As I’m watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, there are seemingly endless commercials for Ben Stein’s creationist movie, Expelled. In the commercial, Stein is a student in a classroom where his instructor tells the students that evolution is unguided and undesigned. “How did life begin in the first place, dude?” Stein whines in his trademark monotone. This question is supposed to be terrifying to his professor--so terrifying that Stein is, you know, expelled.

It’s not like we have no idea. There are many competing hypotheses that attempt to explain the origin of life. Although scientists don’t necessarily agree on what it means to be alive, there is agreement that living organisms arose from non-living material in a long, slow process—there was no single moment when the first cell “sprang to life.” Hypotheses about the origin of life, collectively called abiogenesis, differ on which component of living cells arose first. Some postulate that some sort of cellular membrane had to arise first. Others suggest that self-replicating genetic molecules must have formed as the initial step toward life. One of the most widely cited hypotheses is the RNA-world idea, which says that short segments of RNA similar to modern ribozymes were the first components of cells to arise. Ribozymes are bits of RNA that are just large enough to self-replicate and to catalyze simple metabolic reactions. Another category of abiogenesis hypothesis proposes that simple metabolic pathways were the first step toward life. One particularly attractive hypothesis suggests that the reverse citric acid cycle was the original metabolic pathway and would have used ambient energy, perhaps from volcanic vents, to assemble the organic chemicals needed for life to begin.

The short answer to Stein’s question is that we don’t know how life began. However, this doesn’t mean that a supernatural explanation is necessary. The question of the origin of life is not scary to real scientists. The “intelligent design” idea that Stein endorses answers every question with “God did it.” From a scientific point of view, this is no answer at all.

Stein's movie is not about abiogenesis although the commercial is. Stein's movie deals with the fact that scholars,scientist,professors and others who question the validity of the theory of evolution are being forced out of academia. Forced,in effect, to remain silent so as not to raise doubt about the honesty of the scientific community in the minds of the public from which their living are gained. Censorship on an unbelievable level.

If it were true.

But it's not. Click here to read the real stories of those who the movie claims were expelled.

Archaeopteryx:

If it were true.

But it's not. Click here to read the real stories of those who the movie claims were expelled.

LOL...should anyone be surprised that "excuses" would be published?

LOL...should anyone be surprised that "excuses" would be published?

I've got an idea: point out the problems you see with the accounts on Expelled Exposed, and why we should consider them to be "excuses".

Actually, I've got an even better idea: How about explaining to us why intelligent design is better science than evolution. Tell us how intelligent design fits the data better, how it explains the data better, what predictions it makes, and what tests it has been subjected to. The science is the real issue; the rest is politics.

Archaeopteryx, you may appreciate this: Bensteinian Rhapsody.

anxiousmofo:

LOL...should anyone be surprised that "excuses" would be published?

I've got an idea: point out the problems you see with the accounts on Expelled Exposed, and why we should consider them to be "excuses". Actually, I've got an even better idea: How about explaining to us why intelligent design is better science than evolution. Tell us how intelligent design fits the data better, how it explains the data better, what predictions it makes, and what tests it has been subjected to. The science is the real issue; the rest is politics.

The movie will answer your questions. Go see it.

That's a lazy response. Have YOU even seen the movie?

- some questions it did not answer for me: how is evolution responsible for the holocaust and nazism, but not laissez fair economic theory? Something Ben Stein is a big proponent of, yet is inherently based on the out-dated idea of social darwinism. Even if the theory of evolution was responsible for people doing bad things, why would it take away from the scientific validity of the theory? Isn't this the reasoning often employed by Christians: despite the occurence of the inquisition and the crusades, Christianity is not wrong in and of itself?

- why would accepting the scientific fact of evolution and the scientific theory of natural selection disbar one from holding religious thought? In other words, why did the movie employ the same methods as it's accussing the scientific community of employing: silencing opponents. Why weren't religious biologists interviewed, such as Kenneth R. Miller? Here's a person who has written extensively on the idea that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, has been praised and awarded for his work by mainstream scientific organizations. Yet why did the producers not interview him? Because according to Mark Mathis, his belief in evolution disbars him from being a Christian, people like Miller are "towing a line" the producer doesn't think "exists". It would "have confused the film unneccessarily". In other words, it would have disproven the central thesis of the movie, which states that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive, and the scientific community only values the godless evolutionary theory.

My question to you, nanotech, why should I assume this movie has any scientific merit?

My question to you, nanotech, why should I assume this movie has any scientific merit?

Don't assume anything. Go see the movie and know.

Some awful funny folks working out there.

I said

How about explaining to us why intelligent design is better science than evolution. Tell us how intelligent design fits the data better, how it explains the data better, what predictions it makes, and what tests it has been subjected to.

And you replied

The movie will answer your questions. Go see it.

Surely you are making that claim based on what you know of intelligent design in general, and Expelled in particular. Rather than wait until I have both the time and the desire to see the movie, which will probably be a very long time, why don't you enlighten us on what you think the answers to those questions are, since you seem to be claiming that intelligent design qualifies as science.

Again, have you seen the movie? If so, surely you can elaborate on its scientific basis. Especially considering I don't have much "hope" for it being released here in Europe anytime soon, please help a man gain some understanding.

Nice post, Luuk, and nice to meet you!

same to you anxious...isn't it funny that we practically have to beg for explanations, whereas the whole premise of the movie seems to be the fact that people like us don't want to hear from people like nanotech?

From the vaunted "PROOF":
"The Facts

Gaining tenure at a major research institution is never easy. The stakes – employment protection from dismissal without due cause – are very high, and it is appropriate that candidates should face intense scrutiny. "

=============

CaliforniaDreamin corrects yet ANOTHER Leftist Lie:

"Never easy".... yeah, right. Perhaps some have heard of Ward Churchill, disgraced left-wing nut case (but I repeat myself). Churchill shows EXACTLY HOW EASY it is to get tenure. Churchill was a tenured professor at University of Colorado, DESPITE the facts that Churchill:

1. Had only a master's degree, NOT a PhD

2. LIED on his resume

3. PLAGIARIZED some of his work

4. Was an outspoken America-hater and left wing nut case, like so many OTHER tenured professors, from Jose Angel Gutierrez, to Steve Best to Nicholas De Genova

So please, PROFESSOR, knock off the bullshit you spread so very often. You've been brainwashing people too long. Not everyone eats up your lies.