Yoko Ono Files Suit Against Expelled Producers

Awesome!

Apparently the producers of 'Expelled' did NOT obtain permission to use Norman Greenbaum's song 'Spirit in the Sky' either. There may very well be another lawsuit pending.

I sincerely hope that the various lawsuits against Premise Media end up awarding various very large damages to the plaintiffs; thus turning the blatant (if too routine) fleece-the-believers-to-line-our-own-pockets scam into a permanent money hole. Anything which drains the finances of the ID/creo demagogues will serve as a useful example, and will hopefully (*crosses fingers)discourage this sort of disgraceful sham in the future.

One rather cynical prediction: Ben Stein and his DI handlers will distance themselves from Premise, saving themselves from punishment for their own sleazy behavior by sacrificing the film-makers. Premise will declare bankruptcy, pay out about twelve dollars in damages, dissolve and reorganize under a new name.

J. L. Brown said: Apparently the producers of 'Expelled' did NOT obtain permission to use Norman Greenbaum's song 'Spirit in the Sky' either...

There once was a lady named Yoko,

sho had an ironclad copyright infringement case.

When she tried to sue,

she won. Bigtime.

...Oko’s permission...

A typo?

Let's hope this is the first of many lawsuits against Premise. If Yoko's attorneys and British Musicians Incorporated, who are also part of the suit, did have firm legal standing, they wouldn't waste their time. The idiots filed suit against themselves here in Texas regarding the Harvard video. After the losses we can sit back and laugh at all the "activist judge" rulings against Premise.Oh that awful conspiracy.

Let's hope Yoko Wins Ben Stein's Money!

Hi David,

That's a great limerick you wrote, and a poem that's much better than that sleazy Uncommon Dissent "ripoff" version of "Imagine" that I posted here a few days ago (BTW, at Uncommon Dissent, our "pal" Bill D. has wondered whether Ono has the right to sue. How ironic since he seems so possessive of his own intellectual property rights with regards to his "textbook" "The Design of Life" and his other mendacious intellectual pornography pretending to be genuine books devoted to science.).

Speaking of Bill D. and his fellow Disco Tute mendacious intellectual pornographers, I would love to see Ono's lawyers sueing them for acting as the unofficial "public relations" firm on behalf of Premise Media.

Regards,

John

Hi all,

The ever "astute" Denyse O'Leary has had yet another acute case of verbal diarrhea, as demonstrated here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/expelled-ten-days-later-plus-other-news/#more-3287

Of course she devotes most of her screed to criticizing the Ono lawsuit (Hey Denyse, don't you know that both Julian Lennon and Sean Lennon are the plaintiffs too, in addition to Ms. Ono?).

Regards,

John

Hey, offtopic, but does anyone know what happened to Abbie Smith's blog, ERV? Blogger says it was removed, and the name not up for taking. I could speculate about why it's gone, but mostly I'd like to find out where she disappeared to. Sorry if this has already been hashed out elsewhere.

Dear Duncan,

I don't know why Abbie's blog was removed. I'll write her and ask why. It was up as of last week.

Regards,

John

I've heard that Norman Greenbaum pretty much lives (a relatively modest lifestyle) off the royalties from this one song. If so, I suspect he'll be looking for a cut, at the very least.

Hi Duncan,

Here's the answer to your question regarding Abbie Smith's blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/

I surmise that some of the IDiots pressured GOOGLE to delete her previous ERV, but that's just a wild conjecture on my part.

Cheers,

John

I have to laugh at those of you who find such inane pleasure in Ono's suit against Expelled. She has a team of attorneys on her payroll whose only job is to search for anything that has anything to do with her meal ticket. They have even gone so far as to sue a singer with the first name of "Lennon". It is absurd, and she is a despicable human being. Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom.

FYI, nerds, check out all the free publicity now. Now everyone will know about the movie, and will be curious.

Oops, did I just convey information that your pre-programmed mind cannot compute?

Oops, did I just convey information that your pre-programmed mind cannot compute?

It is absurd, and she is a despicable human being. Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom.

It is absurd, and she is a despicable human being. Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom.

Not only that, but Ono apparently didn't actually sue Lennon Murphy, just took issue with Murphy trying to trademark and claim exclusive use of the name "Lennon", which is more understandable.

A creationist screechily passing on a smear without fact-checking? I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

John Kwok said: (BTW, at Uncommon Dissent, our "pal" Bill D. has wondered whether Ono has the right to sue. How ironic since he seems so possessive of his own intellectual property rights with regards to his "textbook" "The Design of Life" and his other mendacious intellectual pornography pretending to be genuine books devoted to science.).

Stevaroni,

Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness” other than the fact that the latter is part of one of the ten commandments and the former is not? And BTW, the rest of the commandment is "against thy neighbor" and if you consider "neighbor" to be just those who share your religion...

Donna said: FYI, nerds, check out all the free publicity now. Now everyone will know about the movie, and will be curious.

Bill Gascoyne said: Stevaroni, Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness” other than the fact that the latter is part of one of the ten commandments and the former is not? And BTW, the rest of the commandment is "against thy neighbor" and if you consider "neighbor" to be just those who share your religion...

ust out of curiosity, what’s the difference between “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness”

There are still just 10 commandments (um, mostly, depending on how you count).

Donna said: Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom.

FYI, nerds, check out all the free publicity now. Now everyone will know about the movie, and will be curious.

Darwin himself said that the "theory" was open for debate and criticism. I find it shameful, but not surprising, that the current attitudes and teachings on the subject are no longer theoretical. I find it absurd that those who entertain the idea of ID are attacked with such manic criticism.
I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

Re: lying and bearing false witness- If I'm not mistaken the interpretation among traditional Jews is that the prohibition on bearing false witness applies to actual testimony, that is being a witness in a court and saying something falsely.

Donna, no one is saying that one cannot criticize evolution. The problem is none of this is useful criticism. ID had a 90 minute chance to present the best arguments it had and there was less science the movie than an Outer Limits episode. Instead of repeated claims of persecution, IDist should a) give an actual definition of ID b) devise experiments that will test for ID and c) actually do them. Until then no number of complains are useful. There's no need to debate with people who aren't willing to do science. It isn't much more complicated than that.

All the objections to evolution raised by ID have been answered many times over. It's one thing to be open to criticism; it's quite another to expect one to answer the same criticism ad nauseum as one's critic refuses to acknowledge the response. A debate goes two ways. This debate was lost by the ID side a hundred years ago, and they've yet to admit it.

"Although a wise man might urge that one suffer fools gladly, this should not be construed as a license for any fool to demand that one do so."

Fredrick William Kantor

Donna wrote: I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

Flint, that's an excellent analogy to the actions of creationists. Unfortunately, I'm guessing, as it usually does in the case of creationists, that your comment will fall on deaf ears. It's just that, you know, the darwinists are WRONG (and feel free to add other capitalized comments). Donna will never believe you because the people she trusts have told her that the evilutionists are wrong, and if she accepts them, she's going to Hell.

The fact that generations of scientists have examined the evidence and accept Evolution/neo-Darwinism/Modern Evolutionary Theory/[whatever they want to call it] because it's the best explanation rather than that they hate God just doesn't register.

Donna said: It is absurd, and she [Ono] is a despicable human being.

Donna said: Darwin himself said that the "theory" was open for debate and criticism. I find it shameful, but not surprising, that the current attitudes and teachings on the subject are no longer theoretical. I find it absurd that those who entertain the idea of ID are attacked with such manic criticism.

I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

Well given that damages are often based on the revenue attributed to the infringement, I don't think she's going to get that much. At least based on the box office returns that is ;)

Donna complains... Darwin himself said that the “theory” was open for debate and criticism.

I find it shameful, but not surprising, that the current attitudes and teachings on the subject are no longer theoretical.

It IS amusing to see some of the responses in this post. The mental image of a Darwin-like scientific zealot frantically typing away, sweating with excitement at the fact that Yoko is going to sue, and ticket sales sucked, and, gadzooks! there may be a Christian in here. It is just classic.

Anyone here commenting actually see the movie? It was not about selling ID to anyone, it was about silencing the mention of it. There were actual interviews, and these confirmed the claim that ID is not just being passed off as just some whacky religious belief, it is being heatedly denied, silenced, as the simple mention of it subjects one to ridicule.

I don't really believe there is a conflict at all. I think there is an organization of agenda-driven "scientists" out there who realize the power of those of faith, and they don't like it.

Flint, your post confused me since I couldn't tell which side of the argument you were coming from at first. I guess both sides can see your point.

Are modern vaccines and antibiotics merely “theoretical” by your reasoning? How do you think that modern medical technology comes about? Lucky guesses?

Donna said (1): I have to laugh at those of you who find such inane pleasure in Ono’s suit against Expelled.

Donna said (2): She has a team of attorneys on her payroll whose only job is to search for anything that has anything to do with her meal ticket. They have even gone so far as to sue a singer with the first name of “Lennon”.

Donna said (3): It is absurd, and she is a despicable human being. Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom.

Donna said (4): FYI, nerds, check out all the free publicity now. Now everyone will know about the movie, and will be curious. Oops, did I just convey information that your pre-programmed mind cannot compute?

Donna said 5): Darwin himself said that the “theory” was open for debate and criticism.

Donna said (6): I find it shameful, but not surprising, that the current attitudes and teachings on the subject are no longer theoretical. I find it absurd that those who entertain the idea of ID are attacked with such manic criticism.

Donna said (7): I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism

Donna said (8): , I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

Donna, I've actually seen the movie. It's not a very well made movie, unfortunately, but that's not relevant to the basic issue that folks here have pointed out. Which is that the movie - ostensibly a documentary and by implication honest, is in fact quite dishonest and misrepresents facts. It is full of lies about the people supposedly vilified over their beliefs; it is full of lies about science; it is full of lies about history.

And the other main point is that ID advocates are NOT discriminated against - they can do any damn research they want. They just don't. And that's the bottom line: if ID is science, then its advocates need to show some SCIENCE. If it's religion, then it shouldn't be taught in a science class.

This really isn't very complicated. And the posts you see in here from "Darwinists" (sorry, there aren't any, actually) are amused by the fact that the folks who put together this film are so mind-numbingly stupid that they didn't bother to get permission to use the music.

People are laughing at the stupidity of the film-makers, actually.

Donna,

You have been taken in by the propaganda of the ID conspiracy. Don't fall for it. They have no science, so no one has to silence them. Did you see any science in the film? Who exactly was supposed to be silencing them in the film? The interviews were obtained under false pretenses, they lied to those they interviewed. Why did they do that if they are the ones being suppressed? Yoko is suing because they used a copyrighted song without permission, do you really think she should let them get away with it?

Why are you afraid of science? Remember, the Bible says that the truth will set you free.

No one is afraid of faith. Many scientists have lots of faith, why would they be afraid of faith? They should be worried about the power of faith if the agenda-driven fundamentalists use that power to lie, steal and deceive others. If you are really a poerson of faith, why don't you object to all of the lying and stealing that the producers of this movie did? Do you think that they should be excused for some reason? What does the Bible have to say about people who do such things?

Evidence, you say! Richard Dawkins, a very out-spoken atheist, could not even say how the cell originated, or how life began. What happened to the evidence of such?
We both have a right to our opinions, but he does not leave it at that. Obviously science has its fanatics, as does religion. We'll leave it at that.

Anyone here commenting actually see the movie? It was not about selling ID to anyone, it was about silencing the mention of it. There were actual interviews, and these confirmed the claim that ID is not just being passed off as just some whacky religious belief, it is being heatedly denied, silenced, as the simple mention of it subjects one to ridicule.

Evidence, you say! Richard Dawkins, a very out-spoken atheist, could not even say how the cell originated, or how life began. What happened to the evidence of such?

I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism ...

Donna, I saw the movie. I paid a lot of attention and found the film to fail even at basic fact checking. See my blog entry where I discuss this in detail- http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-take-on-expelled-now-with-extra.html
. This film couldn't even get the population of the earth correct and it was downhill from there.

Donna,

Of course you have a right to your opinion, but an uninformed opinion is not worth the paper it is printed on. Now, if your opinion is that you don't have to accept any of the findings of science untill science can answer every question to your satisfaction then fine, you can remain in ignorance forever. No one really cares.

If you want to be fooled by the ID conspiracy go right ahead, no one really cares. If you try to stop real science from being taught in public schools, then real scientists will fight you and you will lose. And even if you should succeed, your standard of living will suffer so much that you will still lose.

Why are you defending people who lied and stold? Don't you read the Bible? Why didn't you answer my questions, did they make your argument look bad?

Alright, I admit that my intentions were purely selfish.
Henry J, you are quick!
I studied this debate 20 years ago, and I am surprised. What I found to be a development over the years of a mutual respect of the attitudes and findings of both sides has redeveloped into an unwavering and opposing opinion of religion held by a powerful few in the scientific community.

Donna
I believe that you haven't adequately educated yourself with the valid criticisms of many of the claims and specious associations made in the movie. You need to read the criticisms before you comment any further.

Expelled Exposed
The Truth behind the Fiction
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

Another source of info you may not be aware of is the leaked "Wedge Strategy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Kenneth R. Miller's latest talk on "God, Darwin, and Design: Lessons from the Dover Monkey Trial" on April 4, 2008, at the University of Texas, Austin is available through the Lecture Archives: and Archived Webcast link on this page:
http://www.esi.utexas.edu/outreach/ols/lectures/Miller
Download the flavour of Envivio that makes you happy and enjoy the talk.

As well, you may want to keep the idea in the back of your mind that I.D. has not added anything new to the pool of human knowledge. Evolution on the other hand......

Many questions on the topic of I.D. vs. Evolution can be answered at the Talk Origins Archives and on the page, An Index to Creationist Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc

By the time you finish going over the links above, you should be sufficiently educated on this topic.

There were actual interviews, and these confirmed the claim that ID is not just being passed off as just some whacky religious belief, it is being heatedly denied, silenced, as the simple mention of it subjects one to ridicule.

I don’t really believe there is a conflict at all. I think there is an organization of agenda-driven “scientists” out there who realize the power of those of faith, and they don’t like it.

Richard Dawkins, a very out-spoken atheist, could not even say how the cell originated, or how life began. What happened to the evidence of such?

Now wait a minute, David S. an opinion is not supposed to be scrutinized. There is no "informed" versus "uninformed" opinion, and an opinion may be worth more to one person than it is to another, especially if it is derived from a subjective experience.
Also, you are contradicting prior argument by claiming that I will not accept science unless it can answer every one of my questions. Isn't that the basis of this whole disagreement? Evidence?
I do not want to fight teaching science in schools. Where did you get that idea? I find it fascinating and extremely valuable. My concern is silencing opposing views. THAT is what will make the standard of living suffer, along with society as a whole.

"The history of science is strewn with the corpses of intricately organized theories each of which had ,considerable evidence in it's favour. When we look at the confident defenders of those theories we should see anticipations of ourselves. The eighteenth century scientists who believed heat is a subtle fluid, the atomic theorists who maintained that water molecules are compounded out of one atom of hydrogen and one of oxygen, the biochemists who identified protein as the genetic material, and the geologists who thought that continents cannot move were neither unintelligent or ill informed. Given the evidence available to them they were eminently reasonable in drawing their conclusions. History proved them wrong. It did not show they were unjustified."

Donna- "an opinion is not supposed to be scrutinized" - if you actually believe that then there's not much reason you should be talking to anyone at all or ever discussing anything. Should be people not discuss what political candidate they favor? Are those opinions that should or should not be scrutinized? What about say opinions about race or gender? Maybe I should say "It is my opinion that women are only good in working the kitchen. Opinions shouldn't be scrutinized. So there!"

Here's the links to Ed Brayton's excellent series of videos by the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnsJGakj1io&feature=related

I would also encourage you to watch Professor Ken Miller's excellent account of the Dover trial as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&feature=related

Although it's over an hour long it's very entertaining (Beats Saturday evening television in the UK by a mile !) and should give you an insight into some of the claims of ID and why they failed at Dover.

Donna said: Now wait a minute, David S. an opinion is not supposed to be scrutinized. There is no "informed" versus "uninformed" opinion, and an opinion may be worth more to one person than it is to another, especially if it is derived from a subjective experience.

Also, you are contradicting prior argument by claiming that I will not accept science unless it can answer every one of my questions. Isn't that the basis of this whole disagreement? Evidence?

My concern is silencing opposing views.

There is no “informed” versus “uninformed” opinion

"Donna" blathers.... What I found to be a development over the years of a mutual respect of the attitudes and findings of both sides has redeveloped into an unwavering and opposing opinion of religion held by a powerful few in the scientific community.

David Stanton said: Donna, Of course you have a right to your opinion, but an uninformed opinion is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Mike from Ottawa said:

There is no “informed” versus “uninformed” opinion

Actually there is. You're entitled to hold any opinion you want but you aren't entitled to any respect for uninformed opinions on science (or anything else for that matter). Ignorance is not a virtue and opinions based on ignorance are rightly dismissed and scorned. So, Donna, go out and educate yourself about the science.

Well given that damages are often based on the revenue attributed to the infringement, I don’t think she’s going to get that much. At least based on the box office returns that is ;)

Donna comments: "Darwin himself said that the “theory” was open for debate and criticism. I find it shameful, but not surprising, that the current attitudes and teachings on the subject are no longer theoretical. I find it absurd that those who entertain the idea of ID are attacked with such manic criticism. I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion."

Oh, Donna. First of all you and Darwin are both correct. The theory was and is and shall ever be open for debate and criticism. This is the nature of science; it is continually absorbed by the effort to tear itself down, to negate its own certainties and possibly illuminate the dark corners of our understanding. The theory has been subjected to a degree of debate and criticism so intense, that should it happen to you or I, we would surely wither and be silent. And yet here it stands after a century and a half.

It is not shameful for us to hand to our children the very latest and most interesting insights into the nature of the world. It is more likely our responsibility, possibly a sacred one to some people. Of course, the theory is still a theory. Only now it is buttressed and supported by a dizzying array of still more theory from dozens of disciplines! Almost everywhere we look we find evidence to support the theory.

If you would ever like to follow a tale of "real thought," you might like to read the biographies and autobiographies of some of the scientists and researchers who spent the better part of their lives actively challenging the theory. There is inspiration to spare in many of their stories, and courage and deep devotion and good humor and a little drinking sometimes.

You may find it helpful to become friends with a scientist and start asking him all of your questions. You might be surprised. And you just might, accidentally, learn something.

What I found to be a development over the years of a mutual respect of the attitudes and findings of both sides has redeveloped into an unwavering and opposing opinion of religion held by a powerful few in the scientific community.

Donna,

You have the right to an opinion. Anything you believe can and will be held against you in a court of science.

In science, an uninformed opinion counts for exactly nothing. As others have pointed out, you are perfectly free to have any opinion you want, but you are not entitled to have others respect it or agree with it when they are familiar with the facts and you are not. You are also free to prefer any color you want, but that is not an opinion on a scientific issue and so is irrelevant to this discussion.

If you think that ID has been suppressed because the Constitution does not allow for it to be taught as science in public schools, then it is likely that you would advocate just such unconstitutional actions. That would be tremendously harmful to the teaching of science in this country. That is what the makers of this movie want. Is that what you want?

If you refuse to believe in evolution until every detail of abiogenesis can be demonstrated to your satisfaction, then yes you are using exactly the logic that I described. Why did you use this argument and then deny it? You do know that we can all still read all of your comments. So what about all of the evidence for common descent, do you deny that as well?

Now, why don't you answer my questions. One more time, just to be fair. Do you condone the lying and stealing that the producers of the movie engaged in, yes or no? Do you have an explanation for the complete lack of any scientific evidence in the movie made by those who are supposedly suppressed? If yes, what excuse do they have?

You will find that not answering questions will get you ignored pretty fast around here. If you don't want to be labelled a troll and ignored, you should start answering questions.

Donna said: I have to laugh at those of you who find such inane pleasure in Ono's suit against Expelled. She has a team of attorneys on her payroll whose only job is to search for anything that has anything to do with her meal ticket. They have even gone so far as to sue a singer with the first name of "Lennon". It is absurd, and she is a despicable human being. Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom. FYI, nerds, check out all the free publicity now. Now everyone will know about the movie, and will be curious. Oops, did I just convey information that your pre-programmed mind cannot compute?

I find it shameful, but not surprising, that the current attitudes and teachings on the subject are no longer theoretical. I find it absurd that those who entertain the idea of ID are attacked with such manic criticism. I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

Donna said: Darwin himself said that the "theory" was open for debate and criticism.

Donna said: an opinion is not supposed to be scrutinized. There is no “informed” versus “uninformed” opinion,

Donna said: I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism,

"Are modern vaccines and antibiotics merely “theoretical” by your reasoning? How do you think that modern medical technology comes about? Lucky guesses? Wrong - through our understanding of evolution a la Darwin. If it weren’t for Darwin’s theories on evolution, we wouldn’t have those modern medications."

A person can reject Darwinism and still accept evolution. Why does this non-sequitur keep coming up?

Donna said: [A]n opinion is not supposed to be scrutinized. There is no "informed" versus "uninformed" opinion.

Peter Henderson said:

I find it shameful, but not surprising, that the current attitudes and teachings on the subject are no longer theoretical. I find it absurd that those who entertain the idea of ID are attacked with such manic criticism. I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

Maybe someone who supports IDism could define what "Darwinism" actually means ? Are they talking about just evolutionary biology ? What about other disciplines ? Do they mean conventional geology i.e.uniformitarianism, the basis of modern geology ? Or are they talking about the age of the Earth and modern radiometric dating techniques (leaving stellar distance measurements aside for the moment). Or is it stellar evolution ? Common. Someone tell me what the term "Darwinism" means ? Does Ben Stein actually say what he means by this term in the film ? I would suspect that what Darwinism really means is all modern science

In my case, perhaps there should be one more; “Thou shalt proofreed twice, for thou art a dufus at the keyboard, and your spelling and grammar are an abomination in mine sight”.

proofreed??

fnxtr said: proofreed??

Donna said: Evidence, you say! Richard Dawkins, a very out-spoken atheist, could not even say how the cell originated, or how life began. What happened to the evidence of such? We both have a right to our opinions, but he does not leave it at that. Obviously science has its fanatics, as does religion. We'll leave it at that.

Bobby said: "Are modern vaccines and antibiotics merely “theoretical” by your reasoning? How do you think that modern medical technology comes about? Lucky guesses? Wrong - through our understanding of evolution a la Darwin. If it weren’t for Darwin’s theories on evolution, we wouldn’t have those modern medications." A person can reject Darwinism and still accept evolution. Why does this non-sequitur keep coming up?

Donna said: Darwin himself said that the "theory" was open for debate and criticism.

Bobby said: "Are modern vaccines and antibiotics merely “theoretical” by your reasoning? How do you think that modern medical technology comes about? Lucky guesses? Wrong - through our understanding of evolution a la Darwin. If it weren’t for Darwin’s theories on evolution, we wouldn’t have those modern medications." A person can reject Darwinism and still accept evolution. Why does this non-sequitur keep coming up?

If you google ‘define Darwinism’ you will find many definitions and the concept behind most of them are similar: Darwinism (n) – The theory of evolution that states that all plants and animals developed from earlier forms by changing and adapting to their environment for survival. How do YOU define evolution?

Donna said: Alright, I admit that my intentions were purely selfish. Henry J, you are quick! I studied this debate 20 years ago, and I am surprised. What I found to be a development over the years of a mutual respect of the attitudes and findings of both sides has redeveloped into an unwavering and opposing opinion of religion held by a powerful few in the scientific community.

OK Donna, let's play by your rules. My opinion is that evolution is true. That's my opinion and it should not be scrutinized.

Okay, you see it as propaganda. I see it as interesting. Please tell me, what is the religiously-motivated and funded group is, and where can I find information on the ID proponents who have lied in so many ways.
I am afraid that too much emphasis has been put on the scary ravings of the progressive religion movement. (Clergy Letter Project mentioned above). That movement has got everyone believing that there is a religious right out there whose sole intention is to beat you over the head with it's Bible until you admit that creationism is the only thing that is real. I am not trying to make you "repent your sins".
David S: You know that those involved in the movie did not engage in lying and stealing. The intention of the movie was not to prove that either theory was right or wrong. It was about what happened when a group of professors mentioned ID. That is it. Don't read so much into it. I would say go see it for yourself, but that would sound like . BTW, you are entitled to your opinion. I do not agree with you. I know you have physical evidence, but there is still that one thing missing. A life that is strictly based on concrete evidence is no life at all. It is merely an existence.

Dear Donna,

I second David Stanton's opinion, especially since I was trained in evolutionary biology. Just deal with it; evolution is a scientific fact, and there is nothing you can say or do to alter that fact. May I suggest that you start reading Robert Pennock's, Eugenie Scott's, Barbara Forrest's, and Donald Prothero's books, among others, which you can order at Amazon.com (Without trying to indulge in too much self-promotion, you may find quite useful my Amazon.com Listmania! list, "Why Evolution is Science & Creationism Isn't":

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-Is-Science-amp-Creationism-Isn-t/lm/R1288DTMHQJI13/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full

I think you'd find reading these books far more useful than trying to come across as a third-rate Denyse O'Leary or Bill Dembski, and perhaps, you might learn something about real science too.).

Respectfully yours,

John

Dear Donna,

Chapter 16 of Donald Prothero's latest book deals with the ample lies and omissions of Answers in Genesis creationist Ken Ham and the Discovery Institute, among others. Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross' "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" exposes the crypto-Fascist agenda of the Discovery Institute. Wes Elsberry, Nick Matzke and others here at Panda's Thumb have posted extensively on the Fascist behavior of groups like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. The truth is out there (no pun intended for fellow "X Files" fans); you have to be willing to look at it and then accept it.

John

Nigel D writes... Any respect that the creationists had earned 20 years ago has been thrown aside by the new generation.

Donna,

So, your answer is that the producers did not lie or steal. You are dead wrong. You are entitled to your opinion. but it is plainly contradicted by the facts. They lied to PZ Myers, they lied to Dawkins, they stold from harvard, they stold from John Lennon. A judge will make them pay for this.

So, can you tell us exactly what happened to all of the professors who mentioned the unmentionable? Did they get killed, tortured, fired, berated at the coffee machine? The movie is just one big lie, face it. It isn't interesting, it's just wrong. Was Darwin responsible for Hitler? What is your opinion?

By the way, if a life that is based on evidence is no life at all, what is a life that based on wishful thinking that ignores all of the evideence? How is that a better life, because you get to lie and steal for Jesus? And you never answered my question about why there is no sciewnce in the movie. Why do you think that is?

Donna said: You know that those involved in the movie did not engage in lying and stealing. The intention of the movie was not to prove that either theory was right or wrong. It was about what happened when a group of professors mentioned ID. That is it. Don’t read so much into it.

Stevaroni said: You’re right, Nigel, I did have respect for some of the professional creationists of 20 years ago. They were wrong, but most of them were good Christians, doin’ it for God, and they were honest about the whole mess.

Aarrgh! I just composed a reply to Donna, clicked in the wrong place and it all vanished! By now others have made similar points so I will just add:

To see about the religious motivation and funding, Google for 'wedge document ahmanson'.

For information on lying by the proponents of ID, go to TalkReason and check out the links in the first section and also 'The Art of ID Stuntmen'.

Donna, opinions differ in worth, weight and value in regards to how these opinions are formed, and how well these opinions mesh or conflict with reality.

In other words, an opinion that is formed from the receiving and processing of numerous facts and personal experiences is inevitably universally held in higher regard than an opinion that is known to be grounded in falsehoods. Also, an opinion made by an expert in the subject in question is also held in higher regard than the opinion of an outsider.

Having said this, the producers of Expelled lied to the scientists Ben Stein (an economist-turned political spin doctor who has absolutely no scientific training) interviewed, AND inserted numerous horrible untruths, of which had no evidence provided even, into the movie specifically in order to slander those people who accept the theory of evolution.

So, then, given as how your opinion was made from the aggregation of malicious untruths from Expelled, please explain to us why we should hold your opinion in high regard.

Okay, you see it as propaganda. I see it as interesting.

— Donna

Please tell me, what is the religiously-motivated and funded group is, and where can I find information on the ID proponents who have lied in so many ways.

I am afraid that too much emphasis has been put on the scary ravings of the progressive religion movement. (Clergy Letter Project mentioned above). That movement has got everyone believing that there is a religious right out there whose sole intention is to beat you over the head with it’s Bible until you admit that creationism is the only thing that is real.

I am not trying to make you “repent your sins”. David S: You know that those involved in the movie did not engage in lying and stealing. The intention of the movie was not to prove that either theory was right or wrong. It was about what happened when a group of professors mentioned ID. That is it.

Don’t read so much into it. I would say go see it for yourself, but that would sound like .

BTW, you are entitled to your opinion. I do not agree with you.

I know you have physical evidence,

but there is still that one thing missing. A life that is strictly based on concrete evidence is no life at all. It is merely an existence.

Donna said: I am afraid that too much emphasis has been put on the scary ravings of the progressive religion movement. (Clergy Letter Project mentioned above).

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Donna said: I am afraid that too much emphasis has been put on the scary ravings of the progressive religion movement. (Clergy Letter Project mentioned above).

Donna appears to be of the opinion that there is no science in Expelled because that was not the topic of the movie. Bull - loney. They cry and cry about being repressed, then when they get their big chance to say anything they want, all they do is whine about being repressed! Amazing. And of course, they don't have any good examples of the supposed repression, so the movie is just a big waste.

Why didn't they make a movie exposing all of the evidence that they say is repressed? Why didn't they show us everything they have discovered in their secret labs? Why didn't they show us everything they have learned with their huge "research" budget? Come on Donna, are you really that easy to fool?

Why would anyone side with the people who lie and steal? How can anyone justify these tactics to themselves? Remember Donna, "by their works yea shall know them". These are their works. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, it's just that, if you ignore all of the facts, no one cares.

""Darwin's theories on evolution are not the only theories of evolution - they're just the only ones that work. If you really knew anything about evolution, you'd know that.""

Many modern mainstream scientists have challenged Darwin's theories if you knew anything about evolution you would know that.

Bobby said: "Are modern vaccines and antibiotics merely “theoretical” by your reasoning? How do you think that modern medical technology comes about? Lucky guesses? Wrong - through our understanding of evolution a la Darwin. If it weren’t for Darwin’s theories on evolution, we wouldn’t have those modern medications." A person can reject Darwinism and still accept evolution. Why does this non-sequitur keep coming up?

""Notice your question at the end there? You seem to be making the label 'evolution' interchangeable with the label 'Darwinism'. Maybe you could clarify this for us?""

No the terms evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. That is why I stated that a person can accept evolution as a fact and reject Darwinism.

Bobby said: Many modern mainstream scientists have challenged Darwin's theories if you knew anything about evolution you would know that.

Gould for one and many others.

Donna wrote: A life that is strictly based on concrete evidence is no life at all. It is merely an existence.

Dear Bobby:

You are misinterpreting Gould; a trait that's all too common with creationists including yourself. What Gould said was that the Modern Synthesis - contemporary evolutionary theory - was incomplete. He recognized the importance of Natural Selection, but also argued that there other important mechanisms involved in evolution, such as insights being gleamed from evolutionary developmental biology ("Evo - Devo") and the fact that morphological stasis is a common trait present in the metazoan fossil record.

Why don't you devote your time to learning something about real science such as contemporary evolutionary biology, instead of indulging in "quote mining" and making inane assertions of one of the most thoughtful thinkers in evolutionary biology in the past fifty years.

Meanwhile I trust you'll continue enjoying your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear Bobby: You are misinterpreting Gould; a trait that's all too common with creationists including yourself. What Gould said was that the Modern Synthesis - contemporary evolutionary theory - was incomplete. He recognized the importance of Natural Selection, but also argued that there other important mechanisms involved in evolution, such as insights being gleamed from evolutionary developmental biology ("Evo - Devo") and the fact that morphological stasis is a common trait present in the metazoan fossil record. Why don't you devote your time to learning something about real science such as contemporary evolutionary biology, instead of indulging in "quote mining" and making inane assertions of one of the most thoughtful thinkers in evolutionary biology in the past fifty years. Meanwhile I trust you'll continue enjoying your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective. Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone), John Kwok

Bobby,

Do you really think tthat Gould had a problem with Darwin? Do you think that Gould did not believe in common descent? You do know that Gould had some very harsh words for those who tried to use his words as support for creationism don't you?

Now, do you have a problem with common descent? Do you have a problem with punctuated equilibrium? Do you have a problem with Darwin or Gould? If you don't want to be labelled a creationist, don't use old discredited creationist arguments. I would recommend reading the Talk Origins article of this topic, it might clear up some confusion. Oh and by the way, trying to quote mine Gould isn't going to work either.

Bobby said: No the terms evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. That is why I stated that a person can accept evolution as a fact and reject Darwinism.

Please read Gould. You have no idea what you are talking about.