Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Trailer Remix

This vid was originally made by wiredroach

Ben Stein's new movie on the alleged suppression of "intelligent design" in the scientific community comes up a bit short when you look at the facts. Even the trailer gets it wrong, while hiding the film's true agenda. Don't accept what the film tells you without knowing the full story

http://www.expelledexposed.com

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Ben
• Stein
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• evolution
• expelled
• exposed
• controversy
• truth

[TtotheYinthemorning]

@eddygoombah i didnt blame evolution, i blamed the people who misinterpreted charles darwins work. Youre not actually understanding what im saying, but rather flying off the handle an trying to make it seem like im blaming all these people for this. You are extremely ignorant and need to pick up a book every now and then. This view was both from atheist, richard dawkins and religious ben stein. Im done with this

[eddygoombah]

@TtotheYinthemorning no, I know exactly what you mean. You are trying to make a point without understanding the meaning behind the nomenclature. I would make the same rebuttal to anyone blaming astrophysics for the development of the H-bomb. Simply because eugenics uses mutations and trait selection, doesn't mean that it has anything to do with darwinistic thought.

[TtotheYinthemorning]

@eddygoombah idk why your trying to argue this. I havent mistaken anything and i know evolution depends on natural selection. Im saying the theory has caused people to think personal selection is a good idea. Its all based off the idea that we could continue to create superior breeds of human by selecting. I never blamed evolution, charles darwin or natural selection directly. Its very telling when you decide to assume as much

[eddygoombah]

@TtotheYinthemorning No, No, No... wow. I'm arguing this because you keep getting it wrong. The theory of evolution didn't cause people to think "personal selection" was a good idea. Eugenics existed way before Darwin's theory. How many times do you need to be told this?

What is great about your comment is that first you say that "evolution gave people the idea for..." and then you finish with "I never blamed evolution..."

You failed in the same comment. No assumptions needed.

[TtotheYinthemorning]

@eddygoombah trying to push evolution to create a superior breed is considered social darwinism. It doesnt matter when charles darwin was born

[eddygoombah]

@TtotheYinthemorning and I'm telling you that is not evolution, that is eugenics. Evolution needs natural selection for it to take place. Social Darwinism is a misnomer, and the fact that you are confusing it with evolution, or anything that Darwin discovered is very telling.

[Mithcoriel]

1. You can believe in God AND evolution.

2. Atheism doesn't mean no rules. You still have to follow the law and common decency. An atheist is just as likely to be unselfish and loving as a christian is, and a christian is just as likely to be selfish.

Actually, lemme correct that: when Christians do good deeds and avoid bad deeds, you could say they're doing it to get to heaven. Atheists do these things without expecting a reward from God. So that would make Atheists more moral.

[funkalishous]

Why do people think that evolution is some sort of religion for atheists? I don't know where life came from. I think about it a lot. Science will help us understand the unknown, like it has always done. Everything that was unexplainable in the past was an act of god. Now that we know more about things, we can explain them. The same process will work in the future. No one knows the origin of life, including you. I don't care if your bed time story book says otherwise. Fuck you religion.

[eddygoombah]

@TtotheYinthemorning You cannot be more wrong about this. Gravity is a natural occurence. Isaac Newton discovered it and described it in his Principia. Natural Selection is a natural occurence. Darwin discovered it in his Origin of Species. Eugenics is completely systematic and artificial, and has been a technique used for long before Darwin was ever born. It is definitely NOT Darwinistic because it has nothing to do with NATURAL SELECTION.

[TtotheYinthemorning]

@eddygoombah it is Darwinistic no matter when he was around. The theory was named after the scientist that most commonly discovered it. Gravity existed before it was thought of yet its called newtons law

[eddygoombah]

@TtotheYinthemorning so, I assumed correctly. Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwin. The concept existed before he was even born. So to ad the moniker "Darwanistic" to this behavior is to not understand the subject matter.

[TtotheYinthemorning]

@eddygoombah i meant behaviour that results in Darwins theory of selection. As an example... Eugenics