Expelled Review II: A scientific perspective

4/28/2008 | 2:03 AM | Evolved Rationalist

On Friday, I decided to kill off a few of my brain cells to watch Expelled so my readers didn't have to. After reading my friend's review of the movie from a film making perspective, I am sure you must be curious as to what the great Evolved Rationalist this evolution geek thinks about the blatant anti-science lies promoted in the movie. Oh, there were four other people watching the movie with us. *snicker*

Before watching the movie, I expected to be so angry by the end of it that some people were afraid that I would end up going on a rampage and killing every creationist in sight. I expected to intersperse my bouts of hot rage at the IDiots with some laughs at the utter stupidity of Ben Stein (BS) et al. I expected to be saddened by how fundamentalist religious beliefs had warped creationist minds. I expected to be disgusted at the credulous creationists who would flock to the movie just to feed their pathetic delusions. With all those expectations, it was a good idea for me to watch the movie with an atheist friend. However, I simply did not expect the movie to be so goddamn boring. Not even Stein's nasal drone could have prepared me for the utter failure of the movie to make me either get really angry or start laughing hysterically.

The movie starts with Stein in his idiotic sneakers rambling about freedom and portraying himself as a great crusader for the cause of freedom in the face of persecution. He apparently failed to get the memo that lecturing to a crowd of extras about how the establishment is suppressing ID is not the way science works at all. He also failed to get the memo that ID is not about religion, droning on and on about how 'Darwinists' are persecuting ID and putting "science in a little box where it can't possibly touch god". Oops, Stein - you scored an own goal there for us 'evil Darwinists'. You have proven that your side is all about religion, and you have nicely exposed the lies that your side has been peddling all along. Thank you for that little favor there, Stein.

To maximize the sensationalist nature of the crocumentary, scenes of Nazi death camps, gas chambers and tortured/dead Jews were badly inserted in the middle of ramblings about Darwinist persecution. Ben, how dare you disrespect millions of Jews that were murdered in the Holocaust by using their suffering to promote your theocratic, fundamentalist, quasi-political, lying, right-wing, theistarded agenda? How dare you compare the killing of millions of people with some ID hacks being criticized by the scientific community for not providing evidence for their assertions? How dare you claim that ID being flunked is tantamount to a new Holocaust? How dare you even think of using the Holocaust as a tool to prop up your lying agenda? How could you, Stein? Don't you have any measure of shame?

Next, he interviews people who were supposedly expelled or persecuted for supporting ID. He touts the case of Michael Egnor as an example of this great 'Darwinist' persecution that rivals what Hitler did to the Jews. Now, get ready for this - all that happened to Egnor was that some people criticized him on the internet. Yes, let me repeat myself if this does not shock you enough: Egnor was criticized on the internet. This is one of the examples of 'Darwinist' persecution of ID that threatens the very idea of freedom and is comparable to the Holocaust. Egnor was the very same medical doctor (!) who remarked that one of the reasons evolution is false is because 'brain tumors don't evolve to make better brains'. Come on now, Egnor, how could you make such ignorant statements and then get all whiny about being 'persecuted' when you are called out on your fallacy? If you can't take the heat, get the fuck out of the scientific ring. If you can't handle criticism, shut the fuck up. Since some creationists have criticized me on the internet; according to Stein, I am the victim of creationist persecution. A sword cuts both ways, IDiots.

Stein also lies about how Richard Sternberg's life was nearly destroyed after he was fired from the Smithsonian for supporting ID. However, the truth is a lot less sensational than what the IDiots claim. Sternberg was never employed by the Smithsonian. He was an unpaid research associate and he still has full access to research facilities at the museum. As I don't want to continue beating a dead horse, the real stories about the so-called 'academics' who were expelled for supporting ID can be found here.

Stein continues his nonsense with interviews from the usual kooks - Dembski, Johnson, Berlinski, Marks, etc. They trotted out the usual nonsense "The cell is complex, so there is a designer! Design is a scientific theory!! It can be proven!! We just want to be heard!! This is a war of worldviews!! We are being persecuted! Waaaaaaah!!" All this is incredibly boring as we have been hearing those goons say the same thing for years without a shred of evidence to back up their claims. Those IDiots were given the chance of their lifetimes in a courtroom in Dover, their leading light William "BillDumb" Dembksi was too cowardly to testify, Michael Behe claimed that ID is as scientific as astrology, they bombed in court and their case was shown to be one of "breathtaking inanity". They had their chance and they failed.

Can we move on now, IDiots? Some of us like our brains nice and functioning, thank you very much.

The best part was when the IDiots he interviewed stressed that ID was not about religion, while Stein simply ranted in the next scene about how god was being kicked out of science by 'Darwinist' persecutors. Those IDiots can't even get their stories straight, and yet we are supposed to believe that they are doing doing real science? In my opinion, I really don't think that insulting the intelligence of one's audience is a good idea, but then again, it is the ID lying crowd we are talking about here.

Stein goes on to demonstrate his ignorance by delightfully blabbering about how 'Darwinists' still cling to 'Darwinism' despite the fact that nobody knows how life actually arose. Apart from the simple fact that the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life and that abiogenesis is a separate field of study, Stein invokes the tired old god-of-the-gaps argument to claim that since we don't know everything about a particular scientific issue, GODDIDIT! Apparently, the 'science' that the IDiots so badly want recognition for is their inane tendency to yell GODDIDIT instead of doing some actual scientific research.

The part where I wanted to slam my head against the wall was when Stein made fun of panspermia and asked "Is this really more plausible than God?", killing any pretensions of ID being non-religious and again demonstrating his utter ignorance of the issue he claims to be so passionate about. Unless those 'aliens' or whatever was seeding life on earth evolved through evolutionary processes, panspermia is actually ID. The fact that nobody seemed to realize that the idea of an intelligence seeding life on earth belongs on the ID side is apparently because everyone in their camp only sees ID in terms of special creation by the Christian god.

I was curious about the ID creationists' excitement over Richard Dawkins supposedly admitting that ID is possible. What actually happened in the movie was nothing at all like what the kooks over at Uncommonly Dense want you to believe. Stein asked Dawkins to imagine a scenario in which ID could be possible, and Dawkins replied by saying that an intelligence could have started life on earth. Now, for you deluded dumbfucks who think that this is some sort of staggering admission, Dawkins mentioned this possibility because Stein asked him to! He was merely answering Stein's question, not advocating ID. Furthermore, Dawkins goes on to say that the intelligence itself must have evolved elsewhere through evolutionary processes. However, Stein deliberately ignores this, choosing instead to spew his lie about how Dawkins accepts ID as long as the Designer is not god. Fuck you, Stein, for being a shameless liar. I would really like to tell Stein where he should shove his head, but I don't think it would make a difference at this point.

The part of the whole truckload of epic fail that was Expelled which truly made me angry was when Stein walked around concentration camps trying to look upset while blaming and trying not to blame 'Darwinism' for the Holocaust at the same time. He utters inanities about how he is not claiming that 'Darwinism' lead to Nazism, but Darwinism was the root cause of Nazi ideas. Stein ignores the widely-known historical fact that anti-Semitic ideas were around long before Darwin and that there were ideas about the extermination of Jews even before Hitler. (Check out Martin Luther's rantings against the Jews, for one). Stein then stupidly claimed that 'Darwinism' led to eugenics without realizing that artificial selection has been around since the dawn of agriculture. Oh noes!! Agriculture caused Nazism and the Holocaust! Ban agriculture!! Stein then threw in more right-wing propaganda with stupid remarks about how Planned Parenthood, abortion and stem-cell research are modern-day eugenic practices. Pandering to the fundie base probably never looked so good.

Stein also completely misses the point that even if evolution led to Nazism or that Hitler admired Darwin, the scientific validity of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the consequences of accepting the theory. Epic fail, Stein.

The movie ends with scenes of people tearing down the Berlin Wall and Stein basically comparing himself to great defenders of freedom and claiming that Big Science has erected a wall to keep god out, just like the Berlin Wall tried to keep ideas out, and that the fight to bring god into science is like bringing down the Berlin Wall, and that Stein cannot do it on his own, so he needs sheep to follow and bray after him, yada, yada, yada...

Thick on the propaganda, vacuous on the science - just like the whole big tent of Intelligent Design. As expected, Expelled fails to tell us exactly why ID qualifies as science. All Stein talks about is how ID is being persecuted, but we never see any of the so-called evidence that the 'Darwinists' are suppressing. If Stein is so passionate about freedom of ideas and the defence of truth, why not put the evidence on the table?

Could it be simply because there is no scientific validity to ID and that the only thing keeping them afloat is their spin machine? Could it be that we 'evil Darwinists' were right all along? Scary thought, isn't it, Stein?

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to our feed


  1. jim |

    Excellent review!

  2. Anonymous |

    [Thick on the propaganda, vacuous on the science - just like the whole big tent of Intelligent Design.]


    We don't need the Wedge Document anymore when the creationists keep shooting themselves in the foot like this!

  3. jj |

    If you can't take the heat, get the fuck out of the scientific ring. If you can't handle criticism, shut the fuck up.

    I think I have a blog crush on you.

  4. christislord12 |

    Keep lying, Shalini. Keep lying.

  5. Anonymous |


    Care to elaborate?

  6. lurker |

    Wow, the trolls are out already!

    Nice review,BTW.

  7. Evolved Rationalist |


    Why don't you put up or shut up? Thank you.

  8. christislord12 |

    You are too arrogant.

  9. Bronze Dog |

    Looks like the troll's scared. When asked to elaborate on his statement and provide evidence he chickens out by changing the subject to something as irrelevant as arrogance.


    So, going to continue to wuss out cil12? Too scared to talk about the substance? I'm calling your bluff.

  10. Crazyharp81602 |

    Great review. All the better for us to see blockbuster films like Ironman than this crap. Thanks for posting this.

  11. creationist |

    Shalini Sehkar exposed as a NAZI!! If you search, she wrote a post supporting EUGENICS and now she LIES that DARWINISM is not connected to NAZISM!!


  12. quercus |

    [The fact that nobody seemed to realize that the idea of an intelligence seeding life on earth belongs on the ID side is apparently because everyone in their camp only sees ID in terms of special creation by the Christian god.]

    Truer words were never spoken.

  13. Anonymous |


    I don't think you understood her post very well. Try again.

  14. creationist |

    She said this and admitted that she is a NAZI:

    If there is indeed a way to breed humans for certain abilities, what's stopping the next eugenics revolution (this time based on modern science) from happening? Should we or should we not attempt to stop it? What are the arguments that might lead us to conclude that it is or is not a good idea? Why are we so opposed to eugenics being applied to humans (if the means and the know-how are in place), when we have bred animals for preferred traits as long as anyone can remember?

  15. Anonymous |


    That post has nothing whatsoever to do with Nazism. Nazism is a political ideology. Her post was about rethinking eugenics in terms of modern science. Those two concepts are not related, stupid!

  16. melissa |

    Trolls, trolls, glorious troooools...

    Best review of Expelled so far! Great work!

  17. creationist |

    Nazism is eugenics, ignorant Darwinists!

  18. BEAJ |

    Edward Current's video review:)

    Watch all his videos, his satire is phenomenal.

  19. Evolved Rationalist |


    1. I am not a Nazi.

    2. Nazism does not equal eugenics.

    3. Go back to remedial science, history and comprehension class.

    4. You fail.

  20. creationist |

    I am a closet faggot and that is why I try to repress myself by being an internet troll!! I AM A FAG!!!

  21. The Barefoot Bum |

    would really like to tell Stein where he should shove his head, but I don't think it would make a difference at this point.

    Sorry, ER, you're far too late. Stein's head has been so deeply lodged there for so long that it would take a 5-gallon bucket of surgical lubricant and the Jaws of Life to extract it.

  22. splendidelles |

    You know what's scary... If Dembski wasn't being so dumb during the movie I'd be attracted to him...

    He's hotter than Behe.

  23. Evolved Rationalist |

    Dembski? With his stupid yet arrogant look?

    Dembski is an arousal fail right there.

  24. creationist |

    No! I am not gay! The other commenter is a Darwinist pretending to be me! Darwinist tactics are really disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!

    I am an AiG scientist so people are jealous of me!!!!!!!!!!!

  25. Cetacea |

    "Nazism is eugenics, ignorant Darwinists!"

    Because of the lack of excessive punctuation, I can't be sure that this is the real cretinist theistard who keeps rambling, but I guess I can blame it on Poe's law.

    Nazism is not eugenics. It's an ideology of extreme nationalism, anti-semitism, and a touch of militarism.

    Ignorant theistard.

    Weren't you going to start a blog to ramble about how the Evolved Rationalist is Shalini Sehkar all you wanted? What's the matter? Didn't have enough evidence to ramble about? That never stopped you from being painfully redundant before.

  26. splendidelles |

    He is SO physically attractive!

  27. Evolved Rationalist |

    In all fairness, I would do him if I could fuck him out of his delusions and turn him into one of my atheist evilutionist minions. Muahahaha.

  28. creationist |

    No because she is EXPOSED enough, even as a NAZI!!!!!!!!

  29. Anonymous |

    Creationist, educate thyself:

  30. Anonymous |

    The blog author is an idiot.

  31. hbbtk |

    Before watching the movie, I expected to be so angry by the end of it that some people were afraid that I would end up going on a rampage and killing every creationist in sight.

    Watch out for a creationist misquote...

  32. Cetacea |

    "The blog author is an idiot."

    Anonymous is an idiot.

    I can make random ad hom too.

    Anonymous is an imbecile.

    Anonymous is a racist bastard.

    Doesn't make those statements true.

  33. notheistards |

    It is strange that for an AiG 'scientist', Creationist has so much free time on his hands to be an internet troll.

  34. creationist |

    I am not a troll. SHALINI SEHKAR is a troll, and is now being EXPOSED as a NAZI HITLER LOVING Darwinist LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!

  35. creationist |

    Oh, and I am a faggot too!!!!!!! A gaylord FAGGOT!!!!!! A faggot!!!

  36. creationist |

    No I am not! Somebody here is pretending to be me. Darwinists should be ashamed of their lies!!!!

  37. creationist |

    I am a FAGGOT who bones every other closet homosexual FAGGOT in AiG!!!!!!

    I am a faggot who can't keep quiet in the Christian fundy homoFAG closet of Republican morons!!!!! I am a closet FAGGOTTTTTT like Bush!!

  38. homeopathy sux |

    Idiotic trolls,

    This is getting tiresome. Stop it already.

  39. myz |

    The intellectual level of the creationist posting here are a shining example of the products of ID "education".

  40. Anonymous |

    Ben Stein knew his career was over, and he simply had to go out with a bang.

  41. The Barefoot Bum |

    In all fairness, I would do him if I could fuck him out of his delusions and turn him into one of my atheist evilutionist minions.

    What if I stopped being one of your evilutionists minions (temporarily, of course) and pretended to have delusions?

  42. Cetacea |

    "Ben Stein knew his career was over, and he simply had to go out with a bang."

    I'd call it more of a fart than a bang.

  43. Evolved Rationalist |

    What if I stopped being one of your evilutionists minions (temporarily, of course) and pretended to have delusions?

    I would have to see. You might get a good fuck if you, uh, worship me or something...

  44. christislord12 |

    Hallelujah Jesus! Thank you G-d that more and more evolutionist atheists are turning to creation and G-d after watching Expelled. Bad reviews won't stop G-d's truth from shining!

  45. Evolved Rationalist |

    If you could show me a single legit 'evolutionist atheist' who started believing in cretinism and became a theistard after watching Expelled, I would immediately turn into a Jesus ass-licker.

    Put up or shut up.

  46. christislord12 |

    Your blasphemy is terrible!

  47. creationist |

    Shalini Sehkar is just like HITLER!!!

  48. Evolved Rationalist |


    Thanks for proving that you were lying about the atheists who turned theistard after watching Expelled.


    Why don't you ram a Bible up your ass sideways instead of spouting a pile of dung totally unrelated to the post?

  49. Hitler Nazi |

    Godwin's Law. I haz it.

  50. Anonymous |

    Evolved Rationalist is not a Darwinist.

  51. Anonymous |

    See all the persecution in this thread? Yet you hypocrites deny that ID proponents are being expelled? You brainwashed rats make me sick!

  52. sciencefreak |

    Oh lordy! Some creationists were criticized on TEH INTERNETS!! Waaaahh!! Persecution!! I HAZ BEEN EXPELLED FROM TEH INTERTUBES BY EVIL EVILUSHUNISTS CAZ I HAZ STUPID!!! TEH EVIL!!! OH NOES!!!!!!!11!!111!!

  53. The Barefoot Bum |

    I would have to see.

    Well, considering that the cartoon on my blog is an improvement on my actual appearance, I think we're best leaving the concept to the realm of theory. :)

  54. Evolved Rationalist |

    True, and I wouldn't want to get in any trouble with your wife...


  55. Created Rationalist |

    I feel outnumbered as a theistic evolutionist. Everyone on this board seems to be either a creationist or atheistic evolutionist.

    and Creationist, using your logic the KKK would all be theistic evolutionists being that they are pretty close to being nazis (they hate blacks, Jews, Catholics, and pretty much anyone who is different from them), But no; they are most likely biblical literalists like you (I am not equating biblical literalism with racism simply saying the fact that they are racists or nazis is irrelevent).

  56. DB |

    Wow, this is the most hilarious case of xian trolls I have read in a while! This is actually the best review I have read. Thanks!

  57. Anonymous |

    Created rationalist,

    That is because your science and your theology is totally confused.

  58. sciencefreak |

    Created Rationalist,

    You are still deluded and you still have a lot to learn.

  59. christislord12 |

    You are not a true Christian if you do not trust G-d enough to believe what He says about creation. How could you call G-d a liar just because of what human scientists say? You are in danger of hellfire.

  60. Anonymous |

    Christislord, you are in danger of hellfire. Didn't Jesus say something about not judging?

    Oh, oh...you are gonna burn now....

  61. Anonymous |


    are you THREATENING people with hellfire, you vacuous little turd? Maybe that shit works at JESUS CAMP when you're puttin the FEAR into the kids..but you're dealing with grownups here. WHO the hell are you to decide whose theology is sound..consigning your fellow christians to the flames over this or that piddling difference of dectrine, you slackjawed TALIBAN rube. Like most of your knuckle dragging brethren you probably know NOTHING about the history of the religion you want to cram down everybody else's throat

  62. christislord12 |

    So I am now going to be harrassed by atheists for telling the truth that Created Rationalist is not obeying true doctrine?

  63. Cetacea |

    "So I am now going to be harrassed by atheists for telling the truth that Created Rationalist is not obeying true doctrine?"

    No, you're going to be harassed for being an ass and threatening people with hellfire. When you're doing that, you're just being an exemplary, cowardly theistard.

    Fuck off.

  64. ozatheist |

    one of the best reviews I've read.

    the problem is, no matter how much you whack these IDiots in the face with reason and logic they'll still think the IDiocy of Expelled is valid.

  65. Created Rationalist |

    "You are not a true Christian if you do not trust G-d enough to believe what He says about creation. How could you call G-d a liar just because of what human scientists say? You are in danger of hellfire."

    Um Christislord12,
    Lets see how your claim holds up
    --I believe in God
    --I believe the bible is true
    --I believe in the virgin birth and literal ressurection of Christ
    --I believe in the trinity
    --I accept averything in the nicene creed
    --I believe Jesus is God in the flesh.
    --I believe God created the universe

    So how am I not a true Christian I agree with 95% of what you say I simply think God used evolution and that the scientific evidence for it is very convincing, you on the other hand are simply being subborn; Dogma, not faith impedes science.

  66. Created Rationalist |

    sorry for posting twice in a row but I must add one more thing I m not calling God a liar, I am simply saying there is a deeper meaning to Genesis 1, thats all, God does not lie and neither does his creation.

  67. Jaakonpoika |

    Stein is under heavy attack for 'exaggerating' the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I.

    I quote from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a 'bit'):

    It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871.

    Darwin did not apply his revolutionary theory to the human beings until his Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in 1871. This was after the ambitious Haeckel had firmly stepped in the print, and the old Darwin paid hommage in his introduction:
    "The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species… is not in any degree new… maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers… and especially by Häckel. This last naturalist, besides his great work
    'Generelle Morphologie' (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edit. in 1870), published his 'Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte,' in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay
    had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine."

    Race biological reason was not only rhetoric, it was scientific. There is evidence, that In Ukraine and Baltic countries, the people wellcomed the German troops as redeemers. These illusions evaporated soon, when the SS (Schutzstaffel) and civilian administration followed the field-army. Hitler did not even try to separate the Russian people from the Soviet government. The Eastern Europeans Slavic people were born "slaves", indeed. For Hitler, they were "Untermenschen" (Bullock 1958 pp- 423-5).

    BUT NOTE! The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between "white" and "colored races" was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

    The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould's scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87).

    So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular Finnish media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the 'Up' of the ancient city from Plinius' Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17).

    Hitler's formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the "Nordics", a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel's position on the Jewish question was assimilation, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

    In 1917 the immigration of "defective" groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
    Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the "nordic" balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

    Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
    and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the "yellow" group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

    Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century, and in 1933 the German people had not lived normal life for twenty years. And so Adolf Hitler did not need his revolution. He did not have to break the laws in Haeckel's country, in principle, but to constitute them.

    Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

    I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

    [email protected]
    Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)

    PS. Here's the final chapter scanned from an evolutionist scholar D. Gasman from his The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (chapter 7, Gasman 1971)
    I emphasize that Daniel Gasman is NOT an IDist or Idealist of any kind.

  68. Anonymous |

    Great lambasting of Expelled. I teach bioscience at a small college. Oh, by the way, I love Jesus. Theistic evolution is the way I see things. ID is not science...it is faith. Evolution is not faith....it is good science. Jesus is not an illusion...He is the God-man.

  69. creationist |

    There are not only atheist Darwinists here, but also fake Christians who are actually Darwinists but pretend to be Christians to mislead others. They will burn in hell with the rest of the atheist Darwinists and the arrogant blog author who thinks that she has the right to make fun of Christians.

  70. creationist |

    Christislord12, yes I agree with you.

    Shalini Sehkar EXPOSED!!

    Created Rationalist also EXPOSED as a fake!!!!!

    All are being EXPOSED!!

  71. splendidelles |

    "There are not only atheist Darwinists here, but also fake Christians who are actually Darwinists but pretend to be Christians to mislead others. They will burn in hell with the rest of the atheist Darwinists and the arrogant blog author who thinks that she has the right to make fun of Christians."

    You're right! There's no such thing as the first ammendment! No such thing as freedom of religion or speech. No such thing as the separation between church and state... Those all must be Nazi Darwinist lies!

  72. Charlie_the_unicorn |

    Shun the non-believer! Ssssssshhuuuuuuuunnnnn!!!!


  73. Jaakonpoika |

    I have collected about 200 quotes on the importance of Haeckel's frauds and recapitulation here:

    I will pick some comments by the Jewish scholar and ardent critic of Richard Dawkins SJ Gould. Remember that it was Gould the paleontologist who stated that there is a 'dirty, little trade secret in paleontology' which is the lack of intermediate fossils. So he came up with the punctualism contra gradualism theory of evolution. Gould's proof was that there were no fossil proofs, in a sense.

    "We grasp the importance of recapitulation only when we understand that it served as the organizing idea for generations of work in comparative embryology, physiology, and morphology." Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and phylogeny (1977), s. 116.

    "Haeckel's forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin and Huxley (by Huxley's own frank admission), in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... To cut to the quick of this drama: Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases - in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent - simply copied the same figure over and over again." (SJ Gould, Natural History 3/2000 p. 42, 44.)

    "Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practise: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or 'dawn horse', as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours only, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed; and the other on the persistent claim that elongating giraffe necks provide our best illustration of Darwinian natural selection versus Lamarckian use and disuse when, in fact, no meaningful data exist on the evolution of this justly celebrated structure.)" (SJ Gould, Natural History 3/2000 p. 44.)

    "Yet Haeckel's critics recognized from the start that this master naturalist, this more than competent artist, took systematic license in 'improving' his specimens to make them more symmetrical or more beautiful. In particular, the gorgeous plates for his technical monograph on the taxonomy of radiolarians (intricate and delicate skeletons of single-celled planktonic organisms) ofteh 'enhanced' the actual appearances (already stunningly complex and remarkably symmetrical) by inventing structures with perfect geometric regularity." (SJ Gould, Natural History 3/2000 p. 43.)

    "Haeckel remains most famous today as the chief architect and propagandist for a famous argument that science disproved long ago but that popular culture has never fully abandoned, if only because the standard description sounds so wonderfully arcane and mellifluous: 'Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny', otherwise known as the theory of recapitulation..." SJ Gould, Natural History 3/2000 p. 44.

  74. Anonymous |

    PE was not made up to justify gaps. Try again.


  75. creationist |

    Disregard that, I suck cocks.

  76. J.R. "Bob" Dobbs |

    I'm surprised you haven't started banning all of these trolls.

  77. Richard |


    The first part of Genesis that refers to creation was written in verse, unlike the majority of the rest of the bible. This is the first inkling that it may not be meant to be taken literally.

    The words that are translated as day, sunrise and sunset, can equally be translated as any length of time, dawn of an era and dusk of an era. In fact they are translated that way many times in the OT.

    Many Christians realise this and understand that there need be know division between religion and science, at least in the question of origins. Hence the Roman Catholic church, and many other denominations, officially support evolutionary theory.


Post a Comment