In the beginning, man created God, and it was good.

By the way, for you conservative Ben Stein proponents, he was on CBS this morning calling for the Federal Government to fund animal shelters.

So you weren't paying attention when they tried to get it on the curriculum in Dover, PA?

First of all, before anyone has a right to criticize the movie, they need to at least watch it. You can cut and paste entire articles, but if you haven't seen the movie than you are relying on other people to form your opinion. For the very crowd that needs first had proof and the need to see things with they're very eyes, you sure are eager to take some strangers word and base your opinion on that. Essentially you are saying that because other people disagree with the movie (who share your same world view) you will let them formulate your opinion for you. Why do you only dig up the articles that are against the movie? Why not paste the articles that are "for" the movie to be fair and ballanced?

As I stated earlier, I saw the movie, Rod. It and its premise are laughable.

I added the SciAm review because it reveals dishonesty and deception in the production of the movie through factual, reasonable discourse.

You are free to make the case "for" the movie. It would help your "cause" if you made some effort to systematically refute arguments on some meaningful and supportable level instead of meandering all over the place.

Best,

Kurt

Regarding "Go and see the movie before you make up your mind..." I'd sooner not provide any financial support for this stuff. Maybe I'll watch it when it hits Sci-Fi or the Cartoon Network.

I.D. can help explain some of the unanswered questions in the science community. It is also the only other option to evolution, which still cannot answer how life "began" therefore it is fitting that it be taught alongside evolution/science. I dont think it would be fitting to teach I.D. in an art class. Steins point was that the Dover decision tied I.D. to religion. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

So it does or doesn't claim to be a science?

Well Kurt, I'm still waiting for your reaction to Dawkins alien theory. Don't tell me; its taken out of context. It seems that Dawkins does believe in I D, only not the kind that I believe in. Instead of God he believes in aliens? So tell me who seeded the alien planet? Its pretty funny that with all his intellect, Dawkins ultimately believes in a theory thats actually fits quite nicely into the realm of science fiction and teapots.

Do you even read other people's posts?

You are either being dishonest or you are incapable of understanding what Dawkins said.

I will not spend any more time with you on this topic - I am applying my "Trekkor Doctrine" now (who is an extremely nice fellow, but one that I will not engage with on "certain" topics. :D )

Now I'm going to photolyze 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D3!

Have a nice day.

Best,

Kurt

What questions?

How is it an option? It's not science


This we can agree on. It's not fitting to be taught in an art class. Maybe creative writing class for some comic relief

I.D. cannot claim to be anything. People can make claims about it and both sides are saying different things. I think that if you just try and label something and than compartmentalize it you are missing out. In one aspect it is, because you can observe and test "evidence"of I.D like the flagellum motor, which is very scientific and very complicated. But to try and test or observe the Designer of the motor, no that is not a science . But remember we are not trying to identify the designer in the classroom only acknowledge that there may possibly be one.

What evidence is there that "there may possibly be a designer"? The answer is NONE!

As well as evolution. Heres your story. First there was some primordial soup, somehow it turned into microbes, somehow the microbes turned into ozz, that turned into fish, somehow they grew legs, somehow they started walking upright, somehow they grew hair, somehow they lost their hair. somehow they are now you and your still evolving. So tell me, what will your final stage in evolution be? say in a 100 million years if we were still here. Since evolution never stops, what do you see humans as in 100 million years? Please tell and than add this story to the art class teachings.

I will give you just one. Darwins entire theory was based on single very, very simple cells that start out that way and get more complicated over time. During Darwins time scientists thought that a single cell was indeed very very simple. We now know (thru science) that the single cell is far more complicated tha ever imagined. Take a look at this "simple" cell and tell me that this all happened by mistake. http://www.cajuncowboy.com/TodaysEvidence/Evidence.Page92.htm

As much as you may not like it, this is evidence. As said before, both side sides have the same evidence, its how each side interprets that evidence. You see the complexity of the cell and say that it happened by chance no matter how remote. We say that the cell was designed that way.

I'd not deign to cry insane!
for that you clearly do not feign.
but, truly, here I must complain.
I find your "arguments" inane.

Wow you convinced me! Hey everybody Im an evolutionist now DARISC convinced me!!!!!

I agree. But we must admit Rodsrsr is a funny little troll;) You are trolling aren't you Rod?

For those that addressed my post, I am not defending I.D. and it was my understanding was that neither did the movie. The interview I saw gave the impression that the issue was the scientific community not being open at all to any investigation or contemplation of other explanations....to the point of persecution at times.

Haven't seen EXPELLED yet, but plan to. I've seen and liked FLOCK OF DODOS: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus (2006). At 84 minutes, I'd say it's worth watching.

Homepage/trailer
A synopsis
A review

Do ya think? ;)