Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Dear Mr. Bozell, allow me to explain (one more time) that "I don't know how that happened, therefore GOD DID IT" is not a scientific hypothesis. Actually though, to be fair, academia considers itself smarter than the rest of us and doesn't suffer what it considers to be fools gladly. Often they're right, and often they're not. How would you like it if someone with absolutely no training or understanding of journalism began to pontificate on how you should write or publish based upon what someone that predated Guttenberg said. That's often what these guys encounter when talking about Evolution. The Origin of Life, or abiogenesis, on the other hand is a totally different story. The fact is that nobody has a clue how life began and I guess "GOD DID IT" is probably as likely as any of the other hypotheses being thrown around. The problem is that once one accepts "GOD DID IT," the need for any additional inquiry ends. That's why science can never accept that as a conclusion and has to continue searching for a naturalistic explanation even if one may not exist. That is the very nature of science and I guess the arrogance of scientists sort of comes as a byproduct of that nature that we'll have to live with. But would you really want it to be any different? If it were up to religion we would have stopped searching for answers 2,000 years ago and just sat around and waited for the second coming. By all means, if you're of that mindset, sit around and wait, but let those of us with a different mindset work like hell searching for answers while you're waiting. I also don't see what PC Liberalism has to do with this? This is a question of science vs. not science. It's as simple as that .

Reply
Report this post

While I agree with your assessment that academia is arrogant, blindly hypocritical when it comes to opposing points of view and just rather weird, you are way off in your arguments against atheism/agnosticism and evolution. While many of these scientists will offer explanations to how life came to be on earth (also known as abiogenesis), there is no reason to conclude you can't inject God into the process. Further, there are many more theistic evolutionists than atheistic evolutionists. These people can reconcile both beliefs. To bridge the gap, perhaps you can look at science as the study of God's works. And, for the last time, to those who don't know much about Darwin's theory...evolution addresses NOTHING about the ORIGINS of life or the universe, but rather the PROCESS of life. Intelligent Design, the spin-tastic euphemism for Creationism says nothing beyond God Did It. It has no basis in science, and though you try, is not an equally viable scientific argument to evolution...it certainly shouldn't be taught in public schools. It is not about stifling dissent, it's about good science.

Reply
Report this post

While I agree with your assessment that academia is arrogant, blindly hypocritical when it comes to opposing points of view and just rather weird, you are way off in your arguments against atheism/agnosticism and evolution. While many of these scientists will offer explanations to how life came to be on earth (also known as abiogenesis), there is no reason to conclude you can't inject God into the process. Further, there are many more theistic evolutionists than atheistic evolutionists. These people can reconcile both beliefs. To bridge the gap, perhaps you can look at science as the study of God's works. And, for the last time, to those who don't know much about Darwin's theory...evolution addresses NOTHING about the ORIGINS of life or the universe, but rather the PROCESS of life. Intelligent Design, the spin-tastic euphemism for Creationism says nothing beyond God Did It. It has no basis in science, and though you try, is not an equally viable scientific argument to evolution...it certainly shouldn't be taught in public schools. It is not about stifling dissent, it's about good science.

Reply
Report this post

I would like to commend Mr Bozell on his bravery. It takes some real guts to put your own name to a piece that shows as much ignorance as this. He has obviously bravely chosen to be remembered for the rest of his life as the journalist with an IQ smaller than his shoe size. I'm sure that will make him very popular amonst his fellow superstitionists, but I worry for his employability if he ever approaches a serious publication for a job.

Reply
Report this post

Amazing how otherwise intelligent people can be fooled into believing just about anything. Expelled hits all the faith-head hot-buttons to support its conspiracy theory. And how does it accomplish this? 1) suggests that because faith-based ideas are being excluded from the game of evidence-based, peer-reviewed science, they are victims of freedom of speech, 2) Sites hundreds of examples (well, just three actually) of professors who have been expelled, 3) and this is the killer...blames Darwin and evolution for the Holocaust. Is there no level of intellectual dishonesty that conservatives/evangelicals/creationists won't stoop to to get their sheep to the trough? The writer of this article bought this garbage, hook, line and sinker. And if he thinks Dawkins is inaccurate in his synopsis of the Old Testament, I suggest he read the Old Testament. It is exactly as Dawkins describes it. 1) Scientists have no problem if ID is discussed in theology or religion class. Just don't insist it be part of science class unless it has some evidence to back it up. "God did it" is not evidence. 2) The three people they site as being expelled were poor scientists...check the internet and you can see why they were treated the way they were...of course fact-checking is to conservative journalism as ID is to evolution...3) When the Spanish ethnically cleans South Americans, or Europeans ethnically cleansed American Indians, Australian aboriginese and any other number of people, Darwin had not yet been published. Hitler used Jewish hatred (inculcated by you guessed it, Christianity) to get the people to follow his madness. He was a Catholic and was never excommunicated. Shame on Bozell for going along with this ridiculous idea that Darwin influenced Hitler more than Luther, the Pope and others.

Reply
Report this post

Surely you jest regarding your review of this staged propaganda film. And narrated by a Jew it's fascinating that they copied what the Nazi Goebbels did regarding deceiving the German people, now for Stein the American conservative Christians, whom he takes for suckers. You might have watched the film but clearly you made absolutely NO effort to investigate the circumstances or information portrayed in the film. Your lack of journalistic credibility and truthfulness is astounding; then again, since you are defending these creeps it's clear you yourself are a creationist, totally ignorant of science, and in particular, evolution. Since you are already completely biased, there's no point in urging you to actually check out the facts because clearly you have no intention of doing so. I feel sad for ideologue people like you who blind yourself to reality. Just a little factoid. Did you enjoy Ben Stein's act at Pepperdine University in the film? Did you know that the film producers had to pay and bus in extras to fill the room? Did you know that the quotes Ben Stein used regarding Darwin were all taken out of context? Indeed Stein did interview REAL scientists, but their interviews were highly edited by the producer, just as Darwin was misquoted. Were you aware of the fact that when the movie was being pre-screened, only fundamentalist church groups were allowed, and those scientists you refer to were either banned from the screenings or actually ejected! Well, you didn't really report the real story, now did you. Pathetic review, pathetic movie.

Reply
Report this post

To Mr. Brent Bozell, III, Please read the fine content at www.expelledexposed.com, in particular the content found in the "The Truth Behind the Fiction" section. There, you will get the proverbial "other side" of the story. In particular, you'll find out what really happened to those "so-called" scientists who uttered non-science and claimed being "expelled". Please do your research first. Otherwise, you pass off as intellectually dishonest. BTW, the company you hold at Creators.com is quite illustrious. Bill O' and co. are all ultra open-minded, truth-seeking folks, like you, no doubt.

Reply
Report this post

"Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). " I wanted to address this particular statement because because you seem to be so incredulous of it. I wanted to point out that if you had paid attention in science class you would know that this particular bit here isn't just conjecture. The experiment was done a long time ago (1953, look up Miller-Urey) and out of constituents of the early earth atmosphere (water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen), complex organic molecules, including sugars, lipids and amino acids, were generated in a closed system experiment. And these results occured after only a week of testing. The experiment was to recreate early earth conditions and try to make somplex molecules. To do this they set up an electric arc (to simulate lightning) cooling and heating to simulate rain and evaporation. And in 1961 in a similar experiment Jean Oro demonstrated production of the Nitrogen base Adenine. The other suggestion for life beginning "on the back of crystals" requires extensive knowledge of several scientific fields to understand, which, based upon the fact that you don't know about the Miller-Urey experiments, we can all assume you know nothing of. Finally, Dr. Dawkins's comments about alien microbes was simply putting forth one of a myriad of suggestions, the more convincing of which no doubt remains on the cutting room floor. One only needs to read any of his books to find out that he clearly doesn't actually think it's the most likely to be true. I weep for you, and anyone else taken in by this garbage can of a film.

Reply
Report this post

I didn't read the two responses that were present when I decided to post this message simply because my comment is my reaction to the article. I consider myself a Liberal for many reasons. The most important is that I consider myself to be openminded unlike many people I have talked to who agree with much of the strict Republican views and way of life. I like to hear what other people think and feel about controversial topics such as religion, abortion, death penalty... the list could go on and on. I don't take joy in disputing their opinions, I learn from them. If someone says they believe evolution is the act of God, I'm going to ask why. And I would expect the same question in return. By comparing different points of views, often we come away with a third view which neither party had thought of: What if God started it and evolution took over? Or what if evolution began and God stepped in? Why would God not exist? Why would evolution not exist? What if neither exists, then what is "IT"? These and questions like them are what can drive people apart and bring them together. And true intellectual enlightenment occurs when two opposing parties can understand and respect each others opinions. While I have no doubt that Mr. Bozell was paraphrasing when he qouted one scientist as saying life came from lightening and nothing else, yet it leads one to think and wonder. My views and opinions have not changed or wavered because of oppossing information, it has forced me to think about my views and why I stand by them. I fully intend to see this documentary not because I wish to use it as a catalyst to get angry and prove that those who's opinions differ from mine are indeed wrong. I want to see how this esteemed panel of scientists handeled themselves, how they truly answered these questions. Passion can often lead to a great display of emotion and these scientists have devoted their careers and lives to their beliefs. All in all, Mr Bozell produced a well written article that peaked my interest in something I otherwise was not aware of. Expanding my knowledge and experiences in my beliefs is what makes me who I am. If that makes my one of the "...ignorant...90% of the American Market" than so be it. Mr. Bozell is not the only one that can take a statement and twist it, we all can and that's the challenge of seeing the truth in the obvious. And I've always enjoyed watching Ben Stien debate with those he disagrees with. Even though I don't agree with him, he is an intelligent and well spoken debator. That alone deserves respect and concideration and that is something a truly intelligent and open minded person could agree with.

Reply
Report this post

Dear Mr. Bozell, thank you for your accurate and fair-minded review of "Expelled." I went and saw this movie yesterday, and can affirm that everything you say in your review is 100% accurate. The people who are slamming you for writing this review are doing so because are in absolute lock-step with Dawkins, Myers, and the other God-hating Darwinists who wish to use their twisted version of "science" to convert people to atheism. I wonder how many of your detractors have actually seen the movie. I applaud you for speaking the truth.

Reply
Report this post

I think it might behoove Mr. Bozell to enlighten himself to the facts, before blindly accepting Stein's assertions. Please read: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part1

Reply
Report this post

Dear Mr. Bozell, Thank you for defending the truth. Our Wonderful Creator made all things. If you are a skeptic but might be interested in seeing another side of the story, please consider viewing the video, The Case For a Creator. The film discusses issues like irreducible complexity (did I spell that right!? LOL), the privileged planet concept, and other interesting ideas. I am certainly no scientist, but the evidence presented there seemed strong to me. I think you can rent the video on Netflix or Blockbuster has it too. Best regards, Eric Darby

Reply
Report this post

Once again Mr. Bozell puts his scientifc ignorance on display. "Electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing)"? No, not out of "nothing," but from pre-existing amino acids, the basic components of proteins. And notice there's no attempt to rebut Richard Dawkins' "jaw-dropping" description of the God of the Old Testament -- because that description is indeed quite accurate. As for Ben Stein, he should go back to hosting game shows. He's no more of an authority on evolutionary biology than Tom Cruise is an expert on psychiatry. And pointing out that "Hitler's mad science was inspired by Darwinism" is like saying Charles Manson was inspired by a song by the Beatles. Are the Beatles evil?

Reply
Report this post

Utterly sickening when someone proclaims their liberalism, and then precedes to display the total rigidity of their mind. The instant resorting to lock step repetition of sound byte cliches attacking anyone that does not proclaim the strict party line displays exactly how "liberalism" has declined, until it is equatable to fascism. Worse yet when those displaying such aberrant thought processes are held to be the outstanding minds available on any subject. If there is a God, it would be nice if It could spare the world from such delusional fools. The future, of all life ,seems to be dependent upon regulating most portrayed experts into the ashcan of history. If such rigidity becomes entrenched, as the "leaders" or "best minds"of our culture, I would prefer to opt out of this game.

Reply
Report this post

scientific thought and the scientific method is not liberal or conservative. It's based on proposing a hypothesis or question such that it is possible for someone to disprove it using imperical evidence. it is indeed possible to disprove evolutionary theory, you just have to find emperical evidence to disprove it. parts of the theory have changed because in fact scientists are always discovering new evidence to support new conclusions, but the fundamental theory hasn't yet been disproven. It's been around for a long time, and speaking scientifically it is a good scientific argument and theory. Intelligent design cannot be disproven. it is not possible to find evidence to disprove it. one cannot design an experiment to prove or disprove that there is an intelligent creator, therefore it is not a valid scientific proposition. that doesn't mean that there ISN'T in fact an intelligent creator. it just means that you can't do it through science. that is all.

Reply
Report this post

...and in this same thought I just realized through scientific thought that time travel MUST be possible and IS indeed real. The empirical evidence is in and it's clear since Brent Bozell MUST be from the 12th century.

Reply
Report this post

Mr. Brazell seems to think that defending the viscious and the emotionally sick is more important than defending the truth. In a week that brought us the TRUTH of the sick nature of religionists--the twin pedophilia stories of the polygamist sect in Texas and the continued quiet cover-up of the horrors suffered by tens of thousands at the hands of the catholic churches "servants of god" and their arrogant enablers the arch-bishops of every American Diocese---he chooses to focus on a movie that does not raise any facts, but instead uses rhetorical arguments and political speech to make the fact lovers look mean spirited by comparison to the fact hiders--those supposed scientists who front for the lies and ignorance presented as "arguments" by the creationists. It is unfortunate that people in the conservative movement have this ability to close their eyes to the very real manifestations of their fantasy religious beliefs--but will readily accept the chimerra of their movement proxies stating half truths and extrapolating events that never happened based on historical events of horror allowed and perpetrated by their church members. I am referring here to the attempt to make the Holocaust a manifestation of the end result of the theory of evolution--as if the link has any basis in fact whatsoever. The truth is that eugenics arose as a line of pseudo-science in Europe as part of the anti-semitism encouraged and funded by "good christians". It had no basis in ANY AREA OF SCIENCE whatever-it was based largely on precepts of selective breeding from the agricultural and livestock experiences of it's "believers". As part of Nazi political thought it was promoted as a CHRISTIAN ideal--as late as 1939 Hitler was giving speeches about protecting the German homeland from "Godless Communism" and "preserving our Christian values". And the leaders of the Eugenics movement were, in fact, members of both the Lutheran and the Catholic churches---how is it that the holocaust that resulted from it is traced to being rooted in atheism by Mr. Stein given that fact set---Did they decide to change sides and become Atheists? If so, they didn't mention it in any of their writings or public speeches---To the contrary, there is no mention of their belief or non-belief nor of any basis in Darwin's works at all in their declarations. How is it that the scholarly Mr. Stein and his mouthpiece Bozell missed those small facts? Similarly, it is well documented that the Catholic church made deals with the Nazis to turn a blind eye to their holocaust activities and many, many local parishoners, priests and lay leaders cooperated in turning in Jews to be destroyed--yet this fact also missed both Mr. Bozell and Mr. Steins' grand historic attention. How odd....they are capable of making line of thought bridges between superstitious illogic and science where there are none; yet they fail to make the logical bridge between superstitious illogic and the promoters of that illogic's belief in illogical superstition in the form of Christianity when it is documented to have existed!! Such lines of thoughts do not represent factual presentation or even good entertainment--to the contrary, to fail to call to task such blind rhetoric is to allow the destruction of civil society and make all of us live at the whims of superstitious zealots and fools. Shame on you mssrs. Bozell and Stein--America deserves better than you half-truths and blind advocacy of these foolish superstitions--there is no magic being in the sky--and all your baloney to the contrary can't make it so. All your baloney can do is serve to discredit your reputations and present you as foolish sops undeserving of a civilized persons attention. If you want to write about the Christian church--try writing about the two ends of it's spectrum---the crazed Mormon pedophile mysoginists now headed for richly deserved justice and the Pedophile Priests of the single largest church in America--who largely avoided justice for their horrid crimes under the cover of their "church". Your magic book has a phrase that is well turned and applies richly here---"By their acts will you know them". Judging by the acts of the christian church over it's dark history --Mr Bozell would have been better off quoting Mr. Dawkins as validation of the horrors invoked when a society suspends belief in facts and starts believing in magic and superstition than promoting Mr. Stein's hatchet job made with the intent to support stupidity, superstition and psuedo science.

Reply
Report this post

Brent Bozell is clearly one of the 90%. What a pathetic excuse for a human...think for yourself, Bozell. And please stop giving one of the most sniveling, criminal, sub-humans (Stein) yet another platform for his pro-Bush, anti-intelligent rhetoric.

Reply
Report this post

I think this website needs more white contributors.

Reply
Report this post

Enjoyed your article. I found refreshing your willingness to address the hypocricy of PC Liberalism and it's harsh treatment of dissenters. Well done!

Reply
Report this post

Mr. Bozell, I read your review and comments. I'm not interested in reading others' comments, critisisms and name calling. I'm interested in the fact that someone would attack the bible and God. God is not all those negative things that was mentioned in your article by that so called man of learning. Mankind did all those things. It all comes down to Ego. Mankind has it in abundance. It's what you do with it that matters. If a persons ego is so fragile that they have to attack others for their beliefs, I am sorry for them. All the worlds troubles are man-made. Not God-made. People shouldn't blame God for the ills of the world, they should blame themselves. Your article was unbiased and informative. I thank you for being a good writer.

Reply
Report this post

Of all the questions that are posed back and forth between those who support atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, creationism, etc., the only question that seems to stop all discussions cold is, "What if science eventually proves that there is no 'God'? What will happen then?" I actually heard this question posed in an open forum discussion following a lecture at Penn State University several years ago, a lecture given by a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. There was no answer, well, there was an answer, but not to that question. As an atheist who understands the value of spirituality, in any of its forms, whether its organized religion or deep meditation, and as someone who understands the principals of the ever changing dynamic of any of the scientific theories, and as someone who has obtained a degree in a history related field, I have always felt the atheist movement is one that, for whatever reason, is tagged to Darwinism. Why is this? Does one have anything to do with the other? No, it does not. To say that it does is to assume that there is an agreed upon theory as to the creation of the universe. There is not. Does that mean that there isn't such a theory out there? Maybe it already exists but isn't convincing enough for all to share. Could the scientific theory and biblical theory someday merge together as one and be one in the same.? It sure could. To deny this possibility is just plain bullheaded. But, regardless of the leaders of any of the prominent movements, it will be hard scientific evidence that will be needed to convince the masses of a single answer to the question of how the universe was created. Without the science, there will be no consensus. There cannot be two answers to the question, only one.