would have completely failed to make the point you were trying to make, kindof like if "Expelled" had included a few Christian evolutionary biologists.

[bodiezoffa]

I understand what you are saying.

What follows is a discussion of what he would EXPECT to find in a more perfect fossil record.

I wonder if creationist should do that-right a book about what they believe about God and then describe what kind of evidence of a deity they would hope to find in a perfect world. You know buring bushes, talking donkeys, that sort of thing.

[arkivx1]

Marked as spam I guess that was a little hard for the disciples of evolution to swallow.

[tingtangs]

Religious spam is still spam.

If you are so retarded that you think your religion should be forced on others through the education system, you are a dangerous person indeed.

[Siriusluv]

looking at these posts ben stein is proven right...all that hostility...wow

[tingtangs]

Which one of Ben Stein's points is proven right, specifically?

[tingtangs]

Siriusluv is a lying coward who can't even answer a simple question.

Fuck off.

[Brainmold]

Subbed.

[bitsandpeace]

"Please be specific about all the evidence of darwinian evolution. Atheists constantly accuse Christians of ignoring "all" of the evidence."

[tingtangs]

Are you retarded?

What the fuck does your comment have to do with the video?

The video shows someone who was expelled for teaching science.

I am not here to educate morons like yourself. If you REALLY want to learn something, get a basic education or something. Pick up a book.

Also, atheists? What about atheists? Christians like biologist Ken Miller accept evolution too.

Now fuck off, moron.

[kenatiod]

See Sexpelled video at youtube v=-ThQQuHtzHM

[forgettingheath]

The day creationism is taught in schools is the day i get the hell out the united states. :/ I love this country but i can see where its going. None of our original founding fathers beliefs are being held true. The patriot act obviously an obstruction to the constitution, especially the 4th amendment, regardless of whether you think its necessary. And now creationism in our schools, merely a wolf in sheep's clothing of I.D. Anyone ever heard of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

[arkivx1]

Separation of church and state appears in none of the united states founding documents, it i however in the communist doctrine.

[tingtangs]

It's funny, arkivx1, because Stalin and other communists rejected evolution. They thought it led to capitalism, so they made up some other shit to replace it.

So basically, being anti-evolution is being anti-capitalism.

[arkivx1]

I have no opinion on the theory of evolution.

[arkivx1]

Article 124 of the Soviet Union's 1947 constitution can be translated to include the concept of a separation of church and state:

In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

[tingtangs]

Ah, so separation must be evil! I get it. Christianity should indeed be forced on people through the government.

[arkivx1]

what are you 13?

[tingtangs]

What are you, unable to make a clear point?

[arkivx1]

My point is clear your the one attacking and not making points, most of your post are crudely constructed insults and mindless paranoid dribble about forcing Christianity on people.

[tingtangs]

Your point drowns in the sheer stupidity of your infantile, self-contradictory, religiously brainwashed nonsense.

[arkivx1]

So you can use a thesaurus but, your clearly as ignorant as they come, I am not a member of any religion so stop with your ad hominid attacks and point out were exactly separation of church and state appears in any actual US gov founding documents.

[forgettingheath]

you obviously have no idea what your talking about so i need no reason to respond. Learn your facts.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Thomas Jefferson

[mare652]

Facts for you:

Thomas Jefferson was American Minister to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and not even in the country.

The primary author was James Madison.

However Jefferson did write a letter to the Danbury Baptists insuring them government would not interfere with their church using the phrase "separation of church & state"

Are letters considered founding documents?

[forgettingheath]

Its the first admendment. The idea came from Jefferson. Regarldess of who wrote it down. Its still in the constitution.

[arkivx1]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That is different from separation of church and state, by trying to expel religious theories thus prohibiting the free exercise thereof, just my opinion anyway.

[EvoBiologist]

Actually, the government has done nothing to expel religious theories. The problem is that school boards have broken the law by making a "law respecting an establishment of religion", by forcing teachers to teach Creationism and related doctrines. The courts then decided that school boards aren't allowed to change the definition of science to allow a particular religious belief system to be taught in publicly funded schools as science. ID is a form of Creation with no experimental support.

[arkivx1]

I am not an advocate of ID but evolution has the same amount of experimental support.

[EvoBiologist]

Um, no. Name one ID experiment.  Give one piece of evidence that could reject ID. IDers claim evolution is improbable. What is the probability of something being designed? Look at my favorites to find a small portion of the evidence for evolution. Evolution is supported by evidence from genes, morphology, geology, embryology, paleontology, and biochemistry.

[forgettingheath]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

do i need a high lighter?

[mare652]

So what is the religion ID is trying to establish? No one is asking you to sacrifice doves, pray to Mecca or kneel at he cross. The designer could have been aliens from another planet.

I am convinced that the public school system no longer teaches people how to think but what to think.

[EvoBiologist]

The religion advocated by ID is one where the creator has special separate acts of creation of life. ID advocates this without any scientific evidence. What is the probability of something being designed (since ID claims the probability of evolution is low)? What are the predictions of future designs? ID isn't even science if it can't answer this last question.

[jezzay91]

evolution is religion, they expect people to belive that there was NOTHING then BANG this world magically appeared on accident..and then belive it?

So why is it that some teachers get fired fire teaching creation while evolution is a religion too?? It takes more faith to belive in evolution then creation, even science says "matter cannot be created or destroyed" thats a LAW of science & How does that law match up with evolution. I guess the bigbang created a whole lot of matter from NOTHING

[Pelonetillo]

evolution is the process by which organisms change from generation to generation. the theory of evolution has not one thing to do with the big bang or the concept of life arising from non life. also, the big bang theory isnt about matter appearing from "nothing."

[converse02]

No, they do not expect you to believe that there was nothing then bang this world magically appeared.

Please actually READ and understand what evolution is about before criticizing it. Because you sound like a uneducated retard.

[fightclub223]

Idiot, What does evolution have to do with anything you just said. Try reading a fucking book, because you clearly fail to understand the Big Bang theory, evolution, and the difference between the two.

"Matter cannot be created or destroyed"- That proves there is no omnipotent god.

[mare652]

What if God exists outside of the laws of physics and the material universe that we understand?

[xoxgodofgodsgodxx]

Well then he has a pretty pointless freaking job, since all that exists can work and can have an origin of explainable means, being able to work in the universe bound by the laws of physics. What, does god just sit back in his holy lawn chair and let the laws of physics sort everything out?

[mare652]

Who says He is not busy. I believe God is very busy with spiritual matters. We are not just physical beings without conciousness or souls.

[fightclub223]

That is possible, but why has s/he made such an effort to hide himself?

[mare652]

fightclub223

The Bible says "seek and you shall find". He is not hiding that far away. Maybe He wants us to seek with our hearts not just our head. You can only find God through humility.

[tingtangs]

jezzay91, are you fucking retarded? Evolution has got NOTHING to do with how the universe came to be.

[rozeboosje]

Sick. I hope she sued the pants off them.

[zoxovox]

This film is nothing but Scopes monkey trial creationism / intelligent design / sudden emergence propaganda. Ben Stein is not a scientist.

[busymartian]

What do you say Ben? Will you fight for this teacher's freedom of speech?

[ScottishAtheist]

Name and shame!

[ArmchairRevolution]

Creationism is a cult.