Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Template:Talkbottom

Advocates teaching intelligent design creationism in the science classroom

From http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981021.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&query=expelled

"I'm hoping that (schools) will at least allow in science classes someone to say, 'What if it's not Darwinism, but what if there was some intelligent designer who created the universe?"

First of all, Ben seems to not understand that "Darwinism" does not have anything to do with the universe. Cosmology is not biology Ben, if you're going to attack "big science" you should at least take an introductory science class first. Otherwise you'll look like an idiot. Secondly, it would seem Ben is in fact advocating teaching IDC in the classroom. I believe there was some debate on that subject previously. When a guy who's saying we should teach IDC in science class cannot tell the difference between "Darwinism" and cosmology is it any wonder people are hostile to seeing this nonsense taught in out public school rooms? I think it was Kevin Padian who said "ID makes you stupid" I'm thinking maybe he's on to something.

I wonder if all of Expelled is this riduculous, confusing biology with cosmology? I seem to recall Stein being interviwed and saying "Darwinism cannot answer how life began!" as if he was onto something. Animal Husbandry cannot explain how life began either, that is a different branch of science. Here is the challenge, how do we incorporate/document how petently wrong Ben is without coming off like we're hostile to him. The readership should see that Ben does not even understand fundamental biology, or prhaps he's lying and saying crazy stuff like this to fUrther his cause. I prefer thinking he's just ignorant (on matters of science) and not a liar. Maybe we can kick around some ideas of how to incorporate this in the article in a NPOV manner. Angry Christian (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know from Win Ben Stein's money he is not a complete dope. He is also a lawyer, so he has to understand why you shouldnt identify the creator etc. He also is a practicing Jew, and these intelligent design people are a front for fundamentalist jerks that want to pop Jews in the oven. He has to understand all this. He is not stupid. I am wondering if he is not just taking their money and making them look incredibly stupid by playing along with them. So I frankly have my doubts that Stein is actually believing any of this. I think it is a very very clever way to undercut these flakes.--Filll (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"and these intelligent design people are a front for fundamentalist jerks that want to pop Jews in the oven." -- can you support this? I'm not familiar with any Christian, "fundamentalist" or otherwise, that hates Jews. I'm aware that antisemitism may have been a problem in our past, but I don't think it's been something that has been an issue for a long time. Even AiG, a creationist organization, makes this statement: "I don’t know where you could get the idea that the Bible fosters anti-Semitism. You could not have studied the Bible at all to have this idea. Indeed the Bible, including the New Testament, was written by Jews. How could it be anti-Semitic!?"[1] -- if creationists, who are considered to be more extreme than the ID movement, are against antisemitism, then why should I believe the ID movement is antisemitic? Besides, what does this have to do with the article?  —CobraA1 18:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The relations between fundamentalist Christians and jews is an interesting one. Most of them still hang on to the "christ killer" pathos and don't care for Jews personally. On the other hand, these same people strongly support the existence of Israel. At first glance, this might seem incongruous. You have to realize that the reason most of them support Israel is because they feel that the end times are approaching, and the end times cannot happen if there's no Israel. They also believes that the Jews will be the first ones wiped out during the tribulation. So Filll isn't quite right, but he's in the ball-park. (Note that this group includes: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye) Raul654 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 is right on the money. Remember Dr. Bailey Smith, president of the Southern Baptists stating that God does not hear the prayers of a Jew. And Falwell stating the same thing. And Fred Phelps protesting at the holocaust museum in DC. And the statements of various evangelical and fundamentalist leaders that the AntiChrist is a Jew. And suggestions that the unsaved to be slaughtered in Left Behind: Eternal Forces include Jews. And on and on and on... They support Israel because the Jews have to be in Israel to fulfill the prophecy of the end of the world they believe, but all the Jews will then die if they remain Jewish, according to their version of the prophecy.--Filll (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see no Biblical support for hating Jews, so I'll have to disagree with them. It seems to me that the meaning of the words "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are very different from what they used to be - it used to be they had very specific meanings, which have been lost and now people throw them around without respect for what they actually used to mean. "Fundamentalist" in particular means somebody believes in the five fundamentals of Christianity, which have nothing to do with how somebody views those with the Jewish faith. Personally, I think Israel has the right to exist, but not for the same reasons. For one thing, I'm not going to advocate genocide, and I think they have a long and deep cultural history that is certainly worth preserving. In addition, is there really any reason for anybody to advocate that they cease to exist? I'd never advocate destroying a nation without a very, very good reason for doing so.  —CobraA1 11:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read Martin Luther on the subject you'll find that he gave some very influential reasons. Evangelical has long covered a wide range of opinions, both agreeing with and opposing evolution. The fundamentalists in the US initiated the anti-evolution movement in the 1920s. However, your own beliefs aren't significant in terms of this discussion page, which is about ways to improve the article. Got any proposals? . .. dave souza, talk 12:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Two points (1) This attitude exists. Educate yourself. (2)This has nothing to do with this article, except tangentially, so any further comments on this topic should be summarily deleted from this talk page.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The left behind video game has been criticised by many Christian groups. Yes, I do know that historically Christians have been anti-semitic... which makes no sence becasue Jesus was Jewish and so were the first believers. Thankfully it seems like my fellow Christians have begun to understand that in the past 100 years or so. Saksjn (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where the previous discussion began to veer offtopic

It should be mentioned that the teaching of religous views is illegal in US public schools. But is it illegal to question the soundness of evolution? The movie attempts to show how those that question evolution are attacked. Not just ID believers. Whoever comments next: please keep this on topic, I'm not trying to support ID here or trying to incite a conversation about the 1'st ammendment like the thread that got off topic. I'm simply suggesting this: we should state that creationism is illegal to teach, but should also state at some point in the article something about those questioning evolution, not supporting ID, are also discriminated against. We would have to phrase it very carefully so it would be NPOV. Saksjn (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS for this? And give an exact example of a sentence you want changed, with cites.--Filll (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the teaching of religious views is illegal in US public schools. - this is false. While you said that you don't want to talk about the Constition, it's rather hard to respond to what you say without pointing out that your argument is based on a complete and total misunderstanding of what the Constitution says.

Teaching religion in a theology class is fine. The Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion. To that end, teaching religion as if it were fact in a science class is unconstitutional. It's the difference between teaching about the existence of something, and advocating its beliefs. Raul654 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the legal background, as shown on the timeline of intelligent design. Legitimate scientific questioning of science is possible, but teaching 'tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects is unconstitutional. Kitzmiller pointed up the illegitimacy of the "teach the controversy" trick. . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would like an RS for "[people] questioning evolution, not supporting ID, are also discriminated against". Otherwise you are going to be ignored. Additonally, you will have to explain the relevance to "Expelled" which focuses only on one crowd, ID. It doesn't sully itself with other creationists, nor other outspoken critics of evolution.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute the contention that "those that question evolution are attacked."

• An obvious counterexample disproving this contention is Stephen Jay Gould, whose Punctuated equilibrium hypothesis "questioned" orthodox evolutionary theory. While his hypothesis was treated with healthy skepticism, he was not "attacked" for it.
• I would rather characterise what is happening as follows:

1. Science is built upon facts and logic, and so the scientific community tends to severely criticise those it views as misrepresenting facts or presenting fallacious logic.
2. The scientific community widely views ID arguments as combining misrepresented facts and fallacious logic.
3. Therefore the scientific community will generally severely criticises those who present these ID arguments.

It is not whether evolution is involved that is the determining factor, but whether the facts are fairly characterised, and the logic is rigorous.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would note that epigenetics is not traditional evolution, nor is panspermia and those who subscribe to those are not shunned or outcast. Also post modernists dispute the application of evolution to many aspects of human behavior, but yet they are not only accepted in academia, but are the mainstream. So, the entire thesis does not hold up. In fact, it is a complete load of crap.--Filll (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The scientific community also tends to criticize advocate a flat earthism, healing magnets, crystal worship. These as well as creationism/intelligent design have nothing to do with science and are anti-science. Angry Christian (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the IDists, as well as redefining science, also want to redefine "discrimination" and "attacked". The classic case being Sternberg, who kept his position and access to the Smithsonian, but suffered the shocking discrimination of having no more privileges than other unpaid research associates, and worse still some of his colleagues said things about him that weren't completely flattering. Poor wee soul. .. dave souza, talk 10:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, his colleagues were so cruel as to send private emails to each other, wondering who the hell he was (he had a habit of turning up to the Smithsonian irregularly and outside normal hours) and if he really was qualified to be hanging out with them. Naturally, Sternberg insisted on making a song and dance, which made these emails public -- after all, what's the point of making a martyr of yourself unless you can do so publicly? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is something funny about the whole Sternberg situation. He only accepts the paper after he has quit as associate editor, clearly knowing he did something against the rules. He has repeatedly declared that he opposes intelligent design and then is involved with all kinds of intelligent design activities and organizations. He now is the main case presented in a movie in which he states he was regarded as an "intellectual terrorist". A lot of grandstanding, a lot of disingenuousness, a lot of blatant lies, etc.--Filll (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This disscusion has gotten off topic, WHICH WAS NOT MY INTENT. It was probably a good idea to put it in a new section, but not in a way that makes me seem like I'm intentionally throwing gas on a fire. I'm changing the name of the thread, which is my right becasue I started the thread. Anyways, I'll look for a source for my statement, which will be difficult because my school's computers block just about everything. How about we change the statement to this, "According to the movie, even those that simply question the theory of evolution face discrimination in the scientific community." If anyone else has an idea for how it should be stated, please state it. Saksjn (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it really make that distinction? Do you have a reference to support this? Or does it simply conflate the two ideas? (I don't know, I haven't seen the movie, but I don't recall offhand that this distinction is made anywhere). Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious, you need a source for this. "I heard someone say this" isn't a reliable source. You should have found a source first - if another editor removes your unsourced addition, you should not re-insert the material. There's no emergency here - find a source. Guettarda (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, somewhere on your talk page there is a link to the Wiki guide. Read up on "Original Research" - WP:OR. I have no doubt what you're saying is true, but a claim like in a Wiki article needs to be sourced otherwise it is considered original research which we're supposed to avoid. And Guettarda is right, it's uncool to revert an unsourced claim that another editor rightfully removed. That's what the tag (that you also deleted) was there for, to let the others know that sentence does not comply with Wiki rules and is subject to deletion. And he explained his reason. If your school's network is unhelpful have a friend do the research for you and have them contribute here. I think most anyone would agree that the claim is noteworthy and belongs in the article, you or someone needs to get a source. Angry Christian (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article should be based on third party reliable sources, and using primary sources to make a point could contravene WP:NOR and WP:NPOV without outside context. "Ben Stein's Intelligent Design Movie at Jeremy Shere". Retrieved 2008-03-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) discusses the issue quite well – RS? From memory, someone notable said this was spurious as it's OK to question "Darwinism", and they do it all the time, as do their colleagues, as a normal part of science, while of course creationism and ID "question" evolution on grounds of religion and not science, but I haven't managed to find it yet. It would also have to be noted that all the examples given in the film are ID proponentsists. ... dave souza, talk 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any place you think has a transcript or something of their presentations? I'm looking to see if I can find a way to source a presentation that, to my knowledge, is not recorded or written down. Saksjn (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Not on Wikipedia. That's the very definition of original research. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Referencing non-recorded presentations may violate WP:V. Other editors have to be conceivably able to verify these sources (it doesn't mean they have to actually verify it, you just can't include any sources that can't be verified). You have not actually even attempted to mention which presentations you are talking about, where they took place, and who gave them. You are saying "some guy said it once, i think", and that simply isn't good enough. Who said it? When? and to who? please. All sources indicate this focuses only on cdesign proponentists. See the AiG response.[2] --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres several people involved in marketing and production that have been traveling across the country in a bus with the expelled logo on it. They've been visiting schools and other meeting places and have been showing the preview for the movie and been talking about the various people presented in the film. There is information on the expelled website if I remember correctly. I can't access the sight right now but I will try to when I get home. (I love weekends!) Saksjn (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your college blocks the Crossroads Expelled website? Angry Christian (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

please stop stalling. Either produce goods or wait until you can. This is pointless if all we get is vague "it's there somewhere" or "some guys in a bus with a logo". I know your high school student. And that isn't a score against you. But unless you meet the bar your commentary is likely to be disregarded as uninformed, or worse, ignorant and maliciously deceptive. (NB: not a personal attack, this is advice)--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. Saksjn (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, my school is pretty ridiculous when it comes to filters. I'm googleing right now to see if I can find anything from the presentations to use as a source. Hopefully I can find something that the filter doesn't flag as, "entertainment". Saksjn (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing yet... I'll keep looking. Saksjn (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Has any documentary on evolution been described as controversial? Be nice to take that "controversial" adjective in this article. Kookywolf (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, back in 1859 Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, was considered quite controversial. But after about 150 years of independent research by thousands of scientists around the world, it has been long and well confirmed. All evidence supports it, no evidence is against it. Thus, if you are a scientist and you are against evolution and you don’t have anything but the bible to back you up, you will be laughed at by your peers and rightly so. Science is about independently confirmable facts, not blind faith. Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like you to pull together a little of what you speak of. You're confusing the concepts of macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro evolution has been accepted like you say, but macro evolution is still a strong topic of debate in the scientific community. Please distinguish which one you are discussing in the future. Infonation101 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Infonation101, you may be setting a sprat to catch a macro, but your statement is both confused and off topic. Please confine discussion to ways to improve the article, and note that the "controversial documentary" statement is cited. .. dave souza, talk 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And I would ask you to read more carefully. The above opinion "if you are a scientist and you are against evolution and you don’t have anything but the bible to back you up, you will be laughed at by your peers and rightly so" is equally off topic, and borderline personal attack. The citation you speak of is nothing more than a news article that should hold no merit on WP. Though I won't dispute the article is controversial, but I feel the sources on this page are falling away from what should be used. Don't deal me improve the article. So far this article is anything but up to par with WP standards. It requires a cleanup, improved sources and disputed NPOV. Infonation101 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kookywolf, what does "Be nice to take that "controversial" adjective in this article" mean? Angry Christian (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The film makers themselves describe their own film as controversial, so it should probably stay. Make sure its sourced. Saksjn (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how the controversy itself is the center of the film, it seems appropriate to denote the matter as controversial. It's not about ID theory in itself, distanced from prevailing evolutionary theory. Dolewhite —Preceding comment was added at 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Resource

The NCSE has produced a web page for links to resources about Expelled. So far it gives sources we've used, plus The Screengrab: Screengrab Exclusive Preview: EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED which gives another review from someone who's seen it, Encyclopedia Britannica Blog: How Low Can Ben Stein Go? (To the Maligning of Charles Darwin) which gives the views of a respectable named writer on the publicity for the film, and The New University (University of California Irvine): I.D. Rakes it in and Gets Rake in Face which is essentially an essay by a second-year English major, so not a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Great resource. Angry Christian (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday's NYTimes has an article on the movie. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, a useful story. This mp3 includes an interview with Dawkins which discusses Expelled towards the end, and gives some details such as the point that he was expecting to be interviewed by Mathis, who'd presented himself as pro-science, but instead was interviewed by Stein. Perhaps excessively detailed for this article. .. dave souza, talk 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tidbit from someone who attended one of these advanced screenings http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=540#entry100826 It's nothing that can be used in the article but the cop action and night vision surveillance is funny. Angry Christian (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone with an agenda brings it up

This edit by Davesouza [3] appears to introduce too much information not directly related to "Expelled". I understand that because "Expelled" is being used a propoganda tool for conservative legislators, information on the so-called "Academic Freedom Acts" might be contextual. However this text block is far to specific to the Florida act, which is not a response to "Expelled" but the recent failure/success in school standard lobbying by creationists to amend evolution to being a theory (Evolution was instead marked as a theory).

Is Hays' really stupid "half-monkey half-human" quip or the fact that they are "unable to name any teachers in Florida who have been disciplined for being critical of evolution in the science classroom." really adding any extra description of Expelled, or providing further context for the film.?

We have a section entitled "Screenings" that seems for like "Florida Academic Freedom bill and Alan Hays".

Wikipedia is not indiscriminate information.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As you'll have noted, the addition summarises main points from Ben Stein weighs in on evolution fight - 03/10/2008 - MiamiHerald.com and improvements are of course welcome. It's significant that the film, before release to the public or any open showings to film critics, is being openly used to influence legislators considering a bill to alter education relating to evolution. Hay's quip is of course his point of view, and reflects the educational background. Their inability to name teachers who have been "expelled" or even disciplined goes to the heart of the premises of the film. Obviously the author of the newspaper article felt the background information was necessary and appropriate in discussing this showing of the film. The section was titled "Screening to Florida legislators" and in my opinion the issue is significant enough to have a stand alone section, but the more general title accommodates the showing to various Christian conservative leaders such as James Dobson, as noted by the NYT. "Screenings" can also accommodate any further significant private screenings. .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news, nor a media outlet. There are different uses of the medium. Miami Herald has a duty to inform its readers on a wide spectrum of information - such as views of politicians. I still fail to see how the comments or views of a conservative politician not involved in the production of this film is relevant. He is the target audience, but is not an authority on these matters, and his opinion here serves little purpose other then to expouse his stupidity and ignorance. Right now it is too focused on Florida-specific incident. That might be okay for the Miami Herald, but not for wikipedia.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly looks like the first significant use of the film, extending beyond focussed publicising to sympathetic groups. I'm pressed for time to review it right now, got proposals for improvements? .. dave souza, talk 09:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I live iin Florida and the whole controversy over evolution/ID started before Expelled. While people may have mentioned Expelled in relationship to the issue,, it has not been a major part of the controversy. Saksjn (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not yet know what sort of reception the film is going to get. This Florida screening might be the most significant event associated with the film. When it opens, it might disappear almost immediately. So...--Filll (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ben Stein thinks it's significant in relation to the movie, see the "HeraldTribune.com - News - News stories about Sarasota, Manatee and Charlotte counties in Florida, from the newspapers of record. - HeraldTribune.com". Retrieved 2008-03-13., "Intelligent Design could slip into science class - 03/13/2008 - MiamiHerald.com". Retrieved 2008-03-13., "Hernando Lawmakers Weigh In On Evolution Bill". Retrieved 2008-03-13. and "Actor Stein Plays Role In Debate On Evolution Education". Retrieved 2008-03-13.. More later, .. dave souza, talk 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The movie-legislation connection certainly seems to be getting considerable news coverage, at least if Google-news is anything to go by. It seems to be a three-ring circus, with both Ben Stein & the DI's Casey Luskin (who let the cat out of the bag that the bill would make it easier to teach ID) in town hyping Florida's clone of the DI's model Academic Freedom bill. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And if any of the legislators in the audience talked, they could be in trouble – see "Legislature invited to movie about creationism debate". Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite web}}: Text "The News-Press" ignored (help); Text "news-press.com" ignored (help) ..... dave souza, talk 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: "Lawmakers attend Tallahassee screening of movie by Ben Stein : tallahassee.com : Tallahassee Democrat". Retrieved 2008-03-14. and usefully "Eyes wide open :: tallahassee.com : Tallahassee Democrat". Retrieved 2008-03-14. "we'd like to credit the majority of Florida legislators who stayed away from the private prescreening of a movie Wednesday night — an event that wasn't open to the public and press..... the evening at downtown's IMAX Theater, which was rented out to Mr. Stein's group for $940, was a bust, with only about 100 people attending the movie. And most of those weren't lawmakers ". See also [http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=503 "Florida Citizens for Science � Blog Archive � A quick analysis"]. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite web}}: replacement character in |title= at position 30 (help) and [http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2008/03/13/florida-luskin-lets-cat-out-of-bag/ "The Austringer � Florida: Luskin Lets Cat Out of Bag"]. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite web}}: replacement character in |title= at position 16 (help). . . dave souza, talk 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

This whole opening series of paragraphs is a mess and is near impossible to read with all the footnotes. Couldn't we cut the background down, say something really brief about the ID/evolution controversy, and just put a link to the ID/evolution controversy page? 90% of that "background" is a big argument embedded in the opening paragraph while each side is fighting to have the dogmatic upper hand. It's unnecessary and inapproppriate. THis page should be about the film. It does not need to be a whole expose on a matter that's already thoroughly discussed elsewhere. Dolewhite

Well we have tried that in the past for such controversial articles about controversial topics. And you know what happens? We get hit with challenges and templates and people belligerently claiming that all of the statements we make have no proof and demanding references. And so, slowly but surely, these sorts of articles get more and more boilerplate and footnotes and citations. It happens to all these controversial articles. People are not willing to accept anything even if it is heavily cited in a linked article. --Filll (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly my point. Since we know that it's going to be a fight (it clearly already is a fight), we should just redirect it to an existing debate. I see absolutely no sense in having this huge struggle in the middle of the article. IT MAKES IT ILLEGIBLE. Perspective aside, this is not the place to hold the debate, period. It's totally irrelevant to the summary of the article about the film whether Ben Stein or the whole movement is right or wrong, and no matter where you stand, if you step back for a few seconds and thinks from the perspective of a person aiming for standards of objective journalism that this is NOT the place to be having this discussion. You just put in that it's about the ID/evolution controversy, put a link to that article which already exists, and focus only on the FACTS of the FILM, not the facts of the film's CONTENT, which is only relevant to a lower paragraph under a seperate heading. Dolewhite —Preceding comment was added at 23:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dolewhite, the film is not about the ID/evolution controversy, it is an attempt to demonize scientists as persecuting anyone that tries to advocate ID/evolution. The sad thing is that it is the creationists that are doing all the persecution. I have never heard of any scientist persecuting a Christian but there are many documented cases of creationists persecuting people that support evolution with acts of violence and death threats. I wish there were a good place in this article to state that the persecution is actually happening in reverse! Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 14:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not making a lot of sense. Relevant to the film but not its content? By the way, the LEAD has to summarize the entire article. So we cannot just relegate stuff you do not like to the lower paragraphs. Sorry. Also, we do not subscribe to "objective journalistic standards" whatever those are. We have our own principles we follow here like RS and NPOV etc.--00:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I do agree that the article should just be about the film. The whole article has become a ID vs. Evolution article, which is not what its meant to be. I think that links should be provided to ID and evolutions as well as related controversies, and the rest of the article should just be about the film. Saksjn (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All the reliable sources I've seen say the film is about ID vs. evolution, and take care to spell out what that means. While you may want to hide that, the article should show the context clearly for readers who shouldn't have to research other articles to find out the significance of the film. .. dave souza, talk 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a big surprise coming, the film that has been shown in sneak previews and that has been reviewed and all its promotion point towards an ID vs. evolution theme for the movie. It is also sort of confused, since the film links ID and God, which the true intelligent design movement does not, so they can maintain a "big tent" and for legal reasons. If the film is not about intelligent design and its conflict with evolution, what is it about? And do you have a WP:RS which describes it otherwise? --Filll (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear Ben Stein is anti-science, anti-evolution, pro creationism and believes creationists are being persecuted for their religious beliefs by nazi loving darwinists. He also hopes that his creationist film will result in policy/social changes that will include creationism will be taught/discussed in public science class. He is also profoundly stupid on matters of science, he cannot seem to distinguish between cosmology and biology and makes other astonishing claims that are grounded is ignorance. To ignore those subjects in the article would be pretty dumb. It is both necessary and appropriate to cover these subjects in the article. Angry Christian (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The film is about ID and evolution, but the article shouldn't be. It should be about the film and its significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saksjn (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the significance of the film, together with education standards, as shown by reliable third party sources. Do please provide such sources for any other significance the film has. (remember, primary sources such as publicity stuff by the film producers, the DI or Stein can't be used to assess significance, see WP:NOR). .. dave souza, talk 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stein and Answers in Genesis' Ken Ham team up to hype Expelled

A Meeting of Minds -- may give some indication of the crowd Expelled is targeting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

like it or not, intelligent design is in fact creationism

You can pretend otherwise and feel free to debate this fact elsewhere but we need to quit misleading people by saying otherwise in the article. Every science agency in north america recognizes ID as creationism and we have at least one federal court case that concluded the same. Angry Christian (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian, your over generalization make your arguments weak, and this specific section is based off your opinion. "scientific creationism is distinguished from biblical creationism in having 'no reliance upon biblical revelation'..." (Evidence for Scientific Creationism? Roger Lewin, Science, New Series, Vol. 228, No. 4701. (May 17, 1985), p. 837.) Here is made the distinction. Creationism in linguistic pop-culture is synonymous with biblical creationism while intelligent design is synonymous with scientific creationism. This page has allowed a few pros for Expelled, but for the most part has become destructive propaganda. The page needs to be taken back to a review of the movie, and needs dismiss the creationism argument. That argument needs to be reserved for a page on creationism. Infonation101 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Infonation101, you can say he is over generalizing and has weak arguments all you like but that doesn't change the fact that he is 100% correct. The only evidence needed is: Wedge strategy. Infonation101, you are just another wedge user. -Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I have been labeled, attacked and my my post denied proper translation. Your argument is easy to dissect. Nowhere above have I supported creationism, but sited a source to explain the difference between the two. A source independent of ICR. Your reliance on the wedge strategy is nothing related to the topic. Your opinion that "...he is 100% correct..." is not supported by anything but your own belief. I'll ask you to contemplate what you post before you post. WP is a highly navigated source of information,and as such we should take greater care in what is posted. Infonation101 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wedge strategy proves that intelligent design is creationism (biblical or otherwise). This was proven in a federal court of law. Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

All I can see is a confused mess and bad grammar and spelling here. ID is creationism, and we have numerous sources which state this. Including the ruling of a US federal court!! ID and creationism use the same arguments. They use the same terminology. They use the same references. How are they any different?--Filll (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a form of creationism. Even Ben Stein knows this. The article is about the movie and the movie is a propaganda piece for creationism. Ben is on record that he does not care if the movie makes money or not, all he wants is a change in policy. He wants to see IDC taught in high school. ALL of this is relevant for the article. Angry Christian (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to debate. Talk pages are for suggesting improvements to the main page, which should be verified through the use of reliable sources, and not based on original research. Regards Mr. Stein, be wary of violations of our policy on living persons. If a reliable source justifies your point, add it to the page. Otherwise, it may be removed without issue. WLU (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On this note, I would like to suggest the removal of at least the following lines, "However, at this time, intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth." (for having no citation) and "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community, it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution." for misquoting the source, and using a report that is date back to 1987. In the end I believe all disputes concerning creationism should be removed, and a link to creationism and intelligent design be posted in it's place. There, substantial research and participation has been collaborated to make excellent WP pages. Infonation101 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Um arent you the guy who just posted an article from 1985 supporting your mistaken notion that ID is not creationism?  :-) And read the cites and sources, ID is in fact creationism and the claims in the article are well supported. I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. What amazes me is the people here who know the very least about ID and creationism are also the ones who know the very least about Wikipedia policies, and they won't stop yapping about being persecuted. Telling someone they are flat wrong is not persecution. Asking someone to familiarize themselves with the subject matter and Wiki policies is not persecution. In fact one guy has been saying thbis talk page is violent. WTF? That might explain all the misguided shit (nothing else to call it) that keeps showing up on my talk page. I fully support you christian teenagers contributing to this article but you have to learn and abide by the freaking rules whether you like it or not. Angry Christian (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is a difference between posting an article showing linguistic definitions, and posting a survey that was used 11 years ago. Historical linguistic changes are different from using an 11 year old survey to define how the current scientific community feels. As for whether intelligent design is creationism, this cannot be determined by any State. State rulings should never be considered in science. Politics and policies have nothing to do with experiment and research. The paper written by Barbara Forrest was not published in any PR journal as far as I can see, and is not a reliable source. In any case, this should not be the place for such discussion. These things need to be reserved for the page on creationism. Infonation101 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Infonation101, a federal court ruling on intelligent design is highly relevant on an article about intelligent design. Every science organizarion in North America recognizes ID as creationism. This is not a secret. Barbara Forrest is probably the leading expert on ID in North America, she was an expert witness in Kitzmiller v Dover. She has published numerous articles, and books on the subject. Your belief that she is not a reliable source does not jive with reality and I cannot help you on that count. Your lack of accepting reality and the continuous claims of being persecuted are not going to work in your favor. There are policies here that we all have to abide by. This movie is about creationism so talking about it on the creationism page does not make much sense. Angry Christian (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Infonation101, as far as reliable sources go, here is a link to the Wiki policy on the subject - WP:Sources I hope this helps. Angry Christian (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Surveys of the scientific community and assorted proclamations by scientific bodies have not changed in about 80 years. So something 11 years old is not likely to be very far in error. How do you explain A Scientific Support for Darwinism or Project Steve which are both pretty current if somehow things changed drastically in the last 11 years?--Filll (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Now be fair. Cdesign proponentsists is even better evidence of IDcreationism than the wedge. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"...third-party published... peer-reviewed journals..." As far as I can tell the paper written by Barbara Forrest hasn't been. As for not trusting government decisions in science I would relay you to this article and this article (just FYI, nothing more). Politics can make some stupid decisions when it comes to science. Filll, I haven't heard of those sources, and I'll look more into them. If anything then, they should be cited in place of what is currently up. Infonation101 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Young man, quote mining Wiki policy is not going to get you very far. You have now demonstrated either a capacity for dishonesty or you're reading onlyh the portions of the policy that you like while ignoring the rest. Now go back and read the entire policy and stop this inmature, time consuming nonsense. You want to participate, fine, and welcome. Or would you rather play quote mining games with your fellow editors here? Angry Christian (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Never again refer to me as "young man". The "quote-mining" was what I believed to be the simplest overview for the article, which I did read. Going further "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The article still has not been published by a third party. If this isn't straight forward enough, please give me your take on WP:Sources. Infonation101 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given you my take, did you not read it? I've given you a link to the policy and you claim you read that. We are supposed to assume good faith, until proven otherwise. You'll need to ask someone else because I am now convinced you are a disruptive force on this talk page. The fact you think B Forrest is not a reliable source makes me question what exactly you do know about intelligent design, if anything. But no worries, I'm sure someone else will make time for you to explain in great detail why Barbara Forrest is a reliable source. Angry Christian (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, your question of my knowledge of intelligent design is really irrelevant. And as for your take, I did get: "Your belief that she is not a reliable source does not jive with reality and I cannot help you on that count." Really, my belief is irrelevant as well. I'm just calling into question the sources being used on this page. Sources from published third-party journals should be the most sourced, but they are not. Infonation101 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We have plenty of excellent sources, including Dr. Forrest, who is a world expert and notable and according to WP:SPS, a WP:RS. So please, save it for someone else.--Filll (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Infonation101 doesn't seem to have grasped various aspects of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, both of which are policies. In particular, NPOV: Pseudoscience – "any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." A film promoting pseudoscience has to be described in that context For additional guidance see WP:FRINGE. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand. I do agree that the macro evolution of life is the dominating opinion in the scientific community, but it hasn't been indisputably accepted and lines like "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community..." makes it sound that way. These are the things I would like to have removed. Those do fall into WP:FRINGE. Infonation101 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How would you suggest we reword it, infonation101? What wording you suggest? Angry Christian (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Although the macroevolution of species has become widely accepted by the scientific community... Again I do think we have to define what type of evolution we are discussing. The arguments behind macro and micro-evolution are different, and we can't make the mistake of over generalization. Infonation101 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unequivocal means clear. And there are over 99.9% of the scientists in relevant fields that accept it. That is pretty clear.--Filll (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And by a remarkable coincidence, only creationist pseudoscience proponentsists seem to think that macroevolution and microevolution are different processes, or that one magically can't happen. .. dave souza, talk 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Again I do think we have to define what type of evolution we are discussing. The arguments behind macro and micro-evolution are different, and we can't make the mistake of over generalizatio" Actually we have an obligation to NOT perpeturate that sort of thinking in the article. We're not here to advance the creationists/pseudoscience agenda. There are plently of creationism blogs out there for that. Angry Christian (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This was only proposed because of published articles like this:

Darwin realized that the fossil record fails to corroborate his theory, according to which evolution proceeds through the accumulation of endless series of minute changes, "micromutations" according to current terminology. The evidence available at the time rather suggested that evolution proceeds by extensive leaps... (Macroevolution and Punctuated Equilibria, Soren Lovtrup, Systematic Zoology, Vol. 30, No. 4. (Dec., 1981), pp. 498-500.)

From a completely scientific standpoint, I honestly believe the two have to be separated. Infonation101 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From a completely scientific standpoint, that looks exactly like creationist quotemining, a very old reference which is completely off topic. This page is for proposing improvements to the article, and is not a forum. See also NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. ... dave souza, talk 23:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Science is not a democracy. 99.9% of scientists used to believe that there were less than a dozen elements. Then we discovered atoms and created the periodic table. This worship of scientists is fascinating, but misplaced.  —CobraA1 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that this hasn't been true for over two centuries. Applying of fallacious religious adjectives to science ("worship", "dogma", "fundamentalist", etc) is a sign of anti-intellectualism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Science hasn't changed in two centuries? Somehow, I doubt that.  —CobraA1 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

CobraA1, what is your point exactly? Do you have a suggestion to improve the article?--Filll (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This could be applied to many areas of the Wikipedia. Sometimes we forget to see the forest through the trees. Sometimes we get too caught up in the "science vs religion" discussion, and fail to see that we really know very little about the past. Educated, scientific, or otherwise, we can never achieve 100.0% certainty. If quantum mechanics is correct that our universe contains inherit randomness at a low level, then 100.0% knowledge about the past is not just impractical, but impossible. Yet we shun the occasional outlier. In addition, we often fail to see the trees through the forest as well. We attack large theories, but fail to see that no theory is completely scientific or unscientific. It is the details of the theory that are scientific or unscientific. "Evolution" is often used to describe a large set of theories, including biological and astronomical theories. "Creation" likewise also encompasses many smaller theories. Both of the larger sets have smaller sets that may succeed or fail within a scientific framework.  —CobraA1 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

CobraA1, what is your point exactly? Do you have a suggestion to improve the article?--Filll (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL would appear to apply here. We write on the basis of what science tells us now, not on the slim chance that some time in the future it might tell us something different (but even then most probably only slightly different). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not merely about crystal balls - it is also about hasty generalizations and oversimplifications.  —CobraA1 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kind of fascinating though as I have never seen anyone actually worship science. Sounds creepy. Angry Christian (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you've not come across IDproponentsists then! They appear to worship science as their faith needs to be propped up by empirical evidence :) .. dave souza, talk 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not overtly, but I when find people who are putting the scientists on a higher pedestal than science itself, it's not uncommon for me to see religious elements appear. Do we believe in genetics because a group of people said genetics is true, or because we can see the genes through a microscope? It's easy for a skeptic to deny the words of others - but not so easy if they can see it for themselves.  —CobraA1 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we have people "worshipping science" (whatever that is but it seems strange indeed and I suspect "science" hears no ones prayers in spite of what these so-called science worshippers might claim) and now we have people putting scientists higher than science itself (which begs the question, just how high is science in the first place and who the hell cares I suppose) and asking why people "believe" genetics. No offense but what the hell are we talking about? None of this makes a bit of sense to me and sounds like social commentary coming out sideways. Nothing wrong with that but I just need some clarity on what exactly are we talking about and how does it relate to the article. Sorry to be so dense but I am not tracking any of this conversation very well. I'm sure there's a point being made but so far it's going over my head. Angry Christian (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All I'm trying to say is that science is not a democracy, and that sometimes people just follow the crowd.  —CobraA1 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CobraA1, what is your point exactly? Do you have a suggestion to improve the article?--Filll (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

opening

Any news when this is finally coming out, my guidance councler said April, but I haven't seen that anywhere else. Saksjn (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad... I just checked the article and saw the date. Saksjn (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We have repeated announcements of April 18, 2008, as you can see from the article, but whether this actually happens or not we will have to see.--Filll (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Debates

I know this was disscussed earlier but I have a new update. I'm going to look into whether it was directly related to Expelled or not, but some of the seniors from my school went to UCF for a evolution ID debate. I was kinda ticked off I didn't get to go. Any ways, we now have an example of a debate that actually has happened in the time frame sorrounding the movie's controversy. Saksjn (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, trust you appreciate that we need verification from a reliable source for anything added to the article. .. dave souza, talk 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside, these evolution-creationism debates have been going on for a long long time; well over 100 years at this point, with many famous ones over the years (maybe we should have an article listing some of the more famous ones?). But debates do not really settle anything or mean very much. For example, the Flat Earth Society had many debates with learned academics, and never ever lost a single debate. They also offered prize money to anyone who could prove the earth was not flat, and never paid out the prize money (something like Dr. Dino and his fake prize money). So although these debates are great theatre, they have almost zero relevance for anything aside from entertainment and propaganda for creationists.--Filll (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, let us know what you find out. So far I have been unable to find any evidence of an Crossroads Expelled sponsored debate but they claim they're going organize them so eventually something should turn up. You would think they'd promote something like that from their website and email alerts. I visit the site fairly often and get the alerts but not a peep so far. Angry Christian (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I going to school tomorow and I am going to ask one of my friends that was there if it was related to the movie. I'll also look to see if any of the local papers had anything. Saksjn (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota Screening

{{editprotected}}

I would add this information, but I don't have permission:

PZ Myers, one of the misled interviewees, was expelled from seeing Expelled. He had a ticket and was waiting in line to see a screening. The movie theater and the producers of Expelled threatened him with arrest if he didn't leave the theater's property immediately. However, Richard Dawkins was allowed in. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php. 71.65.218.184 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, to rephrase it (I'd file it under "Scrrenings":

On Marth 20, 2008, PZ Myers went with a group to see one of the first public previews of the movie, but was stopped by the theater management and threatened with arrest if he did not leave the property. Ironically, they made no effort to exclude his family members or his guest, the even more vocal critic of intelligent deisgn Richard Dawkins.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this incident amusing and ironic too, but I don't see how its notable enough, at least yet, to be in an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a livejournal. If this becomes a major event in the public perception of the film, it will have it's place. For now, it's just funny, but not yet notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; give it a few hours. It just happened; the news reports will come tomorrow. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This is highly notable. PZ Myers was miselad when asked to be interviewed for the documentary Crossroads Expelled and then he's expelled by the producer when he tried to see the movie. How more notable can you get? Angry Christian (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Here's a neutral source I've found on the subject so far - http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html Angry Christian (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call Christianity Today "neutral" -- "unaffiliated with Dawkins or Myers" would be a better description. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me on that point :-) Angry Christian (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that expelling Myers while admitting Dawkins is just too hilarious and makes for too good a piece of copy for the mainstream press not to pick it up. I'm fairly sure that a more prominent source will be along shortly. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some have raised the possibility that this was intentional, to try to generate publicity and controversy, for what might be a project headed for disaster. Every indication I have is that the filmmakers are somewhat desperate here. Subsidizing schools to generate audiences? Touring the country trying to organize debates? Even turned away by administrations at Christian Universities as full of nonsense? The release date for the film slipping a few times?

In addition, it is sort of a dull subject, to be honest; a description of some academics who might or might not have been discriminated against. But we have no proof. And then a botched mangled confused mess of panspermia and creationism and intelligent design and theism and atheism and evolution and the Holocaust and Nazis and communism and abortion and so on and so forth, shoved in somehow.

I think that if they can get mainstream press, so much the better for them. So why wouldn't they try to do this? Pretty low risk, with potential high returns. These people are not stupid. And right now, the only thing that matters to them is getting butts in those seats when it comes out. The only thing.--Filll (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy is keeping a list of links to all things PZ Gets Expelled By The Producers of Expelled. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/pz_myers_expelled_gains_sainth.php Funny stuff if you have not been following it. Especially funny was the UM student and ID advocate who initially lied through his teeth about what he saw and later back tracked when it was obvious to all he'd been lying all along. Have any reliable sources come up with a theory of why ID seems to attract so many dishonest followers? There has to be a reason for this. Angry Christian (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, but the St. Paul Pioneer Press has covered the story so I've summarised the main points of their story in the article. ... dave souza, talk 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me that's confused by the latest "screening" flap as it is described here, including the quotes of Dawkins used here? Original: "Dawkins described the event as 'a gift' and that they 'could not ask for anything better'. Current: "Dawkins described the event as 'a gift'and that '[w]e could not ask for anything better'." Pretend you do not know this story. Like our typical reader. So--What kind of a gift? to who? Who is "they"? Who is "we"? Myers and Dawkins? What sense does it make? None. Until you know that Dawkins is speaking of "we" as in "we who are active opponents to creationism" It would be nice, I think, if this article made some sense out of the quotes, rather than forcing the readers go to the original source to figure out what Dawkins is talking about. Readers need help here. Maybe remind of Dawkins' and Myers' earlier unwitting participation in the film, remind that they have since been very publicly critical of the film. And then when Myers is barred at the door from seeing it, aha! After all, wouldn't it be more informative to explain the event to talk about what Ruloff said?--admitting that the screening was limited exclusively to allied sympathetizers, calculated to stir up some favorable buzz toward the film? It helps to point out, anyway, that Myers wasn't turned away because he wasn't wearing a jacket or forgot his ticket or something, but was deliberately prevented because the filmmaker was deliberately shutting out critics. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, the recent edit clarified who Darwkins was referring to. As you say, the cited source reports Ruloff saying the screening was "in hopes of building favorable word-of-mouth among people likely to be sympathetic to its message.", but he goes on to say "People like Dr. Myers and Dr. Dawkins would not have been invited" when in fact it was an open invitation on the website. Myers took up the invitation and gave his full name, and his booking of seats was on that basis. As I understand, the promoters have now changed the procedure so that each seat has to be booked by name, instead of simply giving a number of guests wanting seats. What Ruloff meant was "we didn't think anyone unsympathetic to the film would take up our invitation, so we're now changing the procedure to expel those who disagree". All of which seemed to me to give undue weight to a fairly small incident, but perhaps we should cover it fully, with more sources added. .. dave souza, talk 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a wealth of great information and links at the blog [4]

including this New York Times article on the event: [5]--Filll (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard about it over at Usenet misc.writing.screenplays.moderated, and the blog says the AP picked it up, and there's references to violations of United States Code. We can certainly reach notability. MMetro (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the introduction

The opening of this article is inappropriate. I agree that the statement “What a reviewer describes as four or five examples of ordinary academic back-biting…” may be perfectly factual, but it does not, in any sense belong in an articles abstract (though it could be mentioned after). Similarly the lines “…the scientific community the theory of …but is viewed as creationism…” and “Promotion of religion … be presented in science classes” are too specific in scope, too detailed, and too indirectly connected to the article itself to be mentioned in the introduction, if in the article at all (There exists article fully dedicated to these subjects). On a personal note, I do agree with the article. I do think intelligent design is false and this movie does look silly. But I shouldn’t be able to tell that this article was written by someone who agrees with me. And frankly, it’s quite easy to deduce that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.200.56 (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the article. NCdave (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Establishment Clause

[Off-topic WP:SOAPboxing re-removed per WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)."

Summarising:

The article says, "Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

The controlling decision on this issue, Edwards v. Aguillard states:

The [Louisiana Creationism] Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose.[6]

(My emphasis in both cases)

The article's language is thus directly reflective of SCOTUS's on this issue, and so is iron-clad legitimate. Everything else (including arguing about the stature of a 45yo lone dissent), is off-topic and WP:SOAP, and so has been userfied to User talk:NCdave. Barring compelling new evidence, I think it is reasonable to declare this topic closed, per WP:TALK & WP:FORUM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Further off-topic WP:SOAP on this point. Unless you can find something capable of overturning SCOTUS precedent on this point, please give it a rest.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've informed hrafn that it is improper to delete discussions from article Talk pages, and restored the deleted material. NCdave (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC) [at this point Fill1 hid the discussion using a {{hab}} template. I've restored it. Fill1 added the following comment. -NCdave] Actually NCdave, Hrafn was completely correct. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for this kind of material. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Fill1, this discussion is about a problem with the article, and how to fix it. The {{hab}} template is intended for use on archive pages; please do not misuse it here. Thanks. NCdave (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Please suggest a change to the article. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC) My preferred suggestion for improvement is to simply remove the discussion about ID/creationism/constitutionality from the article, as it is off-topic. I've not yet had an opportunity to view the film, but my understanding is that it is about academic freedom, and how religious people are too often deprived of it, by folks who oppose, not just religious points of view, but the very legitimacy of religious beliefs, and the right of fellow scholars to hold and express them. It is one thing to disagree with the correctness of a viewpoint; such disagreements can be congenial and intellectually stimulating. But it is another thing altogether to dispute the legitimacy of a viewpoint; that attitude makes conversation impossible. That is apparently the subject of this documentary. If I am wrong, and the film really is about Intelligent Design, rather than about academic freedom, then a brief discussion of Intelligent Design is appropriate for the article, but as background information, not in the introduction. My alternative suggestion is to replace the sentence in question with this: "According to current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, promotion of religion in American public schools is unconstitutional." (AIso, it should also be moved down into the body of the article, as is appropriate for background information.) What do you think of these two proposals, Filll? Also, it is not clear to me whether this film is discussing only college level academia, or also K-12. If college level, then the whole constitutionality discussion is not even peripherally relevant. NCdave (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Well I do not think you have consensus for the changes you suggest. Also, we do not know what teachers exactly the film targets, although some of the promotional material suggests it includes K-12, and the DI is using the film to try to advocate changes in the K-12 teaching standards in Florida and other places. Also, it is not clear to me what the legal standards are for these issues in publicly financed community colleges, and the teaching of high school level material in community colleges. One of the teachers in the film definitely is in this category. Even if the film only targets college level instruction, this information is valuable as minimal background information to set the context. Also, I believe you are incorrect; the film does purport to promote ID itself and give evidence for it, although according to the reviews it does a singularly bad job of it. The promotion material certainly promotes ID.--Filll (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Agree with Fill, although I wouldn't necessarily argue against the change of "According to current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, promotion of religion in American public schools is unconstitutional" although it seems to me to be wordy and unnecessary and triggers its own WP:UNDUE issues (we aren't talking about something the court has been at all very divided on even though the court has disagreed on what precisely constitutes promotion of religion enough to violate the establishment clause). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Coats and Original research/synthesis

(ec)I'm going to try this again, get on my hands and knees and beg you all to restore this article with editorial clear-sightedness. This article is not written as a description, it's written as a persuasive argument. There's great content in here, contributed by excellent editors, but wikipedia's fine editorial standards are taking a backseat while running it almost out-of-control into asserting, complete with piles of evidence, ie WP:synthesis, that ID=creationism and ID#science--for the trillionth time, in the hundredth article here. It's not an encyclopedia article at this point. It's more a fantasy football style rematch, Kitzmiller Redux, but the article is supposed to be about Expelled, the film.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But ID is creationism and ID is central to this movie. Have you not read anything about it? Angry Christian (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Examples: 40 Days and 40 Nights is about Kitzmiller, Monkey Girl is about Kitzmiller, neither 40 days nor Monkey Girl "promote" intelligent design. In this film, which I don't know because I haven't seen it and I can't easily determine from this article since it is so loaded with references to side issues, is ID "promoted"? If so, let's source it, okay? And save the Kitzmiller testimony for sourcing claims about the trial, or ID, but not claims about what this film does or does not promote. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But Expelled is about ID, and so are those sources. You've missed the boat here. Odd nature (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. The sources writing about this film are entitled to synthesize arguments from various sources to support their claims about this film. But we editors are limited in this respect. We can't line up references that do not even mention this film to source claims like postulates in a QED style syllogism. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but um, no. There is no synthesis in the article, only simple statements of fact supported by very good sources. Try as you might to spin it as a synthesis, the plain fact that the film is about ID and its rejection by the scientific and academic communities, meaning their views on ID are central to the subject of the article. The denial of the obvious here is getting surreal. Odd nature (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you not read the article? We have several reviews by people who favor the movie and did not like the movie, and they have stated it seems to be promoting ID. We have several trailers for the movie, and they seem to suggest the movie is promoting ID. We have several interviews with various producers, and they suggest that the movie promotes ID. We have numerous interviews with people like Stein and he suggests the movie promotes ID. Until we get a single reasonable reliable source that states the movie does NOT promote ID, then it is a bit difficult to make your case, contrary to all the other evidence we have. Why do you think the movie does not promote ID? --Filll (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried, that's what I'm trying to get through here. The first time this claim is made, there are 4 references. Three of them do not support the claim (all relate to Kitzmiller v Dover), the 4th-written by someone who hasn't even seen the film, at least is borderline arguable - it says it "makes a case for intelligent design". So what? So did Flock of Dodos-which I have seen. Flock of Dodos also "makes a case for natural selection", a stronger case in my opinion, as if that counts for anything. But neither one of those "cases" made are the central point in Flock of Dodos-if anything, the film "promotes" the idea that scientists themselves share a lot of responsibility for the lack of acceptance to biological evolution. Contrast the two articles, this one and Flock of Dodos, both covering similar territory. The second could be improved, in my humble opinion. But it would be largely incomprehensible if it became another coatrack for the Kitzmiller, or whether or not ID is creationism. It's probably hard for editors who have worked so closely, and intensely, battling POV warriors and so forth, to see these problems. I think the back and forth over ID is distracting. Can't see the forest through the trees kind of thing. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Interrupted before finishing the question: Why do you think the movie does not promote ID? I don't know if it does or does not - why don't I know? Because the sources in the 4 inline references given to support the claim in the article don't say so So let's remove those and replace them with at least one good one that does so, k? Professor marginalia (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is something I am missing here. Which 4 sources do we claim document that the film promotes ID, and in fact do not support this?--Filll (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh now I see what is going on. Perhaps this is confusion, willfull or inadvertant. Those four sources are not to show the film promotes ID (that comes from the body of the article, not from the sources). Those four sources are to show ID is creationism. Now at one time I had several other sources here to demonstrate this. And of course, as people fought like madmen here, many of those sources were removed. But frankly, because of ridiculous claims that ID is not creationism, the only way to handle this is to pound people like this with 10 or 20 references. Because at least as far as most reliable sources go, ID is a form of creationism. To claim otherwise is just to buy into the DI's legal strategy, and general mendacity and perfidity. --Filll (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks Filll. This is what I've been trying to point out. By the second paragraph, claims about the film aren't being sourced, arguments about the ID are. This one issue is given substantial "ink" in this article, but thus far it's just a coat. The article in its current state fails to show this association between ID and creationism as one being challenged in the film itself! I don't want to go so far as to say the association to the film can't be made. It's just that the article is so heavily loaded with "defensive weaponry" against ID wedges it's turned into an argument, not a description. And in going the defensive route, it's like an EAster egg hunt in there trying to sort out claims about the film itself deeply buried inside all the "extras" that do go too far in many places into WP:SYNTH unfortunately. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Professor marginalia's objection is baseless: Expelled is about ID, meaning ID's acceptance within its supposed field is fair game. Odd nature (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're illustrating my problem exactly. But this isn't Speaker's Corner, it's an encyclopedia article. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several reasons it is valuable to give some context about what ID is, and what creationism, and their relationship. First, several reviews and articles have mentioned this. In fact, one of our New York Times articles stated quite clearly that intelligent design is a type of creationism. This seems to have been removed, or I did not notice it, but it is clear. The New York Times stated it, and in an article about the film. They clearly thought it was relevant, didn't they? Next, there has been some controversy where the movie appears to have a mix of creationism and ID ideas in it, and it is being promoted that way, so even the DI issued a disclaimer about Stein's appearance on a Fox show, because supposedly Stein was mischaracterizing ID as creationism when he was promoting the movie. Also, some of the reviews from AiG and other sources are from standard creationist sources, and it helps to put this a bit in context. In addition, we have to describe what ID is, at least somewhat succinctly, since all the "scientists" who supposedly are discriminated against in the movie are ID promoters, not standard creationism scientists (the AiG review even bemoans this, because they feel left out of course) and the shortest easiest way to identify it is as a type of creationism. However, we know from long experience that whenever we mention ID=creationism, we have to armor ourselves for attack. And this article has proven no different. And so, the more you complain, the more of this boilerplate appears. Get it?--Filll (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, like you say, it would help to attribute to which type of creationism: young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism). Possibly there has been so much debate because by blanketing the statement ID is creationism creates confusion. Though each falls under the same category, the ideas presented in each are all very different. If ID is creationism, then what type of creationism is the movie promoting? Infonation101 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"8 ^ In her article about the film for the New York Times, environmental journalist Cornelia Dean describes intelligent design as "an ideological cousin of creationism" and later as a "creationist idea".[1]" It would probably clarify things a bit if that reference came first, there are several sources saying that the film promotes ID, and that particularly prestigious source about the film describes ID as a type of creationism. If you investigate a bit you'll find that intelligent design is intended to form a "big tent" embracing both young earth creationism and old earth creationism, in a form of creation science that officially omits description or the name of the creator. ... dave souza, talk 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I was having an issue with ID and creationism as one because I believe that some aspects of evolution and religion can coexist (please no comments how macro/micro evolution cannot be drawn apart, just my opinion), but now that I understand ID can cover all basis of creationism it makes more sense. That was my major problem in the above posts. Like you suggested, by presenting the information that there are more than one belief of creationism, and how ID addresses all of these, more prominently in the article future confusion can be prevented. Infonation101 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec again) Filll-I can agree there's value to including these issues. But the article in effect flattens the controversy over the film in order to concentrate on those issues at the expense of the story unique to this film. Take for example this claim. Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.[12][13] This is a fact. POV editors can quibble and complain till the cows come home, let them. It's a fact, there are numerous articles at wikipedia about this already. It's well covered. Does this film deny or refute either claim in this statement? Doesn't seem likely. So why is this mentioned here? Let's look at ref 13, okay-cool. It sources the claim, one that's stupid to dispute, but whatever-a WL is better, to an article about the trial is good enough. But 13 has nothing to do with this film. So let's look at ref 12-it goes to this opinion piece, a good source, yes, but to the claim it references? Not really. In what way does that reference discuss the trial? To offer his own conjecture about why this film does not define or describe ID in any way, a fact made later in the article here, which is good. But in the mainspace here, the Dover decision and "nondefinition of ID in the film" are completely divorced issues. In other words, the story about the film (the impact Dover may have had on its content) is ignored while readers are directed to read from Kitzmiller v Dover again and again.

Let's take the Stein, O'Reilly, and DI episode. What I recall reading from the source here is that Stein, while promoting this film, complained that "God is driven out of science". DI responded because they are selling a message that in ID, the "designer" is "not necessarily God". That is a controversy over and between how those involved are promoting it. That's part of the story, definitely. But those references don't speak to what the film itself says, which as I can see so far is said to have avoided defining what ID is. So it's important to describe this, but also important not to confuse what the movie says and what Stein says on Fox or what DI says in its own press releases. Keep each straight and get details in our report right. And second, it's important connect only those dots as the sources have done. It is much more interesting about how the promoters of the film are going at each other for slipping up, for blabbing a little too much off the the carefully charted PR script, and giving "ammunition" to the other side.

This article is now so overarching that I have trouble getting a hold on the important points myself. The important points in the controversy are something like this: a) critics view this film's thesis, that religious scientists are victims of censorship, as a "wedge" trick b) scientists the film claims have been "punished" in their jobs haven't been c) fallacy arguments run throughout, such as the false dichotomy between evolution and intelligent design, or that the theory of evolution results in abortion, etc d) scientists were "tricked" into interviews and e) the film's makers' ideological involvements make critics wary the film is "up to no good" even before they've seen it. Things like that are the story. Not re-running the whole evolution versus creationism debate or a re-enactment of Kitzmiller v Dover all over again.

Besides, I say tune out complaints that have no foundation, those that require us to repeat ad nauseum the 150 years long background story, and just get in the way of a putting together a focused, coherent story here about this particular film. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the Kitzmiller subject...In several articles/interviews ben Stein is on record saying he wants a change in public policy and to see ID/creationism in public high school scince class. So Ben is advocating pseudoscience/creationism = science and also something that is unconstitutional. That fact alone warrants Kitzmiller being brought into the discussion. Angry Christian (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree but only insofar as we have sources that make these connections to the film. We can't put our own two and twos together on stuff like this. We need to find outside sources that have done so. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no "two and twos together." Expelled's topic is ID and it's lack if acceptance by the scientific community. Stating in the article how the scientific community views ID is completely relevant and on point. Give it a rest. Odd nature (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, ref 12 (whipple) does seem to be out of place. Not sure about that one but I think it can/should go. Angry Christian (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Whipple is good. What the article here has taken from him, in 12, misses the point Whipple was making. 13 is Kitzmiller again. Throw away all the refs to Kitzmiller v Dover trial documents and this whole article will be better off. Kitzmiller v Dover never makes any claims about this film. Ever. Ever never. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a question about (12). Are we "the high water mark for a bureaucratic pissing match"? Infonation101 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, it's been verified. /g Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of confusion here. For one, the Kitzmiller decision is one of our strongest planks for the position that ID=creationism. So Kitzmiller is important if only for that reason and will appear in the article. Also, many of the claims of "discrimination" in the film, as near as I can tell from the reviews and promotion etc, are about how unfair it is that faculty are not being allowed to teach intelligent design as science in science classes. And that it is the fault of the big old ugly mean scientists. To understand this in context, it is important to remember that in many instances in the US, it is actually illegal to do this. And there are several other reasons that Kitzmiller is relevant here as well. --Filll (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Numerous points in the article are based on Whipple, and hence reference 12. Presumably the question above is related to its first inline reference, regarding Whipple making the point that ID in the science curriculum was defeated at Kitzmiller. The article is based on third party articles about the film and its promotion. Where points made in these articles have been disputed, or require detailed backup and explanation, appropriate sources discussing these points are used as additional citations. Thus, a source states that ID is a cousin of creationism, or a creationist idea. Editors demanded better sourcing backing up that point, and it was provided. Kitzmiller provides a well attested source for several issues, such as whether ID is creationism, or whether ID can be included in the curriculum for US public school science classes. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't really need a "plank", we just need a source that describes how or why this question/dispute/fact relates to the film. Ditto for the mean old Mr Scientist question. We need to put away Kitzmiller trial docs and rely on the sources who write about this film who make those associations themselves to be our sources. Using Kitzmiller v Dover docs is like trying to write an article about Fahrenheit 9/11 using 9/11 Commission Report--of course that's largely out-of-order at wikipedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of confusion, Whipple and ref 12 - I accidently clicked on the link to Whipple's bio in ref 12, thus I was "why the hell are we using this link to support anything?" Later I realized my mistake. Sorry for any confusion I no doubt caused. Pm - while I'll agree that the middle reference to Kitzmiller could be considered over-kill (and therefore probably removed), the first and last mention of Kitzmiller in the article are appropriate in my opinion. Angry Christian (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. A large part of the confusion is nobody here's fault. Those like figures in the DI who are promoting the film are confusing (to me anyway) with their own arguments. This film tries to make the claim that science has walled itself against design theory, complaining that it doesn't allow in evidence of an intelligent designer. Well yeah, that's true. As cited in Kitzmiller, ID violates "centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation". Both scientists and IDers appear to me to agree science does not allow this, but IDers don't think there's any reason it shouldn't, and scientists say that it's no arbitrary constraint, it's simply an acknowledgment that science can't test, and therefore can't form any conclusions about, supernature. This isn't a dispute about whether ID is considered science by the definition of science held by scientific community--both agree it is not. It's just one side doesn't like the situation. However, volumes and volumes of complaints about this situation largely confuse the dispute. Take DI's Crowther who claims ID is science even while he's promoting a film which points out how by rules of science practiced today it isn't. A more consistent argument would be, ID would be science ... yes...if the definition of science that we all agree everybody's used for two hundred years were changed to allow it. Or take Demski, who objects to those who liken ID to creationism, attacking it as just a "rhetorical ploy" (in Pennock's words)--but it sure seems to me that by emphasizing that "created by an intelligent designer" (ID) is a world apart somehow from "designed by a sentient creator" (creationism), Demski has merely signposted one of his own "rhetorical ploys", not his opponents. Oh well. Those kinds of arguments seem confused to me, but if that's what they are, that's what they are. It's not editor's task here to try to improve upon them or criticize them, we just document them.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When people ask for more sources, we give them to them if we have them. So your complaints are not going to go very far. This is a well established pattern over several years and tens of thousands of edits over hundreds of articles. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel you pain here, Professor. It seems like people are so riled up in the middle of some battle over ID/evolution that they're convinced any critic must necessarily be a proponent of the opposite, insidious view they oppose. I'd tried to make a similar point up above. I heard about this film, so I came to the Wiki page hoping I could read up on it. Unfortunately, we don't have a page about the film; we have a page where people are fighting tooth and nail for any possible wedge they can get in to declare that they've already won the war, the war is over, and they devote all their time to establishing that they've already won this fight. I already know about the controversy. I understand the debate, I understand both sides, and I understand the philosophic, scientific, and legal aspects relevant to the debate. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. This movie is NOT the debate, and this article about the movie sure as heck isn't the debate. We don't need yet another page debating the same old issues. If the film is a subject worthy of its own page, then MAKE THE PAGE ABOUT THE FILM. If the only thing that anyone seems to think is worth discussing is who wins in the ID/evolution article, you might as well scrap the page for this movie entirely, and just make some footnote on the ID page about Ben Stein having made a film on the subject. I'd expand on the Flock of Dodos line of reasoning and point to the article on Oliver Stone's JFK (film). You look at the opening paragraphs, and you have information about the FILM: a brief outline of the subject matter, who it stars, when it was made, its awards, its box office returns, controversy about the film, etc. All about *THE FILM*. What you do NOT see is a thousand links to the Warren Commission, the Zapruder film, discussion of the grassy knoll, details of the magic bullet theory, etc. The article about the film JFK (film) is about the film. It is NOT a treatise on how the Warren Commission has already decided thatLee Harvey Oswald acted alone so the case is closed and anyone questioning it is a coot that is trying to rewriet history and manipulate a national tragedy to further a short-sighted anti-American socialist agenda. Can anyone else see the difference here? Can anyone else see why this article needs to be about its subject matter, and not a pissing contest about the debate behind the story of the film? Dolewhite (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly see it, Dolewhite. My understanding is that the subject of the film is accademic freedom, and how religious people are too often deprived of it, by folks who oppose, not just religious points of view, but the very legitimacy of religious beliefs, and the right of fellow scholars to hold and express them. It is one thing to disagree with the correctness of a viewpoint; such disagreements can be congenial and stimulating. But it is another thing altogether to dispute the legitimacy of a viewpoint; that attitude makes conversation impossible. The unwillingness of most of the editors here to acknowledge even the legitimacy of the POV expressed by the film, even to the point of deleting Talk page comments, seems like a pretty good illustration of the point of the film. NCdave (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That is one viewpoint I am sure. We will have to wait for more reviews to get a better handle on it though.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read WP:NPOV? If so, what part of "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources " is unclear? How about " The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly "? Odd nature (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. The article is about the film. In what way is it not? It is about who appears in the film. And controversies about the film. And reviews of the film. And publicity for the film. And interviews of the main people involved in the film. Lots of information. Minimal background information, most of which is in a few footnotes. We do not go into great detail about what ID is and its strengths and weaknesses. We do not discuss the ID movement. We do not discuss the players in ID. We do not clarify exactly the big tent strategy etc. We give a minimal amount of background information and leave the rest to wikilinks and links. So these complaints are frankly silly.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are 23 citations in the intro. (except the part of 8 referencing 1), 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.1 - 17.5 (excepting 17.6, which is, again, a reference to a reference above), 18.1 - 18.3, and 19.1 - 19.12 all make no reference to the film Expelled whatsoever. 9 makes mention, but is not cited to support any facts about the film. In other words, the bulk of all citations in the intro have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARTICLE and are included as "background." That's an obscene and unnecessary amount of "background." So again, I say, if you think all this ID/evolution background is needed to understand the scope of the article about the film, then why not just like the "ID vs Evolution controversy" page and be done with it? For two seconds, just LOOK at the page at the intro. Go ahead and let your eyes fall out of focus so you don't get distracted with the content. It's a total mess. It's ugly, it's illegible, it's mostly irrelevant, and any editor worth her salt would fire a person who put this mess on her desk. Dolewhite (talk) March 2008 (UTC)Dolewhite

You are certainly correct, Dolewhite. NCdave (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason for this - if you don't document basic background, or document it only to articles about the film, people start claiming - as they are above, even despite the referencing - thatr it's not true, their highly biased sources say otherwise, and we're being meeeeean. So articles on controversial subjects tend to be over-referenced, as they were forced to back up even the smallest comment with rock-solid sources. This may mean some of the sources are slightly tangental, this is only an artefact of all the challenging that goes on. Judge by content. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article might look over sourced and I think that could be a reasonable criticism. Except that on controversial articles on WP, we are driven to this. Look at the highly rated FA, intelligent design. Notice how many references it has? We didn't start out like this. We were pushed to it by massive attacks and complaints. Same is happening slowly on related articles like intelligent design movement and irreducible complexity. I tried some months back to blow off assorted malcontents lobbying for more sources and citations at irreducible complexity. I figured, they could make do with a wikilink to intelligent design, right? No way. A HUGE massive campaign and attack was mounted. It went on for days. One or two editors were permanently banned because of it. An administrator was yanked up on charges in front of Arbcomm because of it and desysopped. It was a War, all over exactly this issue. So guess what we do? When whiners and complainers attack us for not having enough sources, we put in sources. It might be ugly, but that is how it is. If you do not like it, there are many other wikis which do not have the same sorts of problems. Try Conservapedia for example. If you complain like that, they just ban you on sight. --Filll (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And we've already had misguided/mistaken complaints on this talk page that ID is not creationism and more about the mention of Kitzmiller. Kitzmiller is the most informed and neutral opinion on ID that exists. Angry Christian (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to take a step back and look at the article fresh. Paragraph 2, second sentence, Discover Institute says blahblah about science, id and creationism. A reader is asking, So??? You have to read further to find what DI has to do with this film; it isn't immediately apparent. It says they're promoting it, and using it for PR? Okay, cool. That's an interesting aspect to the film, or could be if the reader didn't have to labor over the article to learn what the heck DI's role really is in this film. Are they a partner in it? Remember, the film isn't even out yet, and an uninvolved, interested reader, one who doesn't know about the story from reading it someplace else, would be wondering about this stuff. I read the article as a reader, and tried to clear up confusions about this film as an editor, and run into dead end after dead end following footnotes to background documentation about ID theory and Kitzmiller and Church state court rulings etc. Paragraph 2 as a whole should toss the whole creationism thing flat out anyway. ID is not allowed in school because a court found it to be religious theory, not science. Simple. The whole creationism brouhaha just confuses that key point here, and unless the film tries to say something about creationism apart from ID, why chase that tail anyway? Why isn't ID welcomed in science labs? ID is not science because the field of science doesn't extend to untestable supernatural explanations, not because it's creationism. Creationism, DI, all of that rehash in paragraph 2, just meanders away from the key questions at the heart of this film before a reader is clear what this film is about. Don't forget, paragraph 1 talks of the "no dissent from evolution allowed" idea, and paragraph 2, I think, is trying to be about the "no God or supernatural designer allowed in science" idea, as well as the claims in the film that scientists who are believers are being denied academic freedom because of this exclusion. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I feel your pain. There's an article back when when I was pulled into the same overkill by bad faith content and NPOV disputes; there was a biased blindness to virtually everything any source said that they didn't want to believe. It demanded volumes of tedious minutia because these users wouldn't allow any synopsis statement whatsoever. For example, you couldn't say "company officials said" without naming these officials and supplying reference after reference showing their relationship to the company. The equivalent here would be to say "DI says thus and so", and some bonehead insisted we furnish copies of passports, fingerprints, and notarized resumes to prove these somebodies were who they said they were. You could claim "The sky is blue", and offer a source to verify it which says, "the atmosphere is skyblue in color". Then they'd respond, "It doesn't say 'the sky is blue'-that's misrepresenting the source", and you feel forced to find another source to backup the first one. It's ridiculous. But we're editing encylopedia articles, not patrolling a milecastle. So why give in to ridiculous demands, especially when it's at the expense of coherency and readability? As a reader, I wouldn't come here to learn if ID is creationism, or why schools can't teach it. I come here to learn what this movie is about, who's behind it and why, how is it being "used"/promoted/distributed, what's taking it so long to be released, and how it is being received. And as a reader, I'm kind of put-off by the article because it's a little patronizing trying to convince its readers--doggedly. The article probably has this tone because it's written to quiet POV pushers rather than inform readers.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

At some point, we might rewrite it once again to address many of these. However, having personally spent many many hours rewriting it a couple of times, only to watch it turn into a dog's breakfast again under repeated attacks of various kinds, it is not something I am frantic to do again right away.

I will also note that the reason ID is not welcome in science classes is (1) it is not science and (2) it violates the first amendment.--Filll (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, how is not teaching ID a violation of the First Amendment? Infonation101 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fill again, sorry - my "I feel your pain" may sound glib in light of your comment above, which I hadn't read and I didn't mean to dismiss. I really empathize how the articles get bloated responding to complainers. This article is full of really excellent content, and I wouldn't support in any way rototilling the content to pursue these high-minded ideals about improving it. I'm really sorry. It's not fun editing when it feels like you can't please anybody, and no matter how hard you try somebody's always complaining about something else.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Forbidding the teaching of ID violates the First Amendment (free speech). ID is science, and is not religion. The real argument is over whether ID is good science, not whether it is science. NCdave (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Forbidding the teaching of ID violates the first amendment in pretty much the same way forbidding the catechism does. Thus sayeth the court in Kitzmiller versus Dover. And wikipedia is not the court of appeals, so though editors may try, the decision will not be overruled here. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A science class is not a place for free speech about religion. It is a place for children to learn about science. If they spend all their time listening to free speech about non-science then they don’t learn any science which I guess is the aim of all the creationists out there who are afraid that science will turn children into atheists. Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well let me try to help you with a little information. There is far far more in various WP articles if you want to learn. First, ID is not science, mainly because it demands that the supernatural be a mechanism to explain natural processes. In other words, science does not have magic in it, but ID does. The supernatural was rejected as part of science several centuries ago, and is no longer accepted as a cause in science. There are several other problems with ID, but that is the main one. It is rejected by literally hundreds of scientific organizations around the world as complete hooey. We have lists of them in the intelligent design article, but if you do a bit more looking, you will find even more than we have on WP. .--Filll (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"science does not have magic in it, but ID does" - Well, as far as I know, physics states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed; just the form can be changed. The Big Bang seems to break this law by creating matter out of nothing. Breaking the laws of physics is, as far as I know, the definition of "supernatural."  —CobraA1 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

CobraA1, were you aware that editing in the middle of someone else's post as you just did is WP:DE and can lead to sanctions? Do not do it again ok?

Your understanding of physics is actually comically wrong and uninformed. Sorry, but you are incorrect. Please do not use this as a soapbox for things you do not know about. --Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"The supernatural was rejected as part of science several centuries ago, and is no longer accepted as a cause in science." - What was rejected was that science could somehow measure or make conclusions about the supernatural. So it's correct to say it's not scientific. The implication that there's some sort of positive assertion in science that the supernatural does not exist, however, is not a scientific observation and not a part of science as far as I know.  —CobraA1 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What science is, is determined by scientific consensus. If you look at the history of science, there have been positive assertions about what science is, and how natural phenomena are assumed to have natural causes in science. If you look at the court cases involving creationism and now ID, there have been such positive assertions. If you consult the publications of the National Academy of Sciences, they do as well. That does not mean the supernatural does not exist, only that as it currently stands, it is not part of science. If that changes, I am sure we will be informed, right?--Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Next, the first amendment is the "freedom of religion" amendment. One of the parts of the US law is that the government will not promote one religion over another. Now it has been determined that creationism is part and parcel of a set of religious ideas, mainly associated with a few protestant sects. These groups are mainly interested in biblical literalism, a long discredited idea that is held by a tiny minority of Christians worldwide, and an even smaller minority of the world's population. Nevertheless, when you talk to them, they present it VERY differently, but that is not reality. To use tax money, extracted at the point of a gun, from the public, to push the position of handful of religious sects (constituting maybe 15% at most of the US population) as a proselytizing action in public schools, and disguise this religious proselytizing for this tiny minority of the US population as science when it is not science, is just ludicrous. Where does this leave Catholics? Greek Orthodox? Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? Atheists? Agnostics? Literally thousands of other religions (about 5500 worldwide)? You are forcing these groups to pay to try to convert their children to the religious ideas of groups they disagree with. This is obviously a violation of the first amendment and blatantly unfair. And this is why it has failed in legal action after legal action in state and federal courts and in several appearances before the US Supreme Court. Well over a dozen major legal decisions (you can find many of them here on Wikipedia if you want to read about them).

To get some context for this, suppose I came to your house with police and forced you to pay money to have your children taught Hinduism as science in school. Suppose they were also taught that your family's religion was evil and they were all going to hell and they were dirty filth and stupid and hated by assorted Hindu gods for being Baptists or Pentecostals or whatever. And on and on and on. Would that be fair? Would you like to be forced to pay to have your children indoctrinated in such a way? Every reasonable person will agree that this would be very unfair I am sure. Well of course, any reasonable person, when they understand the situation will reject the disgusting outrageous unfair antiAmerican lies from the Fascist jerks promoting nonsense like ID. .--Filll (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"To get some context for this, suppose I came to your house with police and forced you to pay money to have your children taught Hinduism as science in school." - I would say that's how some parents feel about some science classes. Call it "science" as much as you want, that won't change the feelings of the parents.  —CobraA1 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well many parents do not want their children to learn about mathematics or French or slavery or the subjugation of the American Indians or all kinds of things. But we are a society of laws. So if the government has decided that we want children to attend school and have classes in A, B, C, then I guess we either homeschool our children, put them in a private school, put them in a religious school, move to another country with different laws, or allow our children to stay out of school and take our chances. I also believe that the only restriction is that the schoolboard cannot force teachers to teach creationism as science, but if the teacher wants to do so, and there are no objections from the school administration or parents, then there is no problem. I personally have no problem with requiring religious instruction in public schools, however, not just in science classes since it is not science. If people want different options, they will have to change the government I guess.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okaaayyy...this discussion needs to reconvene in Speaker's Corner because this room has been previously reserved for writing an article about this film. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. This needs to end on this page. I was only answering a question or two.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you understand a bit better now? You can learn a LOT more about this by reading Wikipedia and researching a bit, and thinking for yourself, instead of swallowing every bit of nonsense spewed out by those greedy jerks at the Discovery Institute.--Filll (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Everybody MUST accept your definition of science, and everybody MUST accept mainstream science, or you will spew hatred towards them. Thank you for clarifying.  —CobraA1 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we let scientists tell us what science is, not preachers, or Joe the Plumber with a grade 8 education who used to play football without a helment.--Filll (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, in Hyde Park there are a lot of people around willing to snap a photo for the kids. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume this wasn't to me (if it was, please--I welcome everyone reading this to send me a nasty reminder on my talk page that this electronic medium doesn't lend itself well to subtle sarcasm so stop it already, dummy). But presuming it's not to me, I will second the motion--wikipedia's got great information on all this stuff. I highly recommend it, everybody should read it. Added bonus: that way editors will stop jerking editors in this article around with the nitpicky fact tags, forcing them to repeat the whole thing over and over and over again here. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is not meant for you. However, if one looks on this talk page, including the archives, one will see that repeatedly people ask (1) why isnt ID science? and (2) why is it against the law to teach ID? They ask these things because they have just been fed propaganda from religious bodies of various sorts, and really do not understand the issues.

So sometimes, not always, I stop and explain it a bit. I think when people start to really understand the issues, they soon realize how silly the entire thing is and how the case that ID proponents build for it just falls apart. I think few people undestand that forcing teachers to teach ID as science in public grade schools is actually illegal under US law. They are so confused over the issue they do not understand that a massive legal shift would have to take place to change this; we might have to get rid of the US democratic form of government and institute a theocracy to have this, probably.

Under oath, in court, ID supporter Behe admitted that using the intelligent design definitions for science, astrology would be taught as science in science classes. Probably witchcraft and alchemy and reading the future from studying chicken entrails as well would all have to be taught as science. Is this how the US wants to try to improve its position in technology and science to compete in the modern world? I am sure China and India and Japan would love it. But it would not help our competitiveness. What is wrong with Americans? Have they decided they hate money? Have they decided they want to be poor? have they decided they want to be losers? Have they decided they want to disarm the US military and reduce their military advantages? You might as well hand the Jihadists a military victory and convert to Islam right now if you make this kind of decision. Because that is what they are asking for if they want crap like ID taught as science. If you want it, be my guest, but you better understand the consequences before you make that decision. Because it will have HUGE consequences. Use Wikipedia. Learn a bit instead of listening to some babbling preacher who just wants to pick your pocket and make you stupid.--Filll (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, please try to be civil. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to characterize the people you disagree with as being stupid, to condescendingly demand that they "learn a bit," or to denigrate their religion by characterizing their spiritual leaders as "babblers" who "just want to pick your pocket and make your stupid."

I don't know who Behe is, but I don't believe this movie advocates having preachers or astrologers or witches teach science classes. The issue isn't whether unqualified people should be teaching science classes, but whether otherwise well-qualified scientists should be permitted to work in their fields if they are religious. NCdave (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion about the issue is noted. Do you have a reliable third-party source giving verification that is the issue? Obviously well-qualified religious scientists can work in their fields, just ask Ken Miller. Exactly what assertions does the film make that say otherwise, and what views do outside experts hold on these assertions? .. dave souza, talk 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Better than that: here's what the movie's own official web site says:

"...educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance."[7]

Also, as an aside, self-description is considered a reliable source for information about the positions of whoever is doing the description (in this case the movie's producers & promoters). It needn't be third-party.

Now, is there any reliable source to support the opinion that this movie advocates having preachers, astrologers, and witches (or any other unqualified people) teach science classes? NCdave (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"movie advocates having preachers, astrologers, and witches (or any other unqualified people) teach science classes?" Where in the article does it say that, NCdave? Please point to the exact sentence that makes that claim, I cannot find it so I need your help. Or am I to assume this is yet another example of you disrupting the talk page. So...Please show me the part in the article that claims that the "movie advocates having preachers, astrologers, and witches (or any other unqualified people) teach science classes?" Thanks in advance. Angry Christian (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was replying to Filll, just above. In this comment he wrote that "using the intelligent design definitions for science, astrology would be taught as science in science classes. Probably witchcraft and alchemy and reading the future from studying chicken entrails as well would all have to be taught as science." Sorry if I wasn't clear. NCdave (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that someone who does not know who Behe is presumes to dictate to everyone else what ID is, what the movie is about, what it means, etc. Interesting. Not particularly convincing, but interesting.--Filll (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Behe have anything to do with this film, Filll?

Also, please see WP:no personal attacks, Filll, which says, in relevant part, "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." NCdave (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NCDave, anyone familiar with intelligent design and Kitzmiller v Dover would understand Filll's comments regarding astrology, etc. And arguably without Michael Behe you wouldn't have ID. Angry Christian (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals?

Rather than arguing back and forth over something we probably can't hope to resolve, let's talk about real stuff, specifics. Do you (Pm) have any clear sense as to how you think the article should be improved? Why don't we discuss concrete proposals? Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There's some good general advice in WP:Writing_for_the_enemy. NCdave (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actual proposals instead of vague hand-waving, please. Hence the use of the word "specifics". --Calton | Talk 13:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a specific proposal. NCdave (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Specifics" as is "This is the current version" of a section, and "This is how I suggest it should be phrased". You know, something concrete that we can work with and discuss. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We were discussing one such improvement, here, but Hrafn deleted it from this Talk page. NCdave (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I've mentioned a couple general ideas, and I'll try to sketch this out more concretely to see what you all think. This will take me at least a couple days to get a sketch together because I want to go through and become better versed about all the refs first. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

New News report

[8]

Rather amusing, actually. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See this edit .. dave souza, talk 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Oh, well. Beaten to the punch again! =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Gordy Slack at Salon [9] Guettarda (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Video - Dawkins and Myers discuss the incident[10] Guettarda (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with their finger on the Pharyngula pulse will know there is plethora of blog buzz about this incident. We've seen some serious stuff ups from the ID crowd, but this seriously takes the cake. I am wondering with the availablity of salon, twin cities news and even a times report on this incident if we can subsectionise and expand this particular incident.[11] Anyone have any news from international sources yet? (I'm still expecting something likely small to come from The Guardian given Dawkins' presence and the magnamousity of this cock up).

Any expansion should mention the Mathis' version of events, and this odd individual-based reality version with appropriate rebuttals from Myers, eyewitnesses and reputable news sources.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In progress. LeyteWolfer edited Screenings: additional refs and info, removed some extraneous info.[12] One reference, E.E. Flynn, "Atheist author draws impassioned crowd", Austin-American Statesman, Retrieved March 21, 2008, appears to have nothing to do with the film. The other two report claims that Myers "gategrashed" the showing, so I've expanded and clarified relevant points a bit, forming a new subsection as suggested above. Further relevant points and rebuttals can be added as ZayZayEM suggests. .. dave souza, talk 11:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. [13][14] not too useful, but fun if you know the background..... dave souza, talk 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Title - "PZ Myers expelled from screening" sounds a wee bit to blog-tastic and loaded. I know its hard to resist, but something more encyclopedic such as "Minnesota Mall of America screening" or the date. The issue isn't just the irony of Myers being expelled from "Expelled" but numerous other points such as Dawkins getting through the net, Mathis' dishonest reactions, dishonest follow-up and pre-emptively the ensuing damage control and smear campaign.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A fair point in principle, my only reservation it that readers are more likely to have heard about Myers being made to leave than about the location. Any others have views on this? ... dave souza, talk 15:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what to call the section. I am reasonably sure we will be getting some nice "Christian" media articles on the incident fairly soon. And maybe Mathis or Ruloff will issue some more statements or give some interviews and possibly say some more "interesting" things. This will be good to flesh this section out.--Filll (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. It appears that the online booking of free screenings ended abruptly yesterday.[15] I was wondering if the lack of future events was to do with where my browser was coming from, but a simpler answer. Looks like they didn't plan this episode ;) ... dave souza, talk 21:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A few more accounts trickling in. Here is a very sneering article from the Discovery Institute: [16].--Filll (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The identical article appears on Dembski's blog. Here is Myer's daughters review: [17], which is quite interesting.--Filll (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

An ever increasing list of news and blog accounts of this event appears here.--Filll (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

At least add the POV dispute tag

As the POV is under dispute, the page should be so tagged. I am unable to add the tag, so I'm requesting the help of a registered member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.122.28 (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing that justifies a POV tag. Guettarda (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article promotes the POV that ID=creationism, and that the premise of the film is false. Whether or not you agree with that POV, it is certainly not neutral. So I've added the tag. NCdave (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the POV tag is for an ongoing dispute. Is there a dispute? Relata refero (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Just to be clear: that was a feeble joke.) Relata refero (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a much-needed smile, Relata refero.  :-) NCdave (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I also see nothing justifying the tag, and User:NCdave seems determined to edit-war to leave the Scarlet Letter up, regardless of any actual merits or actionable requests. So start talking: why the tag? And no, don't try floating the already-rejected claims that ID =/=creationism, since that so far has convinced no one. --Calton | Talk 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do tell, why is the POV tag there? Tell us before we get into an edit war and someone gets sanctioned for WP:TE and WP:DE.--Filll (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article promotes the POV that ID=creationism, and also the POV that the premise of the film is false. Whether or not you agree with that, whether or not you are completely certain about it, it is certainly not neutral. NCdave (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh how novel. Well I am sure you are aware of WP:NPOV which means we have to present, in large measure, the mainstream view of academia and science in this article. So that is why there is material discussing the falsity of the premise of the film: Because we are required to do so. Do you understand that? Because if you argue against that, that is WP:DE, and there can be consequences including sanctions for tendentious arguments against policy.

And I am sure you are also aware that we have numerous WP:RS that ID=creationism, such as several peer-reviewed journal articles, articles and books by world experts in creationism, and the ruling of a US Federal judge on the matter. So how are these not adequate to present ID=creationism, at least according to the preponderance of evidence? We even have a source or two from a creationist which states that ID=creationism. We even have an interview with the main character in the film, Stein, which indicates that ID=creationism. We even have interviews with the producers of the film where they indicate that ID=creationism. The promotion material for the film suggests ID=creationism. Perhaps you are so upset about this film suggesting ID=creationism, you want to organize a boycott?--Filll (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The premise of the film (at least as suggested by the title) is apparently that religious academicians are too often deprived of academic freedom by folks who oppose, not just religious points of view, but the very legitimacy of religious beliefs, and even the right of fellow scholars to hold and express them. It is one thing to disagree with the correctness of a viewpoint; such disagreements can be congenial and intellectually stimulating. But it is another thing altogether to dispute the legitimacy of a viewpoint; that attitude makes conversation impossible. That problem is apparently what this documentary is about.

"Creationism," as the word is usually used, is a shorthand for "Biblical Creationism," which accepts the creation account in the Jewish & Christian scriptures as being to some extent authoritative. Intelligent Design is not Biblical Creationism. ID is a scientific viewpoint which posits that an ordered universe is not accidental, but rather represents the workmanship of an intelligent "watchmaker." While it is true that creationism (or at least old-earth creationism) is a particular sort of intelligent design theory, the converse is not true: intelligent design is not any type of creationism. It is a subset relation, just as string theory is a type of physics, but physics is not a type of string theory. NCdave (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is not Biblical Creationism - well, that depends on who's speaking. But that's beside the point. ID is one for of creationism. YEC is another. OEC is another. Islamic creationism is yet another. I don't see your point.

ID is a scientific viewpoint - nope. ID proponents claim ID is scientific, but there's no evidence to support that claim. Rather, there is a wealth of evidence that rejects that claim, including a court ruling.

While it is true that creationism ... is a particular sort of intelligent design theory, the converse is not true: intelligent design is not any type of creationism. - the problem seems to be that you have your facts muddled. Either get your facts straight, or provide authoritative sources to support your claim. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has reliable sources describing the movie as an intelligent design movie. We have numerous reliable sources who recognize intelligent design as creationism and religious. Knock off the disruption, NCdave. Angry Christian (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Angry Christian. There are serious undue weight issues especially given a) the makers of the movie talking about it being about ID and being about "religious persecution" and b) Kitzmiller v Dover which ruled that ID was creationism c) the general scientific consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In two years this film will be less well-remembered than Howard the Duck; in the meantime however, AC and Josh bring up valid points. Expelled has linked itself to ID and therefore a discussion of ID is required; sorry if you con't like that NCdave, but that's reality. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We have numerous reliable sources that indicate ID is a type of creationism, and not that creationism is a type of ID, including the ruling of a US federal judge. Also, we do not have to judge the film by its title; we have promotional material, multiple reviews, interviews and articles about it. So...--Filll (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that, as required by WP:V, the points that ID is a form of creationism and not science, that the film promotes the presentation of religious views in classrooms despite this having been ruled contrary to the "Establishment Clause" in a series of court rulings, and that ID in particular was ruled to contravene that constitutional requirement for public school science classrooms, have all been based on third party reliable sources making these points with specific reference to the film. NCdave has given us plenty of original research in his opinions, but no suitable sources. .. dave souza, talk 17:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, the movie is apparently about academic freedom, not about the technical details of scientists' competing viewpoints. From the movie's promotional material, it does not appear that it delves into a defense of ID. Nor is there any evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that Ben Stein or the movie's producers advocate "presenting religious views" to captive audiences in K-12 classrooms.

Obviously, there are challenges to writing about an unreleased film. But perhaps one source of confusion could be that different people sometimes use the same terminology in different ways. What matters in the context of this article are the definitions that the movie's producers & backers use. So here's the Discovery Institute's definition of ID:

Q:What is the theory of intelligent design?

A: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.[18]

Note well: there's no reference there to creationism, nor even to monotheism. But they go on to explicitly address the question of whether or not ID (as they define it) is a form of creationism:

Q: Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

A: No. ...

and:

Q: Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

A: No. ... (ibid.)

Obviously, the way that the Discovery Institute uses the term "intelligent design," it is not Biblical creationism.

Now, as you know, an organization's own description of its own positions is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. So that's one suitable source.

But what about third parties? What do leading third-party experts say?

Dr. Ronald Numbers is an agnostic, a critic of ID, a past president of the History of Science Society, and the author of the most widely cited history of creationism (which Salon magazine calls "probably the most definitive history of anti-evolutionism"). But he says that the claim that ID is creationism "doesn't hold a lot of water."

Here's what he told Salon:

Salon: More recently, we've had the intelligent design movement. I know some people just see this as a new version of creationism, stripping away all the talk about God and religion so you can teach it in the schools. Is that true?

Dr. Numbers: There's a little bit of evidence to support that. But I think that both demographically and intellectually, it doesn't hold a lot of water. The intelligent design leaders are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism. [19]

Do you agree that that is a suitable source, Dave? NCdave (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into this very equivocal statement NCdave. Numbers included a chapter on ID in the latest edition of The Creationists, and even added a subtitle of "From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design" to it. He would hardly do this if he believed that ID was not creationism. From the context of the statement, he was clearly more interested in contrasting ID with YEC, and drawing attention to disagreements between these creationist factions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers is in fact very careful to never explicitly state that ID is or isn't Creationism per se. In The Creationists he lists (p380) the accusations of many "opponents of intelligent-design" that ID is Creationism, but only contradicts one claim -- that ID and Creation science are interchangeable terms (as CS requires "a recent special creation and a geologically significant flood" -- a point on which I think he's perfectly correct). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Thanks for the source, NCdave, it's very interesting but, as Hrafn says, it's a rather equivocal refinement of the point rather than a refutation. It has the problem that it's not directly related to the topic of the article, and the third party reliable sources cited have explicitly described the topic of the film as promoting intelligent design which is called by them a form of creationism. The source is certainly valid as a clarification of the detail of that point, making it clear that ID is not confined to young earth creationism. Numbers was answering questions about his YEC background, and in that context it's right for him to say "that intelligent design leaders are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism", though some of the prominent leaders are YEC. Intelligent design is clearly creationism in the general sense of anti-evolution, while accommodating young earth and old earth creationism. So, I've no objection to adding that reference and amending the footnote to show that detailed point, but the well attested point that ID is a form of what many people call creationism stands. In particular, that usage of the term relates to the legal background, which as you'll appreciate is central to the question of whether ID or any other form of anti-evolution can be introduced in science classrooms. Since we're in general agreement, I'll remove the tag and trust we can continue this discussion to agree how to incorporate the point into the article .. dave souza, talk 11:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

I see that two discussions earlier closed because they had deteriorated into personal opinionating have been reopened. I am going to urge that editors stay firm on this. This is not a forum to express our own views on the topic of ID, creationism, academic freedom, US courts, scientists, believers, or the importance (or lack of) in this film. Everyone needs to stay off the soapbox, all the way off. Meaning, nobody---none of us are welcomed to sneak in "one last word" before closing such discussions. It means zip it shut as soon as we see the telltale signs appear, or whenever we ourselves should feel the urge to raise our arms to the heavens and bellow a sermon about Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Each editor is fully empowered to shut off such wayward discussions immediately. That's it. It policy, and we're all much more effective editors that way. Live with it. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Detailed proposals for improvements to the article, with sources for anything new to the article, are welcome. While a reasonable amount of discussion is in order, general discussions have to be kept in check. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever seen such a POV-ridden, worthless article on all of wiki. All this is is a place to attack the film, it seems like. I say you just wipe the whole thing and get some neutral writers on board, this reflects very poorly on the point of wikipedia! 128.252.78.81 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

Hey folks, remember what it says at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." If someone veers off into general commentary on academic freedom and such, just ignore it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, the topic of the film is academic freedom (or its lack), at least according to the film's promotional web site.[20] The digressions into creationism, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are all off-topic for this article, but academic freedom is not. NCdave (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NCDave: "Academic Freedom" has long been a creationist codeword for "permit illegitimate attacks on evolution" -- see Academic Freedom bills, the Santorum Amendment and even the purported rationale for the legislation struck down in Edwards v. Aguillard. Your claim that creationism is a "digression" is simply flogging another dead horse. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry proves the point of his movie

{{hat|reason=Paranoid, baseless [[WP:SOAP]]. Yes the Evil Atheist Conspiracy ''is'' out to get you — time to put on your tinfoil hat.}}

Holy cow, if any article were a QED for the movie, this would be it. The movie is not about intelligent design, nor about Darwinism, nor about religion. Watch the trailer. The movie is about the squelching of dissenting viewpoints within the scientific and academic community... which is exactly what is happening in this Wikipedia entry.

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a controversial movie, and its Wikipedia article mentions the controversy near the bottom of the page. Michael Moore's films are controversial, and their controversies fork into new articles. Here, Ben Stein's film has not yet opened, and the lead paragraph pretty much declares -- quite unencyclopedically -- that the basis for his film is wrong, and anyone who watches it or believes it is an idiot.

Science is not monolithic. Consensus does not truth make (except on Wikipedia). Scrub this article from all the ready-made refutations and off-topic bloviating, and instead describe the film itself, the way the Gore and Moore entries do. Let Ben Stein's movie compete in the marketplace of ideas, rather than purposely try to torpedo ideas you don't agree with. 216.54.1.206 (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no-ones bothering to reply, I won't move this post to the foot of the page in sequence where it belongs, but will merely note that the article reflects the reliable third party sources on which it is based, per WP:V. ... dave souza, talk 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, 216.54.1.206. If anyone doubts that the sorts of things this movie complains of could really happen, they need only look to this article, and its Talk page, for confirmation. NCdave (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this new topic to the end of the Talk page, where it belongs. NCdave (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

hm, the movie appears to be complaining of the fact that most intelligent people think that "ID" is bogus. Well, most people do think it is bogus, so the movie certainly got that right. The problem is just with the implication that somehow there is something wrong with that. Academia sifts through ideas and rejects the useless ones. ID happened to be an useless idea, so it was rejected. Nothing wrong with that. You might as well complain about "No Vril Allowed" or "No Phlogiston Allowed". dab (𒁳) 11:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

{{hab}}

I think you are mistaken, Dbachmann, about the point of this documentary. Judging from the promotional material, the complaint is not mainly about the merits of any particular theories, but rather about well-qualified scientists and educators being deprived of their academic freedom, because of their religious views. The movie is about the stifling of non-atheistic viewpoints... just as viewpoints supportive of the documentary are being stifled here on Wikipedia.

Hrafn, please stop deleting other people's comments from the Talk page, and hiding them with {{hab}} templates. How can we hope to achieve WP:consensus if you will not allow other editors to discuss the article and its problems?

Also, I again ask of everyone here that you please not denigrate other wikipedians. That means you should not characterize their views or their religions as "useless" or "stupid," or any other derisive term. Dbachmann, that means you should not suggest that those who disagree with you are unintelligent, or that their ideas are useless. Hrafn, it means you should not call them "paranoid" or suggest that they have tinfoil hats, as you did in this comment. Doing so violates an ironclad Wikipedia rule: WP:no personal attacks, and impedes constructive cooperation. NCdave (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave: it made unsubstantiated accusations of persecution. It is thus legitimately "paranoid" under colloquial meaning on the word. It is also mere WP:SOAPBOXing, that has no legitimate place on this talkpage. Your unarchiving of it is thus disruptive editing. Wikipedia contra to your own repeated, tendentious accusations, does not "stifle" viewpoints, it merely IS NOT A SOAPBOX FOR FRINGE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you said that most people think ID is bogus, but did not give any source to substantiate your claim. Here is a reliable source that contradicts that. It is from a Gallup poll on human origins. Take a look at it. Briefly, the survey states that 14% believe that man developed without God (atheistic evolution), 38% believe that man developed with God guiding (ID), and 43% believe that God created man in present form (Creationism). Data has changed little since 1982. It seems to suggest that ID and Creationism are not fringe beliefs. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you JBFrenchhorn for misrepresenting this survey -- "believ[ing] that man developed with God guiding" could just as easily mean that they believe in theistic evolution as that they believe in ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could mean that they believe in theistic evolution and not ID. The poll should have had four positions: Atheistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution, ID, and young earth creationism. That would have made it much easier to understand. As it is, both sides say it says a different thing. Saksjn (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you would need a lot more then 4 positions and a lot more than one question to actually carefully characterize public beliefs. I do not believe that such a survey has ever been conducted, actually. It has been repeatedly shown for example that the vast majority of the US public cannot correctly choose the definition of evolution out of a multiple choice list.--Filll (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of key reminders

According to the splash page of the Crossroads Expelled website:

Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is every generation has its Rebel...

So I want to point out the producers are framing this as an idea being expelled from the classroom and not people. This article by "the producers" from the same web site sheds some light on what idea they're talking about http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=1

:

Are Atheists Hijacking Academic Freedom? Why some might consider Ben Stein’s new movie to be political dynamite. The theory of intelligent design (ID), holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

Political dynamite.

There are folks working overtime to deny scientists who disagree with the core claim of evolutionary theory the right to pursue the scientific evidence for intelligent design theory. But there is more to this than meets the eye.

They don’t like the very idea of an intelligent cause because they don’t like the idea of allowing even the possibility of the existence of an intelligent “designer.” That might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D. But they simultaneously want you to believe that their belief in atheism has nothing to do with their persecution of scientists and educators, many of whom see scientific evidence for design or a designer. Merely coincidence. That is because they have “defined” science in such a way as to prevent the scientific exploration of intelligent design theory. They say that any evidence that suggests intelligent design in nature isn’t really science. In this manner they are able to “logically” assert that only their theories of life (which just happen to be exclusively atheistic theories) are “real” science, while intelligent design theory is conveniently dismissed as religious “creationism.”

All of this translates into a very nasty piece of business as far as academic freedom goes.

The upcoming film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein articulates why the argument made in the film is irrefutable – meaning that those who oppose “Intelligent Design” theory as a valid topic in the science classroom are simply wrong to oppose it.

But are they also intellectually disingenuous, opponents of academic freedom and proponents of atheism, hijacking “science?” After seeing the film “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed,” we’d appreciate your telling us the answer to that question.

The whole point of man’s thirst for knowledge, scientific and otherwise, is to answer the question “Who are we?” “Where did we come from?” “Why are we here?” and “Where are we headed?” To deny this is to deny the reality of human existence since the beginning. And to simply “declare” that the subject of “science” can somehow side step these questions is either wrong or intellectually disingenuous.

The official definition of science currently holds that it is “the study of observable natural phenomenon that excludes those explanations citing the “supernatural.” This definition is disingenuous – it all but “defines” science as the search for “proof” of …exclusively atheistic theories.

It is the position of the producers of EXPELLED that no government institution or public employee should promote either belief in atheism OR belief in an intelligent designer – one to the exclusion of the other – as official, government policy. Both are presuppositions, both are beliefs and both are valid as scientific bases for scientific exploration. And this is particularly true with respect to the way “science” is officially defined, and especially with respect to our public schools and government institutions. It is simply a tautology to “declare” that science is strictly the study of the natural, and to then simultaneously decree that attempts to explore the universe in terms of the presupposition of intelligent design are “off the table,” and “not science.” To do so is to define “science” in such a way as to officially “favor” explanations that place atheistic presuppositions above those with the presupposition of design at their root. This is not the proper role of the government. Not in America.

Highly credentialed “dissenters” from today’s prevailing “materialist” theories of life’s progression who wish to pursue science on the basis of a presupposition of intelligent design are being persecuted, vilified, denied tenure and even fired from their jobs for their beliefs today. To even question aspects of Darwin’s theory of evolution is being used as prima facie evidence that one is “unintelligent,” and/or unqualified.

To deny this is disingenuous.

Belief in atheism, agnosticism and belief in a designer are real beliefs – let’s not pretend that they don’t exist, can be side stepped or pretend that it is fair, constitutional or intellectually rigorous to favor one such worldview over another... especially in the realm of science. To oppose such academic freedom – especially at the taxpayer’s expense - is simply wrong. If you agree, look here.

~The Producers of “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”

Clearly this movie is very much about promoting intelligent design in the classroom and in science. Angry Christian (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. The message that "Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom." and argument that "the possibility of the existence of an intelligent “designer.” ... might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D." , together with the claim that people are wrong to "oppose “Intelligent Design” theory as a valid topic in the science classroom", assertion that the official definition of science currently holds that it is “the study of observable natural phenomenon that excludes those explanations citing the “supernatural.” and the reference to the way “science” is officially defined "especially with respect to our public schools and government institutions." all run right up against the "Establishment Clause" and Kitzmiller. My feeling is that a brief statement about the implications of this reference could be added to the Claims presented in the film section. It also ties in with the very brief statement in the AP news story[21][22] that "The movie argues that schools should teach creationism as an alternative to evolution". ... dave souza, talk 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That excerpt indicates that the topic of the film is academic freedom:

"There are folks working overtime to deny scientists who disagree with the core claim of evolutionary theory the right to pursue the scientific evidence for intelligent design theory."

"...persecution of scientists and educators, many of whom see scientific evidence for design or a designer."

"Highly credentialed “dissenters” from today’s prevailing “materialist” theories of life’s progression who wish to pursue science on the basis of a presupposition of intelligent design are being persecuted, vilified, denied tenure and even fired from their jobs for their beliefs today."

The film's complaint isn't that those who disagree with ID are wrong, it is that they are persecuting the scientists who disagree with them. NCdave (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The film's website quite clearly makes the complaint that ID is excluded from science classrooms (making evaluation of the legitimacy, on scientific and constitutional grounds, of that exclusion a legitimate topic for this article). As to the accusations of "persecution", they are unsubstantiated, and so I refer you to the adjective I employed above to characterise unsubstantiated accusations of persecution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Little piece of the movie

[23] Leaked? Pirated?--Filll (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the juicy Nazi parts? Angry Christian (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Point Made

I haven't been here since thursday and it looks like armagedon has happened or something. I hope no one missed me. Anyways, I think an interesting point was archived earlier and I want to bring it back out, without reviving the argument it was made during. Michael Moore's movies all mention the controversies over them at the end. The bulk of this article is about the controversy. One or the other needs to be fixed to match each other. Please, people on both sides, don't make this have anything to do with science, or religion, the constitution, etc. Just discuss which one should be changed and how. Saksjn (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I will make this simple. Who cares what the articles about Michael Moore's movies do. We wrote this the way we wanted to, and have worked on it for months, and this is the result. So I don't think we need to change that. The only thing I would change is to clean up the text, which has become a mess through repeated attacks, but I am in no rush to do it.--Filll (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Saksjn! And I'm with you, the more we can focus on improving the article and the less debating here on the talk pages would be a welcome step in the right direction! Angry Christian (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Moore films generally receive more non-negative attention (I don't fully understand why). In that regard we have a Kent Hovind type problem; most of the coverage in independent sources is negative. Hopefully after the film is actually released we'll have enough content to consider switching to such a format. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Moore does get some bad press and is considered by many (including me) to be unreliable and biased. But on the whole the majority of the press for Moore is much more balanced. Hopefully some changes can be made after the post-release press sets in. Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New review

Lying for Jesus? - Richard Dawkins Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add the Dawkins review and Myer's daughter's review, even though they are WP:SPS since they are notable figures and therefore these are WP:RS for their views which should be included.--Filll (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawkin's comments seem relevant. It isn't completely obvious to me why PZ's daughter's review should matter much. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

if you do, please include Dawkin's remarks about an 'uniformed goon', a 'gauleiter', and his remarks about Stein's 'rotten acting' in Dachau. Stein is Jewish and maybe had a relative murdered by Nazis. Northfox (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read them?--Filll (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not when I wrote that comment. I'm reading them now. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Or trying to, link doesn't seem to be working. Whats the correct link? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It took me quite a few tries before I read Dawkin's review, which is pretty good. I had no trouble with Myer's daughter's review.--Filll (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what are the links you are using? The one Guettarda gave above doesnt seem to work. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The daughter is named Skatje Myers I gather: [24]--Filll (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I had already read PZ's daughter's blog and I'm inclined to agree that I don't see any obvious reason to include her commentary. She is not notable in her own right and her only claim would seem to be her relation to PZ and she attended the screening. Would we add the blog comments from one of the Crossroads Expelled producer's kids? I would hope not. I did find her comments well worth reading but I don't think her thoughts belong in the article. We'd open a very ugly can of worms if we did. Angry Christian (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Dawkins link I used. It was very hard to get it to work. I had to try over and over: [25]--Filll (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Front page of digg. Like so many other things that receive that distinction, the website collapsed under the strain. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Relata refero (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Inside Higher Ed has an article on the event, and has a couple more quotes from Mathis. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

John Lynch notes that all future showing appear to have been pulled. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another new review, this one is from New Scientist Are ID Proponents Being Silenced This one includes audience members telling people questioning things in the movie to "shut up" and a claim that many of the people posing "friendlier" questions to the producers were working the movie registration tables prior to the screening. Fascinating Angry Christian (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is impressed and is "literally shocked" by the "condescension and the arrogance" of the professors interviewed. Literally, huh? :) Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My favorite quote "they will readily admit that Darwinism and evolution do not explain how life began." Well of course they will readily admit it, that is a fact. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with life's origins. Note that evolution does not even attempt to explain the universe either. Yet another literal shocker! What amazes me is how ignorant of evolution (and science in general) most evolution critics are. Ben Stein is a perfect example. He's pissed because evolution doesn't explain the universe or how life started. Well duh. Angry Christian (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If evolution does not explain the origin of life, then what does it explain? Kookywolf (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See biology....... dave souza, talk 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of movie

Dawkins and several others have speculated that maybe the movie would be withdrawn, given its current rough state and the recent embarassment of expelling Myers. I think this is just wishful thinking. Pondering the situation, I have to say I disagree, for the following reasons:

• Dawkins, Skatje Myers, Moore and all those on the right that have viewed the movie report that the audience is tickled pink and guffaws and snickers throughout the movie. Dawkins did not like it, but that is what he reported.
• Dawkins gave up asking questions at the end of the movie because the audience response was so hostile.
• Many times, different cuts of the movie are shown to see what audience response is, and final decisions are made on this basis
• The Myers affair has boosted the visibility of the movie incredibly. Now even many "evolutionists" and atheists etc will want to see the movie to see what the fuss is about
• Even if the movie release is delayed again, this is quite common in the movie business
• Most of the target audience is going to buy Mathis' explanation, frankly. Look what else they have already bought. --Filll (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, Filll. Furthermore I think this is a purely preaching to the choir film so there's no doubt in my mind it will be released and with great fanfare. Angry Christian (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It rather depends on what you expect from the movie:

• Will it energise 'the base' of conservative evangelicals and get them out to vote in school board elections to support "poor persecuted Christians"? Most probably. But then, they would have needed very little convincing anyway. Spending the $3.5m budget on Icons of Evolution DVDs would probably have been a more effective way of achieving this. But I see little point in them withdrawing it, having already spent the money.
• Will it convince many moderate Christians? Most probably not, if the reported heavy-handedness of the propaganda tactics are in the least bit accurate, and particularly if the negative buzz it is generating with the mainstream media continues to increase.

I don't think this movie will change many people's positions, merely harden them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The big question for the filmmakers is, will they make their money back and make a profit? And I think that the signs are that they will. And the Myers event makes it more likely I suspect, not less likely (particularly as I monitor the traffic to this article page on the internet).--Filll (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? The film was almost-certainly underwritten by big-pocketed ID supporters, and the pay-schools-to-make-their-pupils-go scheme indicates that they have little interest in turning a profit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how widespread this speculation is. I think it is something we should watch and maybe see if eventually we cover it in the article.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The film makers wanted the film to become controversial. If it did, people would see it just to see what the whole big deal was. The more people that see it... the more money the film makes and the more people are exposed to it's opinions. Am I correct in saying that we are all probably going to see it the first day it comes out? Saksjn (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I probably won't. I appreciate good films, and I am not particularly convinced this would be classified as a "good film". But I have been pretty bored with most films like this, including Michael Moore's. They alternately bore me and anger me with their POV pushing and agendas.--Filll (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Without question I will not see it in a theatre and instead will wait and borrow a DVD or get one from a library. I do not financially reward one sided propaganda movies like this or others in a similar vein. Loan me your copy of a Michael Moore or Ben Stein movie and I'll watch it but I'm not going to financially reward propaganda. Opening weekend is a good prediction of how well a movie will do so the producers are putting alot of emphasis on the opening. I suspect this movie will go to DVD very quickly. Angry Christian (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We can hope.--Filll (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hello y'all, it's STILL not a general discussion forum for the subject of the article, m'kay? Anyone remember the basic guiding rules of Wikipedia? Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Dolewhite (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read about its potential relevance above. And people are allowed to have a couple of offtopic asides, are they not?--Filll (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

question/suggestion

In the People Presented in the Film section, would it enhance the readability if we either bolded each individual's names (Sternberg, et al) or even gave each person a sub-heading in that section? Angry Christian (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for sub-headings -- all the names are wikilinked, which tends to make bolding of them generally less effective. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We should add Michael Ruse.--Filll (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. I think it flows better now. I did not do a sub-header for PZ, et al. I think we need to add more content (not tons) and then add a sub-header for them. I don't have time at the moment to do that, perhaps someone could chip in. Angry Christian (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

what the producers left out

Interesting perspective at PT Allen MacNeill: Expelled from Expelled Seems Cornell routinely invites ID proponents to lecture there and he was interviwed for the film so they knew this yet this fact was left out. He also points out how many openly religious biologists such as Ken Miller (who is a Christian) were not included. Makes you scratch your head and wonder. In fact Cornell is doing exactly what the IDists are requesting - they give ID a platform to speak from at a major university and no one gets persectuted. Why did the producers of Crossroads Expelled keep this fact out of the movie? I think the Cornell snub is noteworthy. Angry Christian (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really surprising. Staying on-message is clearly more important than accuracy for them -- and such examples work against the message of Science-Departments-as-Orwellian-Atheist-indoctrination-camps. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice the Inside Higher Education article mentions a professor at a Christian college who published a book stating that you could reconcile evolution and a belief in God. After that, he was forbidden from teaching biology classes.--Filll (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This also dovetails nicely with my favorite example, Christine Comer.--Filll (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - the Richard Colling case had a lot of coverage - I'm surprised that we don't have an article on him. Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Grasshopper, try Richard G. Colling Correct? Angry Christian (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, given that we have a couple of articles that discuss cases which are the "opposite" of those presented in the movie, maybe we could have a section on them without being accused of engaging in WP:OR? The Cornell situation, Colling, and possibly Comer (I don't know of a source for that one yet that links in this movie, or maybe I do, I just have to dig it back up). Are there others? Since we are a major stop on the internet (3rd after the official film websites), and obviously visited now by thousands per day, if we highlighted this, it might result in some more balanced journalism, for example. Nothing like cataloguing this information and making it easily available to the great unwashed.--Filll (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

seem this on the expelled website?

I read this quote on a blog that said they got it from the expelled website. Anyone else seen this:

"In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany"

Angry Christian (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's here, in hidden text at the bottom. Use your mouse to sweep out the area below SPOILER!! and it should show up as reverse video. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah good. That is probably a better source than some of what we have been using (which start to make us look sort of ridiculous). We really need to have a careful exposition of this entire episode, with good sources, not blog entries talking about who might have emailed a blogger and what they might have claimed in a personal email to this blogger etc.--Filll (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar error

There's an error in the article: where it says "in with it's effort", it ought to be "in with it's effort". I'd fix it myself, but the article seems to be locked. Why is it locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Thanks, have fixed it. The lock protecting against edits by anons and very new accounts is sometimes needed to calm down vandalism. Hope it won't last too long, but good idea to get an account anyway ;) . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)