Roger Ebert has now done this. Of course his review trashed the movie.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/eber....._mind.html

The judge at Dover seemed to understand it in 2005.
The Supreme Court seemed to understand it in 1987.

http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php

But hurry to register – there’s a limited amount of bribe money. Last come – not served.

No, no, no. It’s a biased “mockmentary”. It tries to tell one side of the story and ignore the other side completely. So, in some sense, it’s just half of the truth. Unfortunately, the other side of the story makes all too much sense. So, a professor that doesn’t publish much, doesn’t get grant money, and doesn’t have graduate students doesn’t get tenure. Not much “action” based on that side of the story.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/

no excuses now, eh?

you can even go right to the text online to figure out the answers to any questions.

what have you got to lose, other than your blatant dishonesty?

wanna bet?

hey, you say you’ve read it so you should be able to answer basic questions from it, right?

I know for a fact I can easily ask questions based on Origin that you would only be able to answer if you read it. At this point, you haven’t even made it past the title yet, and you even get that wrong!

what are you afraid of? surely since you think it is such doggerel, you can easily dismiss any questions arising from the material.

right?

wouldn’t it be a better argument for your “position” to be able to directly refute the arguments Darwin himself made in Origin?

LOL

you’re so transparent you should hang a frame on your head and sell yourself as a window.

btw, even in Canada, slander requires a lot more than me calling you a liar, especially since it’s so obviously accurate.

but hey, if you wanna play that game, have fun. I doubt you have the cash to buy a lawyer that wouldn’t laugh at you.

man, you are just too funny. seriously, you would really benefit from learning how to deal with denial.

shall we quiz you on the contents, or do you want to admit to being a liar now?

I’ve read “On the Origin of Species” and it’s an absolutely remarkable book. Any person who wants to be considered scientifically or historically literate should read it in its entirety. Darwin managed to consider every possible objection to his evidence and he addresses all of the them. Yet, the creationists still bring up the same old, tired, complaints. For the creationists its as if we still live in 1858. Do read the book, and read some of the evidence that has been gathered in the 149 years since its publication.

Along with some deserved acidic barbs against your lack or reading. A few very good points have been made. Specifically that race is referring to subspecies, which in truth is what the different races of man are, just variations, we call all interbreed so we are the same species. And the second point: Darwin does not state nor imply racial holocaust, social Darwinism or any of the other tripe that people try to paint evolutionary theory with.

Now that you have a fair explanation of what the title means, are you ready to learn from this and comment on your previous misconceptions?

You’ve asked for an explanation, how about rewarding us all by letting us see your world view expand though learning.

lol!

argue in bad faith much, glen?

KEvron

I’ll eat my hat now.

Since you’re obviously a supporter of the Conservatives, perhaps you might think on there education policies as you’re a prime candidate for some remedial literacy tutoring.

Love Ben Stein? Good luck with your green card application. We won’t be missing you.

Since you’re clearly a dishonest cowardly idiot, why should anyone care?

Man, you guys are pathetic.

Well that last part’s easy to explain. Language doesn’t evolve, of course, any more than organisms do. So “race” must be the exact same thing in every context, and science never changes either, so Darwin is the person whose holy writ is what the Darwinists must believe through all time.

How is one supposed to deny organic evolution if one accepts the analogous evidences, and materialistic mechanisms of language evolution? I mean, no one thinks that language evolved via magic or the intervention of space aliens, nor even by “design” (some deliberate language change might be believed by the godless materialists, but clearly they see it as largely non-deliberate), and if we allow that vestiges and homologies indicate language evolution, won’t vestiges and homologies have to be understood as evidence for biological evolution?

No, evidence doesn’t matter, because the Designer can make anything it wants, including apparent evolution. The designer is godlike, not God, too, and it’s bizarre that anyone would ever suppose that ID is about God, when it’s only about a godlike being or beings.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Secondly, the Expelled flick is all about the supression of ID in academic circles. Michael Behe still has a job doesn’t he? And he’s not the only one. He gets paid far more than me for spouting total tripe. If only I’d cottoned on sooner, I could be rich by now, selling books on snake oil.

If someone joined the Geology department of a university and advocated a flat Earth; or an astronomer did the same for an Earth-centred universe, should we allow them to teach students or question (a) their credentials and (b) their objectivity as scientists?

Like I said, he’s a coward. And apparently he has a crush on Aaron. Selective breeding.

Not only is he woefully uninformed, he is also a coward in the face of truth.

Two life lessons for you:

1. Before endorsing documentaries – watch more than the trailer. Then again, you seem the type to take things on “faith” without reason and/or evidence so perhaps, to satisfy your own poor standards, you needn’t watch it.

2. Before criticizing books – read more than the title. Unfortunately for you, in order properly to take a critical look at the contents of a book, you must know what those contents are beyond the title. Arguments against things you don’t understand are bound to fall flat.

In any case, you’ve plenty of excellent rebuttals to your “argument” – although, as predicted earlier, you’re diligently ignoring them in favour of patting yourself and Aaron on the back.

Cheers, and good luck with… That.

Darwin merely explained what wass going on, using the language of his time.

Along come hard-of-thinking muppets with a religious axe to grind (that’s you!), and we see a lot of dishonest spinning of what was said into whatever twisted message you want to send.

Regardless of you and the other forces of intellectual repression, evolution stands, and has done so for hundreds of years now. All you lot want is to suppress freedom of thought and research. When you whine about freedom of speech being suppressed, it’s utterly laughable. You want to suppress the teaching of evolution in schools while being allowed to peddle your primitive superstitions at will.

The bible is bilge, better used as toilet paper. As for creationism….that’s just the biggest farce imaginable. Why don’t you believe in the tooth fairy or the easter bunny? They’re just as believable, and just as useful in life.

*yawn*

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”