URL:

27 Comments

1. Alexander says:

   21 Apr, 2011 at 6:44 am

   This documentary is awful, very poor representation of the facts. Intelligent Design by definition is not science.

   Reply
2. Old Git Tom says:

   08 Apr, 2011 at 11:09 pm

   Danny,

   agreed! No names, but smooth-talking Darwinians project as liberal sons of sweet reason. Alas, within biology, dissenters are axed with brutal intolerance by these monomaniacs. It’s the wide-eyed incomprehension of the fanatic. They explain that if it isn’t natural selection, it isn’t science, so cannot be tolerated. I honestly believe they honestly believe this.

   I am reminded of the ‘Christians’ who murder abortion doctors, in the name of the sanctity of life. OGT

   Reply
3. Danny says:

   28 Feb, 2011 at 1:23 am

   The main point of the film to me was not about God, It was about people not being allowed to teach different trains of thought, or alternate theories that even mention the possibility that the universe and life were created even though some serious scientists say the evidence suggests life’s complexities could not have come about on their own, from life itself to the conditions needed for life to exsist not to mention the laws and forces of the universe. It is my opinion that true science should never close the disscusion of any posibillity the very notion flies in the face of all scientist that were persecuted like Galileo just for questioning the status Quo. Lets not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is okay for us to differ in opinion as long as we all recognize that we want the same thing ….the Truth not whats popular.

   Reply
4. Old Git Tom says:

   21 Jan, 2011 at 6:02 am

   Not all religionists discount evolution, nor do they all accept the Bible as Gospel truth & the final & complete Word of God.

   The problem with Darwinism is that it is based in an obsolete, nineteenth-century form of mechanistic materialism. That stage was passed in physics with quantum theory, almost a century back now.

   Quantum physics et al do not prove creationism or religion, but they do utterly discount the idea that the universe & everything emerged from a chaotic agglomeration of particles of ‘stuff’, flying around & banging into one-another randomly. Braver & smarter biologists are no longer satisfied with the notion that life-forms are lumps of bio-machinery. Mainstream biologists cling to that anachronism, even as they dogmatically claim that dumb, inanimate matter has the near-magical power to create life & intelligence.

   I hope Richard Dawkins enjoys his tea at New College, Oxford, as he has his cake & eats it. He is champion of a ‘science’ that celebrates self-contradiction. OGT

   Reply
5. Elon Ethan Hall says:

   20 Jan, 2011 at 2:43 am

   What a bunch of meaningless, pretentious, pseudo-philosophy–both in the video and comments.

   If you don’t “believe” in evolution, you’re simply not as knowledgeable as you’d like to believe.

   Or a nut.

   Reply
6. Old Git Tom says:

   13 Oct, 2010 at 2:49 am

   Bob,

   I agree with what you say, particularly about ‘dogma’. Many in the life-sciences like biology cling to quite fanatical beliefs about the nature of matter; not so much in physics. I’m agnostic, but I’m amused that some critics of intelligent design can accept that the universe exploded out from an infinitessimal point of nothingness! No problem, becoz the maths prove it, or rather the maths suggest it. But then, where do the maths come from, except the heads of mathematicians? OGT

   Reply
7. Bob says:

   12 Oct, 2010 at 5:33 am

   It’s interesting, no proponent of evolution can describe how evolution started. They base their belief on faith in something which they cannot prove. Their dogamatism on this subject is unfailing. As scientists, the practical implimentation of science is creation. That is, they create things. Yet they have no ability to fathom that they themselves may have been created. Further, to believe in evolution one must entertain the possibility that basic elements might well have evolved into machines. Under evolutionary theory why would the only outcome evolve into intelligent beings?

   The evolutionary theroy is based on the assumption that life was created from dead things. Therefore it follows that evolutionists to be true to their belief must beleive in Frankenstein by way of some random chance. It was random chance that created all the elements that give man medicine, technology and all modern comforts. All based on a books and theories that cannot be proven.

   And they think christians are crazy?

   I suspect my ancestors swung from their necks, not their tails!

   Reply
8. Jacob says:

   05 Oct, 2010 at 6:32 am

   All things are based on assumptions otherwise we would just continue to chase our tails going nowhere. The most basic principal of physics assumes its laws are unvaried with time. Religions assume their book is the only correct way to view life.

   As a student I have to assume that these principals of science are correct, that the things I read based on scientific data is actually correct. I cannot go through each equation and interview countless scientists to base my decisions on, just as one cannot travel to another dimension of reality to discover a spiritual force.

   Therefore, I have to base my assumptions on data from various degrees of human thought and my own life experiences in order to draw my own conclusions. All of which operate on the principal of faith.

   Reply
9. Tomca32 says:

   16 Sep, 2010 at 6:24 pm

   Hah, Ben Stein…always indoctrinating, presenting all the information in a twisted way, promoting his religious agenda. His failure is to understand what scientific principles really represent, the most foolproof methods we have for discovering truth and the nature of the world around us.

   Documentaries are supposed to be educational, not indoctrinating.

   Reply
10. Old Git Tom says:

    09 Aug, 2010 at 2:30 am

    I am actually neutral on the God versus atheism issue, but very opposed to the kind of numbskull materialism Darwinians cling to. It’s terribly 19C & very outdated. And as one speaker on the video remarked, when Dawkins steps over his narrow disciplinary demarcation lines, he shows (inevitably) ignorance.

    Eg., Dawkins posed the ‘panspermia’ idea for the origins of life in the universe – bits of organic matter floating to earth from exploded/dead systems in space. Fair enuf, but any philosophy student might point out that this lands us with the problem of regression – where did the ancient organic dust from space come from? Just pushing the origin question back in time does not answer it.

    Similarly, Darwinians seem unable to explain the yawning tautology at the heart of their beloved theory. Darwin set out to explain why so many different shapes & kinds of life-forms exist. He said they were adapted by natural selection to fit their environments. So, camels have humps to live in the desert, & fish have gills to live in water. But without these ‘adaptations, such creatures could not live, they would not be here at all.

    In fact, Darwin’s theory does not explain variety, it tells us that a great variety of forms exist. But we knew that anyhow. The theory posits ‘natural selection, but does not prove this theory.

    In fact, no amount of empirical data can disprove Darwin’s theory, since a tautology is cast-iron true, but empty – like one = one. Hence the Darwinian trumpeting of the universality of the theory. Even the Wikipedia article on this issue claims to dissolve the tautology, but in fact does not. OGT

    Reply
11. Old Git Tom says:

    28 Jul, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    Generally, a refreshing kickback against the Darwinian mafia. The original theory was brilliant, but flawed. It is now long due for revision. Unfortunately, biology is stuck in nineteenth-century materialism. Physics has moved way beyond that outmoded form of contact & chemical causality. As Stein tried to explain, the destruction of the careers of scientists who publicly even question Darwinian orthodoxy is shameful & sinister. OGT

    Reply
12. Al says:

    14 Jul, 2010 at 12:57 am

    Why can’t people look at it this way, that science and the ability of human mind to contemplate and work with it to one’s own benefit is something that has been mysteriously bestowed. Like a double edged knife, the implications can be both positive and negative depending on how one chooses to interpret the facts. While darwinists curtail the issue of explaining the factual implications of the theory and how human being originated from a highly impossible chemical reaction, they fail to present a constructive argument to disintegrate the ID notion. ID notion on the other hand can be easily contrasted as a theory not capable to withstand the the preparedness of the theory of evolution, which even after being loads of bs is systematically seeded into the public consciousness making irresponsible arrogant people out of once scientific geniuses like Dawkins. It’s a shame that humans have started to question things beyond their imagination. It goes to show how much the scientific community has become boastful of its accomplishments, that the machinations of the wonders of the world seem like a lucky coincidence to it, when things are more rightly presented when we listen to what religion has to say. Religion does not stand across from science but along sides it and people who believe in otherwise are surely undeserving of perfectly designed bodies that don’t throw out what they eat instead of feces.

    Very well structured documentary. Highly recommendable !

    Reply
13. Corey says:

    07 Jul, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    “How did this being come into being iteself?”. I find it embarrasing that people, especially intellectuals such as Dawkins, ask such a thing. “God” is a necessary being, it is part of His nature to exist. Its an incoherent question to ask “how did this necessary being come into being” just like “why are there no married bachelors”. Its funny because athiests have always ascribed such a thing to the universe, they thought that the universe had always existed, so I would have asked the same question to you maybe 100 years ago but now we have overwhelming evidence from contemporary cosmology that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past, and since things that begin to exist are not necessary it follows that the universe is not necessary. I suggest reading about the Leibnezian contingency argument and the kalam cosmological argument.

    Reply
14. Chris says:

    26 Jun, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    re Andrew

    You’re answer was in no way an alternative theory to the how the universe came to be and was certainly not an answer to Sam’s question. You say that ‘our human minds are so feeble’.How do you then think that science has progressed so far? The answer is reason, evidence and prediction. ID fails in those areas and all arguments for it can be, and have been countered. Scientists are not closed to the idea of a deity but they are sceptical as there is no substantional evidence, reason or predictions for such a thing being possible.

    Faith is not, and will never be a form of proof.

    Reply
15. Nazarene says:

    20 Jun, 2010 at 1:09 am

    Thank you so much for posting. It is an incredible documentary. I will recommended to everyone I know.
    Thanks again!!!!!

    Reply
16. jay says:

    18 Jun, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    Well Andrew, it’s a good thing that the “Climategate scandal” was media hype and spin on illegally obtained innocent comments (no actually read the comments not the two sentences out of several paragraphs that fox news took out of context to make look ominous) and that they in no way invalidate the facts of global warming documented for over a century now.

    It’s all so funny how you bring up “honest science” as this apologetic video (it’s not even a documentary as you know documentaries document reality) lies in just about every scene. for that matter the video is based off 2 logical fallacies, 1 that evolution is a house of cards and if there is even .01% that one aspect of it can be wrong then every part of the diverse field is wrong, and 2 that if evolution is wrong then by default there version of the origins of life are correct. both are ridiculous assumptions as is the core of ID it’s self (because I can’t imagine how it evolved is a logical fallacy into it’s self) and so the movie and the producers are ridiculed for promoting a concept that was on shaky ground 151 years ago and is completely disproved today.

    Reply
17. Chase says:

    09 May, 2010 at 9:14 am

    *explanatory

    Reply
18. Chase says:

    09 May, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Andrew- Your last paragraph is a bit hyperbolic and incoherent. Your going to have to be more specific…
    “Why can’t Faith be a form of proof?”
    The answer seems self-eplanatory. Faith is a completely subjective experience based on an individual’s experience and articulation… “Proof,” or evidence, is something that should observable and can withstand scientific scrutiny. Did you learn what the Scientific Method was in grade school?
    http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

    Reply
19. George says:

    08 May, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Clearly small minds can never answer big questions… Not understanding the issue, being the loss of our freedom, is being glossed over with the mindless chatter on life’s beginnings and is completely lost on people like Sam and John.

    Reply
20. Chia says:

    05 May, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Thought provoking topic resented in a interesting, hilarious way with balanced perspective.

    Reply
21. Josh says:

    04 May, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Andrew – I believe you need to ask the same questions of god. If god exists, where did he come from? If something created god, where did it come from? Why is it easier for you to accept that god does not need a creator but the universe does? Perhaps the universe just is, and always will be. I agree with you that our human minds are feeble in regards to these questions; it is because of this that it is more likely that god is a creation of man, not the other way around.

    Reply
22. Nick says:

    01 May, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    Andrew, I think that maybe you need to do some research into intelligent design (ID) and the methodology it proposes. ID is inherently opposed by scientific method, as it presupposes that a gap in knowledge can, and indeed should, be filled by inserting a deity. If all problems we cannot understand are answered by stating that an omnipotent deity made it that way, where does the advancement of knowledge fit in? A question that is beyond our CURRENT understanding must be answered with a simple “we don’t know” which will subsequently be followed up with research into that question.

    A flat out lie resented in this documentary states that evolution by natural selection proposes a method by which inanimate matter became animate life, an idea known as abiogenesis. Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, and implicitly only relates to extant self replicating molecules. While science does not yet know how life began, there are many scientists working on it. There are many hypotheses being proposed, but none of them are supported by enough evidence to be considered a scientific reality. Evolution has however reached the pinnacle of scientific reality, a theory. A little research on the matter will point out that “proof” is a mathematical term that cannot be applied to most scientific disciplines. Evolution is now not only accepted, but has been observed in laboratory settings and is depended upon by pathogen researchers who utilize it to predict and counteract drug resistant strains of disease. For some simple explanations on current hypotheses as well as accepted theories explained in an easy to understand presentation, check out potholer54′s “made easy series” on Youtube.

    I object to not only the premise of this film, but also the techniques it uses to slander the scientific community. It’s attempts to associate atheism and the accepted scientific theory of evolution by natural selection with regimes that are locked into the minds of all western citizens as the utmost of evil: Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. This is simply a propaganda technique intended to sway the viewer’s emotions. In intellectual society, and now thanks to Godwin’s Law on the internet, a consensus that reverting to supporting your argument by creating such irrational comparisons weakens and ultimately destroys your argument, leaving you with no credibility. This entire documentary seems to ignore this fact.

    To be fair, I do not agree with all of the statements made by prominent evolutionary proponents, Dawkins in particular. It is my personal opinion that he does more harm than good with his rash attitude and unrelenting attacks on religion, simply alienating rational individuals who none the less maintain religious beliefs. The best way to convince someone of the validity of your argument is to present well, not present it loudly and arrogantly.

    I am in much more agreement with PZ Myers, that with growing education religion will be relegated to the personal lives of individuals, where it belongs. That is where the crux of my argument lies: that religion itself is not a negative entity, however it should not be entrenched into the institutions of any state, be it government itself (executive, legislative, or judiciary) or in government funded institutions such as schools. It is the right of any free person to maintain a belief, it is not a right to have tax dollars pay to spread it.

    A bit of an essay I know but I hope I made some points for you to ponder.

    Reply
23. brandon says:

    26 Apr, 2010 at 1:58 am

    @Andrew

    I can understand how you could think that science is “skewed,” and in some cases it may be, as scientists are humans too. However, there are many tools set forth to rid of bias and skewed articles: peer review journals ect.
    But I think you are saying that science is skewed in that it will not consider the existence of a deity as a hypothesis. That is because something that cannot be disproven, tested, or measured through any means of science is not science, it is philosophy or religion. There can be no evidence of such matters, thus it is ruled by individualistic emotion rather than through evidence. And to answer your question, faith cannot be a form of proof anymore than any other subjective opinion can be proof of something. Faith is powerful in its obscurity so let’s take a moment to reflect upon it definition via merriam-webster:
    2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

    Note 2b: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Personally, when there is no evidence for a particular matter I reserve my judgement. Now here is my question: why don’t you?

    Reply
24. Andrew says:

    16 Feb, 2010 at 4:12 am

    I actually thought this was an enjoyable documentary.

    Sam, the alternative is the possibility of having an honest science that can answer your question. A recent example of failed science could possibly be the potential for a Climategate scandal. Skewed “science” is not what science is meant to be. It is just a fabricated lie.

    I don’t understand why God is completely ruled out by some people. So even if everything evolved through the theory of Darwinism, what created everything to supply this theory? Where did the earth come from? If you answer the Big Bang, then where did the material come from to allow a Big Bang? Our human minds are so feeble when it comes to questions like these, because we want a proven hypothesis through means that we can understand and compare to other findings. Why can’t Faith be a form of proof?

    Reply
25. shane says:

    04 Feb, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    Ben stein is as ridiculous in this doc as he was in ferris bueller!!

    Reply
26. John says:

    29 Jan, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Not worth watching… Complete waste of time.

    Reply
27. Sam says:

    29 Jan, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Haha, this documentary is so ridiculous… They keep pointing out, that it is very unlikely life got started by chance. But what’s their altenative?

    They introduce the idea of an intelligent designer. But wait! How did this entity come into being itself?!

    Reply