A diversity of opinion are allowed on a college campus. What is not allowed are premises based on magic, religion, spirituality or whatever you want to call it that fly in the face of proven scientific theory and fact. What also should not allowed is the widespread hate that seems to permeate the conservative crowd.

This films’ main thesis, that anyone in the science community who believes in God is being “expelled” is false at its core.

In a New York Times interview, Walter Ruloff (producer of Expelled) said that researchers, who had studied cellular mechanisms, made findings suggestive of an intelligent designer. “But they are afraid to report them”.

Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”, explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Mr. Ruloff said that Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line”.

That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.

Similarly, Dr. Ken Miller is a professed Christian who wrote “Finding Darwin’s God” (which I suggest you read). Dr. Miller has not been “expelled” in any fashion for his belief in God.

The movie tries to make the case that “Big Science” is nothing but a huge atheist conspiracy out to silence believers, but only presents a very one-sided look at some Discovery Institute “martyrs”.

Carolyn Crocker “expelled”? - No.
Her annual teaching contract was not renewed. Was she “fired” for daring to bring God into research? - No. She was hired to teach Biology, and she decided to ignore the schools’ curriculum and substitute her own curriculum.

Guillermo Gonzalez “expelled”? - No.
He was not granted tenure. The film doesn’t bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he had only brought in only a miniscule amount of grant money. Nor does it bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he failed to mentor a single student through to their PhD. Nor does it mention that in his career at ISU, his previous excellent record of publication had dropped precipitously.

Richard von Sternberg “expelled”? - No.
Sternberg continued to work for NIH in the same capacity. Of course the movie doesn’t bring up his underhanded tactics in getting Meyers work published.

This movie attempts to influence it’s viewers with dishonesty, half-truths, and by a completely one-sided presentation of the facts.

If a scientists’ research is not accepted by the scientific community, it isn’t because the scientist either believes or doesn’t believe in God, it is usually because they are producing bad science. Like the idea of Intelligent Design.

A sentiment similar to Stein’s was expressed in the Springfield NewsLeader “From the Right” column today. Interestingly, I was having lunch with a half a dozen retired college professors and we discussed this premis to the point that it was difficult to finish my chef’s salad!

It is true enough that college professors are not a cross section of society. Also it is apparent that more educated people tend to be more liberal. Similarly, it is difficult to deny that there is a certain intellectual tyranny in the classroom. However, as my peers pointed out (over and over and over again), it all depends on which department you are in. The school of business, for example, is almost always dominated by conservatives while the English department tends to have more liberals.

Also, it should be noted that students typically arrive in a university only after 13 years of being subjected to public school teachers who tend to be very conservative, largely unsupervised, and shameless in their attempts at indoctrinating young minds to become ideological sheep….. but that’s just my opinion….. I could be wrong.

To Benjamin Franklin,

1. Ben Franklin was a wiser man than most, and as a Philadelphian, its a little insulting that you would use his good name as your pen name. Ben Franklin was an incurable nonconformist. You are most likely a Darwinist storm trooper, no more able to think for yourself than a mushroom. Like Dawkins has repeatedly published and argued, anything other than Darwinism is unscientific, which is amazingly convenient way of not arguing anything at all.

2. You presumably haven’t seen the movie yet. It hasn’t been released. Your vitriol based on a web preview speaks of the extremity of your bias.

3. Not only are your marks completely unverifiable as you have left not one citation, but it also only has a vague or tenuous connection to the quality or quantity of work these professors were doing. Instead of discussing the merits or short comings of the film, you’ve resorted to attacking the premise of a movie not yet released. It’s all very weak and not at all helpful to the larger cultural and scientific debate at hand.

In conclusion, your post is very long on emotion and anger, and very short on real merit. Lets all watch the movie first, and then let the debate begin.

“He that speaks much, is much mistaken.”
Benjamin Franklin.
God I’m getting to hate blogs.

Widespread hate that permeates the conservative crowd?

Blanket stereotypes are a-ok huh suz?

Amazed, you left out by “seems to” which makes it solely my opinion and thus, not quite so blanket.

Darwinist storm trooper? Mushroom?

If you read what he wrote, Benjamin Franklin uses a New York Times interview with Walter Ruloff, not the movie as his reference. He also points out that the would be “martyrs for the faith” aren’t martyrs at all.

In order for arguments based on religious belief to be considered, they must be based on honesty, truth, and a certain amount of respect, Ryan. You haven’t displayed any of those qualities.

Darwin actually told newspapers in an interview that evolution was “just a joke, I never wanted them to take it seriously.” [SOURCE]

Storm trooper is the only word that accurately describes old Bennie Frankie here. He has posted the same comment on multiple blogs, including mine - and I do not take well to that. Jan, what Ryan means by a reference is an actual citation. Where is the actual interview? I have looked, and have failed to find one (I have only found three articles, not one an interview with that producer). I wouldn’t say it’s as illusive as transitional forms, but I would seriously not trust anything Ben has to say until I see the original work, rather than trusting Ben’s word for it. If any of you clicked on the link I provided above, you just proved the connection between making a statement and the truth of that statement.

Where did Ryan bring religion into it? “The lady doth protest TOO much, methinks” - William Shakespeare[A REAL CITATION].

Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you,

here is the article showing the comments by Francis Collins

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=print

Just an additional note, when being interviewed, the associate producer of ecpelled, Mark Mathis was asked why there was no interview with Dr Miller, or other Christians and theists who don’t have any problem with the concepts of the theory of evolution, Mathis’s response -

“It would have made the movie confusing”

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=999

For further reference information about the lies, half-truths, and deceptions in Expelled, go to http://www.expelledexposed.com

And Ryan, to compare me to a storm trooper is uncalled for, and insulting, when I am just trying to bring some some truth to light, just as Ben Franklin did 200 years ago. He had almanacs, newspapers and a printing press, I have the internet.

I think that your anger is because you really don’t know much of anything about the theory of evolution. Prove me wrong.