Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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)

A few new sources

Added a couple new sources - one from New Scientist, one from Inside Higher Ed which, in a mostly sympathetic review, quotes an e-mail from Mark Mathis that appears to clear up the PZ Myers situation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Slowly shaping up.--Filll (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

damn funny Angry Christian (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some background on the Expelled producers and such Angry Christian (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

student change of mind timeline

The student's first report came in sometime on Thursday, march 20, in the evening, see here. Myers 'liar and disgrace' comment was made on march 21, 1:59 AM, here. The students second statement was made on march 21, 12:52 PM, here, in comment no. 39. There, the student also refers to an email that Myers sent him (maybe to his blog?), but I was not able to find that students blog.

Thus the chronology of the events are clear, "After being called a 'A shameful liar and a disgrace to the university' by PZ myers on his blog pharyngula, the student subsequently stated that Myers "didn’t cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out."" is a correct assessment. The reader is kept in the dark why the student changed his statements without that additional sentence. Northfox (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTH - you have to actually demonstrate to correlation, not show that it was merely possible he saw a comment buried deep in the comments of a blog post. If he quotes the e-mail, and it is in the same vein, you MAY have a case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that this was the 573rd comment posted on this entry -- meaning that the chances that the student actually read down far enough to read it would be slim. Northfox appears determined to make a WP:POINT by giving WP:UNDUE weight to an off-the-cuff remark made after midnight near the end of a very long blog thread. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If I DO find Myers direct email to the student (the one he hints in comment No. 39), will my edit then be allowed to survive? I ask because it might be quite time consuming to search for this. Don't want to waste it. By the way, late at night is not an excuse for a off-the-cuff remark. I assume that Myers, never met him, is an intelligent person and that he stands by his words (or apologizes for them). Northfox (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm ... No! This would be an unpublished, and thus unreliable, source. It would also be against policy to publish the email here without Myers' permission. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

the there is no point in trying to. Northfox (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

With a bit of further digging, I notice that Overstreet himself reposted Myers comment to his own blog, presumably to make a martyr of Blessman, whose unfortunate flip-flopping on most of the major points on the issue has received wide attention on the blogosphere. Can we say "unreliable witness" people? The whole thing is a storm in a teacup, another part of a faux-persecution complex (cf 'War on Christmas', 'War on Easter', etc) used to justify persecution of others by the Religious Right. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The producer said he expelled PZ because he wanted him to pay $10 (and PZ had sai unkind things on his blog). He made no mention of PZ being out of control or hassling anyone. HE had PZ removed, not this man-child who made shit up about the event. Angry Christian (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, in the end, Blessman is a non-notable person who found himself accidentally involved in a media circus because his private and presumably exaggerated-to-make-a-better-story remarks served the purpose of one side. Mention him, don't name him, and let's avoid emphasising attacks on him unless they're relevant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

structural question

Would the article flow better if the "Claims Made" section preceeded the "People Presented in the Film" section. For some reason these seem backwards to me and it interupts the flow *to me*. I think giving the back story and then introducing the people would make it more readable. Angry Christian (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. .. dave souza, talk 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it a simple cut/copy/paste? Or does anyone with more experience than me want to volunteer to make the change? With my limited editing experience I'm paranoid I'll blow it up :-) Angry Christian (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well...Nothing blew up but the formatting might need some fine tuning. i think it flows much better though. Angry Christian (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Expelled from Expelled: Youtube on Dawkins interviewing Myers

Here. Seems to be an 'interview' in a hotel room after Myers was expelled and looks like a planned event; was shot from 2-3 different angles simultaneously. Dawkins fed some questions and Myers answered. One reason why future viewings of Expelled have been cancelled may be that Myers said in this Youtube video that he 'instructed' (his own words) people to sign up for future public viewings by the name PZ Myers. Organizers then might have pulled future film showing out of security reasons. Northfox (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd piece of baseless speculation. Following this line of thinking, all the Evil Atheist Conspiracy needs to do is to issue PZ Myers masks and conservative Evangelicals will abandon their homes and flee to the Bible-belt. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm planned event? As in non-spontanious? Sounds sinister. And your conjecture could be true Northfox, but I'm inclined to wonder if they pulled the plug on the private showings because they fear an impending attack by Nazi remnants who are pissed because Crossroads Expelled lables them as "Darwinists". The Nazis hated Darwin, burned and banned his books right along side the bible even (they were a grumpy bunch to be sure). They are very testy about being called "Darwinists". Anyhow thanks for the link. Angry Christian (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no evidence of planned action from far-right extremist groups. But we have a very prominent anti-IDer who instructs people to sign up under false names to attend (and maybe use the ensuing confusion to disturb) future showings. Reason enough for an organizer to take appropriate steps. Northfox (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense; all they'd need to do is to not let in any of the fake PZs, and they'd have a good reason to given that the people had signed up under false names (unlike with the real PZ). Alternatively, the could let them all in. Then what disruption could occur? As explanations go this is less than compelling. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that the Myers and Dawkins clip looks fairly professional, particularly with the camera angles. It does make me wonder why it looks so good. And it looks like it was shot within a day of the actual expulsion. What gives?--Filll (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Myers and Dawkins didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They've both been in the public eye, and it wouldn't be surprising that they knew how to find a camera crew at short notice (whether for hire or through media connections). So it wasn't necessarily planned in advance although it could have been. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, as they were both attending a major atheists convention, it is possible that they'd pre-planned an interview unrelated to the expulsion, and opportunistically made use of the crew to film a piece on it. Or the crew might have been at the convention for some other reason and just got roped in. Or ... There are numerous non-sinister scenarios. Or alternately the Evil Atheist Conspiracy turned their Orbital Mind-control Lasers on Mathis forcing him to expel Myers so that they could hold an interview that they pre-planned on that exact subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Dawkins and Myers had sinister motives. Interesting interpretation by Angry Christian and Hrafn. Just that it looked planned. Maybe there were planning to give their comments on Expelled after seeing it before running cameras anyway, and the expulsion came as a windfall. But the 'instructed' comment is quite revealing. Northfox (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And I never said that you said they did -- my "sinister" comment was in response to Filll's "make me wonder". What I in fact said that you did was make absurd speculations about the relationship between Myers' clearly tongue-in-cheek 'instruction' & the cancellation of previously planned previews. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

Hrafn, to quote you from above: Hmmm planned event? As in non-spontanious? Sounds sinister. that was not abut my comment? Anyway, I leave it at that. Northfox (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Northfox: learn to read! It was Angry Christian who said that, not me -- and even that did not accuse you of saying "that Dawkins and Myers had sinister motives", merely that it gave a sinister impression ("sounds sinister"). You are again exaggerating in an apparent attempt to make a martyr of yourself. Please leave your cross and your nails outside. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, Angry Christian, sorry to have made a mistake here and mixed up the authorship of your two posts. Northfox (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From what PZ said on his blog a couple days ago, I think they planned to do an interview/conversation well in advance, as part of Dawkins' visit to Minnesota. Guettarda (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have done that "instruction" bit myself. Sounds like a good way to sort of get even. I would have been fairly annoyed if I had gone out of my way to get to the mall and bring my friends and family and waited in line and then been threatened with an arrest. So I don't blame him at all for giving that "instruction", if it originated with him, or he was just passing on someone else's idea. Serves them right.--Filll (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Most interviews are planned, other than someone assaulting you with a microphone when you walk out your door. This is such a non-issue I can't believe we're discussing it. All the interviews in Crossroads Expelled were planned, they even claim the questions were submitted in advance. And get this not only did the producers plan the interviews, they used cameras and microphones to accomplish their task! Planning an interview is not news. And my "sounds sinister" comment was comedy. Sheesh. Angry Christian (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Northox, you opened this by saying "Seems to be an 'interview' in a hotel room after Myers was expelled and looks like a planned event; was shot from 2-3 different angles simultaneously." Yes, as has been said they no doubt planned an interview as part of the atheist conference, or were able to plan it quickly and engage a competent camera crew. Dawkins comments that Expelled is a "very, very, shoddy poor inartistic piece of work", and from the extract from the DVD the promoters have been handing out that's been available on the web, I have to agree. The cameraman keeps zooming in on Dawkins's nose, maybe trying to imply something but it just looks incompetent.

You then speculated that "One reason why future viewings of Expelled have been cancelled may be that Myers said in this Youtube video that he 'instructed' (his own words) people to sign up for future public viewings by the name PZ Myers. Organizers then might have pulled future film showing out of security reasons." Eh, not exactly. That's how rumours get started, and I'm sure quote mining wasn't intended. From watching the interview on YouTube (it's been posted on Dawkins's site and is available as a download) here's my transcript –

Richard Dawkins "Nobody had a ticket, it's not a ticketed affair. Anybody could go on the web and reserve a place. for themselves and guests."

PZ "There was nothing secretive about it, nothing that was hidden away. you didn't need a password, anybody could have done this. And apparently there are shows going on around the country where you can still do this, you can still reserve seats. And I've sort of instructed lots of people, go sign up for them. And actually on my blog there's several commentators, in which the kind of little movement going on, they're going to sign up PZ Myers for every single [show? obscured by laughter]"

That ties in with my recollection of reading others proposing the "Spartacus" style signing on as PZ Myers as a joke. The "sort of instructed" would probably have been better and more accurately phrased as "suggested", since it's doubtful if anyone's going to take "instructions" from PZ. However amidst the amusement many were taking the hint to try to go to a free viewing, and were discussing it well before this showing as I recall. As a source in the article shows, at least one Christian website was openly suggesting that people go, and giving the link to the booking page. That page offers free private movie screenings, but what "private" means is left vague. If the organizers were competent, they had names of those booking the ticket, and people were going to have to show their ID, so they could have emailed back questions rather than waiting until PZ turned up. At least one atheist has blogged about getting a booking confirmed, but then being disappointed to receive email notice that the showing had been cancelled. No doubt they've either given up on these showings of a half-finished piece of work, or have introduced the sort of private and secure procedure they sort of intended in the first place, but didn't set up in a competent way. Web pages on the internet without a sign in procedure are not private. .. dave souza, talk 19:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for the transcript. Okay, someone on his blog mentioned that they should all sign up as PZ Myers, it wasn't PZ himself. I am corrected, which is a good thing. Good too, that I only mentioned this here on the talk and not in the main article. But that's what talk pages are for (among other things). But it seems to me that Myers liked (and endorsed?) that idea. Anyway, I was wrong on that part, and your time-consuming transcript showed that. Thanks also for assuming good faith, and that I wasn't quotemining. Northfox (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's easy to remember something inaccurately, I find it best to try to transcribe the words, then listen again and make corrections, then check again. For example, I typed "kind of" then had to correct it to "sort of". Myers and Dawkins obviously enjoyed the joke immensely, but the idea of multiple registrations as "PZ Myers" was never really a serious way of trying to see the film, a protest gesture at most. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If this isn't a near-finished version, given it was originally to release in February, one has to ask what's going on. One would think it'd take at least some time to get the distribution sorted if they want to open on the proposed date.

Not that it's likely to matter - any film that's offering schools money above the cost of a ticket to go and see it probably isn't intended to make a huge profit. Anyone know who's bankrolling this? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have the famous student's statement that Mathis said that the music might be changed when they've sorted out permissions and that it was a rough cut, explaining awkward jumps and shaky bits. One blog suggested it was shown from a computer rather than a film projector. However some early viewers thought it was wonderful, but then they were pastors rather than film critics. .. dave souza, talk 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

One reason for the delay might have been the need to make their own version of the Harvard/XVIVO film[1] Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Which looks like plagiarizm, and it's touch and go whether or not it's a copyright violation. IIRC Mathis or another spokesman claimed you can't copyright cell structures, but Olorin in the comments on that article makes the point "Whether or not a purported copy infringes the copyright on the original work depends upon whether the copy uses the same “expression” as the original.... . If the “overall impression” of the viewer is the same, there is at least a chance that the copy infringes. The error that an irregular motion is presented as smooth in both the original and the copy is, I think, significant as to whether the expression is the same. A legal opinion would of course require a detailed review of the entire work." .. dave souza, talk 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ID, Kitzmiller part II

The only other documentary about ID that I've seen is the Nova special Judgement Day:Intelligent Design On Trial You can watch the entire episode online and also read all sorts of interviews including one by the grandfather of ID and also from the producer. Should a link to the actual documentary be included in the links in this article? Both documentaries cover similar territory. Angry Christian (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, we should provide a link to Flock of Dodos, yes? Angry Christian (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Those sound like reasonable "see alsos" to me. Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Or should we have some sort of category to link all these and other movies and videos together?--Filll (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think see alsos is a good idea. Angry Christian (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No harm in providing sub-sections (e.g. one for related movies & videos) to the see-also section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with augmenting the "see also" section, but I propose we create a category for "Films about intelligent design".--Filll (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and I think we should limit the links there to films that are neutral in that they do not have a dog in the fight and/or are not promoting one side or the other (even though Crossroads Expelled is clearly not neutral). Angry Christian (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What would that mean in practice, though? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My intent was that we avoid making it a link farm to any video and instead limit it to the most relevant ones. Does that seem like a reasonable objective or am I dreaming? Angry Christian (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And by most relevant ones (and neutral) I meant to not list every creationist or evolution related video our there. Angry Christian (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a "see also", so it's a judgment call as to what are the most relevant links. A Flock of Dodos and Judgment Day are different perspectives on a similar matter. Pro-ID films that are widely distributed and deal with similar content should also be considered, but I can't think of any that have this sort of societal focus. Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of video can anyone hear what Logan Craft is saying in this "Cooporation of Chruch and State" lecture? I can't hear a dang thing. Is the audio missing or? Angry Christian (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC) I suppose a link would help - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1651486868728911791

It is very low but I can hear fine when I turn up my speakers. talk —Preceding comment was added at 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I need new speakers. He is some sort of ordained reverend/priest in addition to being a producer of this film it seems. He also hosts some "Church and State" cable show in New Mexico. Angry Christian (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>The sound is very low, but I listened to about half of it. It was very boring so I did not pay much attention to it.--Filll (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming To A Theater Near YOU!

Where Crossroads Expelled is scheduled to play You'll see 10 random locations until you put in your own city or zip code. It's showing at 3 locations in my city (a population of several million). Angry Christian (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's playing at 14 theaters in Alabama (Population: 4.4 million), but not a single one in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland (combined population: 26+ million). I find this greatly amusing. Raul654 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Playing at 56 theaters in Texas (population 24 million or so). Angry Christian (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But how many are one-day-wonder showings arranged by church groups following the instructions the site helpfully provides? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Preaching to the quire are we... 128.148.5.39 (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've got reams of useful sermons ;) . . dave souza, talk 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Clever play on words Dave. =) Saksjn (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

"As a whole, Moore judged that the movie "makes good points about academic freedom and the ways unpopular ideas are shouted down in academia, the press and the culture", but "not offering evidence to back your side, where the burden of proof lies, makes the movie every bit as meaningful and silly as that transcendental metaphysical hooey of a couple of years back, What the Bleep Do We Know?".[62]"

We quote this, however, that first part is about the only positive line in a lengthy review - it seems to rather misrepresent the review's thrust to cut that bit out to emphasise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate, I'm not sure what you're saying. Angry Christian (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, , we're quoting the only positive sentence Moore says in his review, then following it with the sentence that follows, which is hardly the most negative. It seems like quote-mining in order to be able to say something good about it, and giving equal or better weight to the lone positive sentence while ignoring most of the negative comments. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Marks and William Dembski

Northfox just made a great improvement to the Robert Marks section. We should probably add a bit more about the infomatics web site controversy and also split William Dembski off from Robert Marks. Chronologically the controversies at Baylor began with Dembski so I think his section should preceed Marks'. Of course we'll need to create Dembski's section too. Anyhow... Angry Christian (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New Scientist editor on 'Expelled'

I shot my hand up to ask a question. "The intelligent design movement has gone to great lengths to argue that intelligent design is not religion, that it's science. And you made a whole film arguing that it is religious. How do they react to that?"

"Well," Mathis said, "I guess it makes them a little uncomfortable."

...

He began calling on others in the crowd, who asked friendlier questions. But Maggie and I quickly realised that we'd seen some of these people before - earlier that evening, in fact, working at the movie's registration table. These friendly audience members worked for the film? Had Mathis planted questioners?

...

When Mathis was responding, the guy asked another question, and the producer shot back, "How about you let me finish talking?" Then, a security guard for the film approached the calmly seated man and told him, "I may have to ask you to leave."

"Does anyone else see how ironic this is?" the guy asked.

"Shut up!" someone shouted from the back.

...

I said that the film spent a lot of time making the point that proponents of evolution can't explain how life arose from non-life, and asked how intelligent design explains it.

It doesn't, he acknowledged. "Then don't you think it's strange that you tried to pin that on the scientists?" I asked.

"Well, it's a real hole in their theory," he said.

"Actually, it's not - the theory of evolution never purported to touch on the issue of how life arose from non-life, it's about how species arose from other species."

I said that in science, criticising someone else's theory doesn't make your theory right, and that the film never bothers to say how intelligent design explains anything at all. He countered that intelligent design says there are things that are too complex to be explained by natural selection.

I asked how ID explains the complexity, but he said, "I don't have time for this," and walked away.

Throughout the entire experience, Maggie and I couldn't help feeling that the polarised audience in the theater was a sort of microcosm of America, and let me tell you - it's a scary place. I also couldn't help thinking that the intelligent design folks aren't being silenced, so much as they're being silent. Because when it comes to actually explaining anything, they've got nothing to say.[2]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The second quote WAS mentioned in the article for a while, but someone removed it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Might have been me who deleted it, someone added the same material in either the review or screening section and I then removed it from the other (they did not realize they were adding duplicate material). That said I think this entire review/experience should be in the article and we should use box quotes. It should stand out on its own. Angry Christian (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, this seems to be about an unspecified hearing, so would make a useful expansion of the Screenings section introduction. There's also a need to incorporate Darwin's review of the film itself,[3] the reference also covers PZ's expulsion, and a more detailed review of the film itself is online at "'Expelled Overview' by Josh Timonen, RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net". Retrieved 2008-03-26.. Sorry I'll be short of time for a while, hope someone can get all this incorporated. .. dave souza, talk 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Who let Zombie Darwin into the film? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Shhh no one is sposed to know Darwin attended a screening. Anyhow, what section do we want to include the New Scientist review? And how best to incorporate it? Angry Christian (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooops! More haste, worse spelling :-/ Actually, if you read Timonen's review, Darwin features as a statue, lit to look like Darth Vader, looming over poor wee Stein. .. dave souza, talk 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Given Stein's ethnicity, one could make all sorts of politically-incorrect jokes about his severe addiction to ham. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I will point out that according to that summary of the film, Kitzmiller is discussed in the film.--Filll (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph

[I've numbered the sentences for convenience]

"1The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, a form of creationism. 2The Discovery Institute which is the hub of the intelligent design movement, claims that it is a serious scientific research approach, and not creationism. 3However, Stein claims that the film presents evidence that scientists do not have the freedom to work within the framework of believing there is a God. 4What a reviewer describes as four or five examples of ordinary academic back-biting are presented in the film. 5It alleges that they are evidence of widespread persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, and of a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. 6Promotion 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."

This is bordering on the incoherent. This paragraph has no central idea, the first two sentences only serve to contradict each other without adding information, the third sentence is unclear as to the point - I know the point is that God = creationism. BUT WE HAVE TO SPELL THAT OUT. The fourth sentence is similarly undeveloped, since it comes out of nowhere, the situation it refers to hasn't been mentioned yet. Sentence five tries to correct this, but in a cackhanded way. Sentence 6 has pretty much the same problems as the others. We know about ID. Others don't. Stop assuming they do, and explain the chains of logic and background. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not find that hard to believe. I have watched what was a reasonably tightly argued discussion a few months ago slowly descend into more and more confusion under the force of frantic edits from all sides. Since I have rewritten this article completely at least twice, I am not really anxious to do it again, only to watch it suffer the same fate. The problem is, people are too excited about the upcoming movie and too much new news is appearing for it to be left alone. It is also not an important enough article to get the full weight of editing of the community like intelligent design. Let's face it; this movie probably will be a relative failure and will change few minds and will be forgotten a few months after it happened. I do not expect it to be a culture changing event like "An inconvenient truth".--Filll (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence was based on the NYT article about the film, but the reference to that got deleted last night. I've restored it, and have trimmed one of the Kitz references while deleting another one as it was part of a section of the ruling already cited. ... dave souza, talk 14:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to confuse matters but the lead has 4 paragraphs. 2 of those should probably go to the "Claims Made" section. That alone might clean some of this up. I had quite a bit of time yesterday but today I won't be able to do that much. Another thing I want to do is go through and eliminate all the duplicate points. Angry Christian (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing it, though I mst say that all those references make editing a huge headache. Isn't there some sort of editing thingie that lets you collapse refs? One would think that with all the other slick editing stuff they make, soomeone would make something really useful.... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More material

• blog with lots of links
• Feeding the Media Beast: An Easy Recipe for Great Publicity, Mark Mathis, Purdue University Press, 2002, ISBN 1557532478
• According to Mathis Media, Mathis is the "no spin doctor".
• EXPELLED Controversy Top Issue in Blogosphere, Premise Media Press Release, March 25, 2008

--Filll (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to fold some of this in. Not too elegantly I am afraid.--Filll (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"it is generally considered such by scientists and researchers of the phenomenon"

I've added a citation request for this assertion, but I'd also like to know what "phenomenon" it is referring to. There's nothing in the text of the introduction up to that point about a "phenomenon." NCdave (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

...Um... Intelligent design itself? And there's about 5 references immefdiately following the sentence? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The only complaint I would have is the English needs a bit of work. But what do you expect with so many changes so quickly, and so much turmoil?--Filll (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't be referred to as a phenomenon. How could this be rewarded? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "the movement" instead of "the phenomenon"? --Ichneumon (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Theory?" NCdave (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

or "Hypothesis?" NCdave (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no ID hypothesis and we will not be calling it a theory anytime soon (it is not). I think we should go with something closer to this:

The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes. Intelligent design is considered creationism and/or pseudoscience by the scientific community. The Discovery Institute, which is the hub of the intelligent design movement, has always maintained intelligent design is a serious scientific research approach and insists it is not creationism. This issue was brought before a Federal court in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. The court found that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.".

I did not copy all the refs over, just looking for sentence structure and contect at this point. Angry Christian (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As the sentence currently stands, it is too long. Angry Christian, your version does use better form than the current version, though I don't think all that should be stated. But I think we should state it as movement for now, as Ichneumon suggested. And we should mention that the "scientists and researches" that are referred to are not those scientists and researchers who believe in ID. I would prefer to use the word theory late on.

Incidentally, does all this information (assertions of what is and isn't ID) should be included in the intro to the article. This article is about a movie, not about what who claims about the movie's topic. And the topic of the movie is not whether or not ID is creationism. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You know JBF, I have answered this ridiculous objection about 20 times already. Why do you not look for my comments about this above, or in the archives? This really is without merit for many reasons.-Filll (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're looking for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. HTH. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Institute was not a party, and did not file a brief, in Kitzmiller. The judge in Kitzmiller did not rule on any DI claims or arguments. NCdave (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The DI did not have to be a party to KvD for the court to rule on contentions that the DI had long and vocally made (particularly when they were placed front and centre before the court by expert testimony from two DI fellows and by a DI amicus brief). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The DI did file an Amicus brief in the Kitzmiller case. [4](sorry this is my first ever edit...no user account yet)192.112.2.60 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave half of the time wasting nonsense would be eliminated if you would familiarize yourself with the subject matter. Giving you Kitzmiller lessons here is a pain in the ass waste of our time. Please get educated or pick a topic for which you have at least a marginal understanding of. Have you even read Jone's entire ruling? Have you even read the testimony given by both sides? Have you even read all the briefs submitted to the court? Many if not most of us have taken the time to educate ourselves and your lack of knowledge has proven to be an obstacle here. It would be most helpful if you would take some time to familiarize yourself with Kitzmiller if you plan to make any more comments on the subject. Thank you for your cooporation Angry Christian (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This article should be about the film, not about Intelligent Design

Half of your references have nothing to do with the film. Pretty much all of your controversy has nothing to do with the film. You are arguing about Intelligent Design, not about the film. If you stuck to the subject of this article, you would have a fairly short, simple, non-controversial article. The ID article is naturally contoversial, you don't have to duplicate all of its arguments here. Go look at (e.g.) JFK (movie). It's about the movie with very little mention of the assassination and conspiracy theories. There are separate articles about those topics. The article about the JFK film sticks mostly to its subject: the film, not the assassination. Somebody earlier commented that you had to present the background. Well, you have more background than you have film. If the Automobile article had as much background, it would include long sections about the horse and buggy, or Roman chariots. If you want to put an end to your disputes, then try mediation or an RFC with the simple question: Should this article be about the film, or about Intelligent Design? Or perhaps, How much of this article should be background? Of course, if you enjoy arguing and you're not really interested in writing an encyclopedia article, then ignore my suggestion. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Contents list:

1 Claims presented in the film - about the film.

2 People presented in the film - about the film, plus further information about claims made in the film.

3 Claims that film producers misled interviewees - about the film.

4 Reviews - of the film.

5 Promotion - of the film.

6 Screenings - of the film.

7 See also - about ID, but that's the background for the film.

8 References - lots about ID and about the film, but we can't really dispense with the references (WP:V).

9 External links - all three are about the film.

General background information about ID without referencing the film is pretty much confined to the second sentence in paragraph 2 of the lead, 2 sentences in paragraph 3 of the lead, and pretty much all of paragraph 2 of "Claims presented in the film". Furthermore, "JFK" has a section on "Historical inaccuracies" which is apparently intended to play a similar role to the ID material presented here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The JFK movie was not intended to be factual or a documentary, but to present an alternative history as entertainment (and to make money). This film is a polemic disguised as a documentary. They are even offering to pay people to go to the movie, and suggesting that schools and parents force children to go to the movie. Do you see them doing that at the Harry Potter movies? The Shrek movies?

Obviously, this movie is a completely different kettle of fish. And so, you should not expect its article to be similar to the articles for other movies.

When I last checked a few weeks ago, not counting the footnotes, the article was about 90% about the movie and 10% about ID. Since then we have added more material on reviews about the movie and interviews with the producers of the movie about the content of the movie and a bit of controversy about the movie. Of course, the movie is about ID, as we know now from numerous sources (just do some reading). The movie does a singularly bad job of describing ID. In all our ID articles on WP, we do give background information about what ID is; just a sentence or two. If you want more, you have to go to intelligent design.

We do provide sources in the footnotes for this sentence or two as well. We do this because people who are creationists challenge us repeatedly to include these footnotes and sources otherwise. It has happened over and over, so that is what we do. If you challenge us, we provide sources. That is the name of the game here on controversial articles. If you do not like it, go to Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's my feeling that the article is too long, but that is the price we pay for having volunteers edit an article on a controversial topic while attempting to be inclusive. In a year or two, when secondary and tertiary sources have weighed in on the film, we can think about trimming the article. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this. People are too excited about this upcoming film at the moment, and we are getting new content too frequently to be able to make this a really first rate article, tightly argued and well worded. We do the best we can. Later, when the turmoil has died down, someone can clean up the article a bit.--Filll (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The film has not been released. When it is we'll obviously have much more to use but until then our reliable sources are limited. Come on people this is not rocket science. Also, keep in mind the details that have been published are not that helpful ("it made me cry" or "it's the dumbest thing I've ever seen"). And also note virtually everyone who has seen the movie describes it as an intelligent design movie. Please use some common sense Angry Christian (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

yet another example of editors who are clueless about this movie or clueless about what constitutes POV

The adjetive "controversial" was just removed by a misguided editor who claimed using "controversial was POV. Would you POV pushers get a clue. In their own press release the producers of Explelled call their movie "a controversial new satirical documentary" I for one am getting fed up with the complaints about the article being POV by people who seem to be ignorant about any of the subject matter. This must cease. Angry Christian (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion - the article uses quotation marks quite a bit - often to imply disagreement with the film or with critic's of the film's position. That really should be avoided as it does suggest a POV - to the casual reader it comes off as snarky. Quotes should only be used when quoting material directly. Note, the last is not WP policy but my opinion garnered from editing several 'contraversial' articles. Note the implication the quotes make? Implies that I, as the author, don't really believe the article referenced were contraversial. Good luck, you guys have a difficult job here, lots of passion on both sides.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying the quotation marks were POV or describing the movie as controversial was POV? The reason I ask is that you removed the word controversial and not just quotation marks. Angry Christian (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're under the mistaken impression that I removed the word 'controversial'. That wasn't me. The length of the talk page alone supports the fact that the movie's controversial.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake and apologies, Lepeu1999 Angry Christian (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit removed the quote around the word Persecution in the opening paragraph. The quotes implied the author of the article didn't believe the dissenting scientists were really persecuted which does push a POV. The statement without the quotes merely says the movie claims dissenting scientists were persecuted. Adding quotes to the word implies an opinion on the part of the author. --Lepeu1999 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And as far as your suggestion goes, that is a good idea. For example we should define what "Big Science" is according to Ben and company. Angry Christian (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes belong around "Big Science," because its a slang term from the movie. Persecution doesn't, because its not slang and putting wuotes arround it implies that the "Persecution", doesn't happen. Saksjn (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I one of the editors that you consider "clueless"; or are we getting along better now? Saksjn (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous revert

The paranoia surrounding this article is so thick it's choking the life out of it. Explain this trigger-happy revert if you don't mind. [5] The reference does say everything I put there. It does not verify this claim, "administration considered that it violated university policy forbidding professors from creating the impression that their personal views represent Baylor as an institution". No such policy is described or alluded to in the article. Thank you very much. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some paranoia here alright...grab a mirror and take a look. I'm not an editor at this article. I was reviewing Recent Changes and I saw that you had significantly altered text, but your Edit Summary read " tweak fixes to ref". This is so misleading that it borders on blatant dishonesty and could appear to be vandalism. Please be more careful in future to avoid further reverts of this type. Doc Tropics 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not about to "own" your error here. If you've actually consulted the reference, which I don't see evidence of yet, you'd have to acknowledge that my edit summary was perfectly legit, and while you rush this revert in order to make some weird complaint over an edit summary, you have also restored inaccurate content to the article. I'm restoring it to rights. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought DocTropic's edit was actually more informative and accurate. Looking at the sources given at the Robert Marks article migh help since this is covered in detail there. Angry Christian (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed look deeper "professor"....that ref you're working with isn't even marginally acceptable at Wikipedia...it requires a paid subscription in order to be viewed, a payment of US$40. I am forced to remove the useless thing and replace it with a "fact" tag. Doc Tropics 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The description of the Baylor web site is wholly inadequate and incomplete in my opinion. As a reader I am totally confused as to what the article is saying. I think we should not copy and paste but use what has been written here --> Evolutionar Informatics Lad web site controversy as a guide Angry Christian (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC) No sense in wasting energy re-inventing the wheel. Angry Christian (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)::::Look. There is a reference on that section. I didn't choose it. Some other editor did-it's been there a long, long time. I view the ref, it does not verify the claim which Angry Christian finds "more informative and accurate". It does verify that the university took the page down following complaints. And the university then required changes be made to put it back. Whether or not there existed some prior policy justifying the action is not in the reference. So let's not treat references like putty that conveniently say whatever we feel like they should say. The content claims attributed to a reference have to actually be included in the reference. I have to say - this argument that it isn't even "marginally acceptable" at wikipedia is one of the most bizarre I've heard here yet, especially given how much self-published sourcing are currently used here. While there is a guideline somewhere against linking to subscription content, there is no policy against using it as a source. Again--the linking wasn't me. All I did was repair the linking after I damaged it in my edit. The battles in here just get weirder and weirder. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian-the article section you link to above also makes the claim about some "policy", but it is attributed to the same source we're weirdly battling over now here. I'm telling you the source doesn't say anything about a policy. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and look into it deeper this evening, unless someone else has time to do so today. This is a fascinating subject that warrants good cites and sources. Angry Christian (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(after 3x Edit Conflicts) It seems likely that I have misinterpreted or misremembered policy regarding sub-only refs, therefore I've replaced the ref. However, having read through this para several times, I too find it very confusing and unclear. It would help significantly to provide further details about both the grant and the website, and a ref that average readers can make use of would be a nice touch too. Doc Tropics 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This link seems to provide more detail, no? http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=46756 Angry Christian (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=26372 www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1890231/posts Angry Christian (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Tropics's comment above, just because a the professor's link requires a paid subscription to be viewed doesn't make it unacceptable. Even books (that have to be bought or borrowed) are often used as references on Wikipedia. Just because the rest of us don't see something doesn't necessarily mean it's unacceptable. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's confusing. Some basics are left out, including the point that in the film Marks will (I presume) allege that a) Baylor forced a return of the grant money because it related to ID and b) Baylor pulled down Marks' EIL content because it related to ID. The Marks' section hovers apart from the article now like a non sequitur. Since the film is a documentary about a supposed lack of academic freedom when it comes to ID, then the article here needs say what role Marks and the website flap have in this film. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mention of cast needs editing

Under the section "People presented in the film", it should be mentioned that part of people interview were mislead the first time their name is mentioned. The way the current section is written:

"It also includes interviews with scientists who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, such as biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, historian of science Michael Shermer and anthropologist Eugenie Scott."

Implies that all of the people listed wanted their names associated with this movie. There is a criticism section, but it's not enough. This isn't a factual criticism about the movie, it's a direct complaint about it's production and the way the movie tricked people into being interviewed for it. Otherwise it appears to be an endorsement.--165.91.172.120 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. One idea is to give each person their own sub-header like we've done for the IDists and go into specific detail there. Angry Christian (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - it is a bit misleading the way it's currently phrased since it doesn't reflect the complaint that they felt that they were deceived. Maybe just a couple words to that effect and a (see [link to|section below])? Guettarda (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We should say that they felt decieved, and also include the producers explanation. Saksjn (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Work Guys

Good work on working out our differences guys. I don't feel like I'm fighting on this page anymore. Thanks guys! Saksjn (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! These kind of topics tend to run into a lot of problems - The Discovery Institute regularly directs people to Wikipedia for instance, and then there's people like the Genesis vandal, who creates twenty or so accounts, waits four days so that software no longer counts him or her as a new editor - then edit wars to replace the Evolution article with the first two chapters of Genesis, jumping to a new account as fast as one can be blocked. Basically, there's probably not as much good will around as there really should be, but it tends to calm down after a little bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to quickly clarify - it's not so much people coming here because the Discovery Institute sent them, it's getting large numbers of people with no knowledge of Wikipedia policy at the same time, being sent to one or two articles, and often being told by the person sending them that such-and-such is a problem, so they're all going to be trying to "fix" that, and, worse, as multiple people are getting sent at the same time, you can end up getting conflicts with established users who know about Wikipedia and so are trying to explain why sources are required, and what a good source is - you get the idea, Wikipedia stuff - but it only takes a couple people getting impatient with that and, since all these newbies are coming in groups, from places where they hold similar views, you end up with arguments between several newbies backing each other up, and experienced users a bit overwhelmed and possibly in the minority, trying to shout them down long enough to explain policy. Doesn't have to be Intelligent design, of course. All you need is newbies, enough controversy in a subject, and someone to send them to Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian on Expelled

A step to the right:

Comic actor and game show host Ben Stein isn't at all happy, according to the trailers for his spurious-looking new documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he berates in overheated, lachrymose and rhetorically manipulative ways the American academic establishment's reluctance to recognise intelligent design, the pseudoscientific, inbred second-cousin of biblical creationism, for which Expelled offers straightforward propaganda. Stein isn't making a political crossover here, just a formal one - from TV comedy, where his talents really lie, to political apologias, where his talents simply die. His deeply rightwing political opinions haven't shifted one iota since he was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon. (If you can believe it, Stein was once suspected of being Deep Throat.)

Given that kind of apprenticeship, amid the lying, wiretapping and campaign-trail double-dealing, you'd expect a dishonest documentary, and apparently, we've got one. From the parts I've seen - the first 10 minutes online - it seems to deploy all the loaded-dice arguments, the overdog's deep-seated sense of victimhood and conventional rightwing hysteria. Stein lambasts academe for dismissing the work of "ID scientists", even when they are bankrolled by the rancid likes of the Discovery Institute, a think-tank inseminated yearly with funds from California savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson Jr, who in 1985 told the Orange County Register: "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives." Man, I can't wait for that, Ben, the priests running everything and we live like it's Ireland in the 1940s. Par-tay!

Pithy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives." If that was the case we would ALL be in jail. Thank God for forgivness. Saksjn (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahmanson is only slightly delusional. It is so much in error it is hard to know what to say. Do we include that quote anyplace here? His biography? the Discovery Institute article?--Filll (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Already in the DI article. Relata refero (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"whose producers they allege presented themselves to the Discovery Institute as objective filmmakers and then portrayed the organization as religiously-motivated and anti-scientific"

This sounds like the Discovery Institute is not "religiously-motivated and anti-scientific" when clearly they are.

This should be changed to show the Discovery Institute is accurately described as "religiously-motivated and anti-scientific"

Just cause Stien says it doesn't mean its what the DI says. Saksjn (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

sub-headers

As you can see I have been trying to organize the information using sub-headers. There are still some sentences in each sub-header that should be moved to a more logical home. If you see one that does not belong please help and move it to where it should (and don't just delete). Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Promotion of Intelligent Design as an Alternative Scientific Theory to Evolution

I removed the blurb about what the DI says ID is because this section is dedicated to the claims made about ID by the producers of Expelled and not the DI. Angry Christian (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The producers are working very closely with the DI though, so I'm restoring it. Odd nature (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone here seen the movie yet?

I'm curious about how Dembski is included. Is his work with Marks the primary subject or do they also mention the Michael Polanyi Center debacle? Angry Christian (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sternberg section

Where in outside sorces does it say that Sternberg arranged that Meyer's paper appeared in his last issue? Also, as the article is now, it is not clear why Sternebrg should appear in the film. In what way was he expelled? needs a sentence and a reference. Northfox (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Try these links

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/331_id_paper_continues_to_attract__9_10_2004.asp

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000484.html

a quick word search shows that the word arranged does not appear in any of the three sources (NCSE is a quite non-neutral source anyway). Northfox (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And we won't know all of the details about the so-called persecution until the movie is released or someone writes about it in detail. Angry Christian (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been written about in detail, see the sources at Sternberg peer review controversy. Odd nature (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, the OSC report you insist on mentioning is already covered in the Sternberg peer review controversy article. Furthermore, since the OSC report was a wholly partisan report by a conservative appointee (who was later caught up in ethics complaints), carried no weight of law or enforcement, and ultimately Sternberg was found to have no standing, your adding it here without any context the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Hence, I've removed it, if anyone wants to read it they can go to the controversy article where it's presented in a balanced manner in full context. Odd nature (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

as it stands now, the Sternberg section sound like he is in the film because that journal retracted a publication. Since the other parts of the article are detailed that is borders on obsession (ID is not science is mentioned countless times; Kitz ruling, etc), I wonder why what (allegedly) happened to Sternberg at Smithsonians is not covered at all. Quite unbalanced. Northfox (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

using Odd Nature's reasoning, the film critique could be a much shorter article on wikipedia. all the stuff about ID, Kitzmiller, etc can be read at their respective articles. So?? Why not cut the 'expelled' article down to the essentials?? Northfox (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Northfox I suspect all the "persecuted" folks' sections will bloom once we have seen the movie. And I'll let Odd Nature speak for himself but I don't think he removed your edit for reasons of economy. Keep in min Sternberg was not ever a Smithsonian employee so he had no standing, he had and still has a unpaid/volunteer position there. Also, I'm guessing your new to this article but Stein is advoicating intelligent design as a scientific theory equal/superior to evolution and insists it should be taught along side evolution. That demands we discuss intelligent design. Because Stein advocates teaching intelligent design in public science class we cannot exclude Kitzmiller. Angry Christian (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, we could significantly trim the article size by removing duplicate information and looking for opportunies to reword sentences to say more with much less. There is an awful lot of fluff and clumsy writing. Angry Christian (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

see also

Since Stein and company are championing the notion of having ID taught in public science class I added several links to various relevant court cases over the last 50 years or so. This evolution vs creationism, creation science, intelligent design is obviously not new. Angry Christian (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful. We do not want a link farm.--Filll (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's law reference

Surely this is not particularly encyclopedic in this case. It does not even match the parameters set forth in Godwin's law. This story about Darwinism or evolution being associated with Hitler and the Holocaust is old news. Before Hitler, they blamed the Kaiser and World War I on Darwinism and evolution.--Filll (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're blaming the wrong scientists. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

well, the entire article isn't exactly a showpiece of encyclopedicity. Some losers are in the process of making a movie, and the blogosphere commented on it. End of transmission.

Did you see the Richard Dawkins Rap btw? It's hilarious. It really has you wondering which "side" is responsible for a minute, and it is getting a lot of creationist appreciation in the comments section :) dab (𒁳) 17:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw. But did you see the Dembski fart video? Now that says it all about these jokers. What fools...--Filll (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

hm, I had to google for it. That definitely fits better to the level of humour the ID people would be capable of producing. dab (𒁳) 17:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Conference call

This is amusing. Guettarda (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This "chick" recorded it all here Angry Christian (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Did we include this? We should--Filll (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Added both.--Filll (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the press release that describes the press conference upcoming: [6]--Filll (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In case this disappears, here is the material:

Ben Stein’s Controversial Film “Expelled” Tops the Blogosphere March 26, 2008

NewsLI.com

(Long Island, N.Y.) Forget Britney, Obama’s pastor and J-Lo’s twins: According to Technoranati’s BlogPulse which surveys the hottest topics and sites in the world of blogs, a site featuring Ben Stein’s controverisial new film Expelled is the #1 blog on the net.

The web traffic spiked when P.Z. Meyers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, attempted to sneak into a private, invitation-only screening of Ben Stein’s highly controversial upcoming movie, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed (www.expelledthemovie.com). But Myers, who is an outspoken atheist and author of the science blog “Pharyngula” got caught and has used his blog to bitterly complain about not being allowed to see the film before its release.

Myers, who was interviewed in Expelled, has apparently been asking supporters to sneak into the private screenings which are being conducted by marketing company Motive Entertainment (www.motivemarketing.biz; which handled grassroots marketing for blockbusters The Passion of the Christ and Chronicles of Narnia) for various leaders as part of the grass roots marketing of the film.

When confronted at the screening by Myers’ friend Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist who is himself featured in the film, as to why Myers was “expelled” from the screening, producer Mark Mathis replied that the producers were eager for Myers to screen the film but only after he had paid $10 to watch it with the rest of America after it releases on April 18th.

Mathis saw rich irony in Myers’ discontent with being “expelled” from Expelled: “It was amazing to see the reaction of Myers, Richard Dawkins and their friends when one of them wasn’t allowed to screen a film. Yet these men applaud the fact that throughout the nation, professors are fired from their jobs and permanently excluded from their profession for questioning Darwinism.”

“We can’t wait for all Americans, including our friend P.Z. Myers, to see the film when it opens on April 18th,” noted executive producer Logan Craft of Premise Media. “We’ll even throw in some free popcorn for P.Z. if he’ll tell us which theater he’ll be attending.”

”I hope PZ’s experience has helped him see the light. He’s distraught because he could not see a movie,” noted Mathis. “What if he wasn’t allowed to teach on a college campus or was denied tenure? Maybe he’ll think twice before he starts demanding more professors be blacklisted and expelled simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin’s theory.”

Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed opens nationwide on April 18th. Learn more at www.ExpelledTheMovie.com and www.GetExpelled.com.

Join Ben Stein and the Expelled producers LIVE on Friday, March 28 at 1:00 pm Pacific Time on a virtual press conference by dialing (number TBD).

Posted by News LI Editor · Edited by C. Cuizon - Filed Under Society

From [7]

It might also be visible at [8].--Filll (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not. it appears webcite is not working on this one.--Filll (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to capture that page and keep an image of it before it disappears, that might be useful. I am not quite sure how.--Filll (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Expelled blog had no new posts between 18 February & 25 March, I think these claims are overblown. The topic might have been hot, but I doubt if very many bothered to track down this semi-moribund blog to read about it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

According to BlogPulse, the hottest blog post on the subject of "Expelled" is (or was when I checked it) Lassen County Primer on Ben Stein’s Expelled #6: Creating a Nazi Link with Nazi Propaganda, featuring one of a number of Stein-parody images that have been doing the rounds. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Strike that, I just noticed that the 'search' facility orders chronologically, not by impact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Did some further scratching around, and could find no mention of 'Expelled' (on any site) on Blogpulse's Top Blog Posts page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Um if you read what they wrote carefully, they did not say their blog was the number 1 blog on the net. They were talking about PZ Myer's blog.--Filll (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually on closer examination they don't mention what the site is, all they say is "a site featuring Ben Stein’s controverisial new film Expelled is the #1 blog on the net." They then, in the next paragraph, mention PZ Myers as the touchpaper that set all this off, and mention that he's a blogger, but they don't say that it is his blog they were talking about. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A little bit of investigation and thought will show that is exactly what they are talking about.--Filll (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming. But maybe I can find some. Let's see. --Filll (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I had an invite to the conferance (email). I wonder if they'll claim PZ was not invited. Looks like anyone who had signed up for their upodates was invited. I can copy and paste the whole thing here if anyone wants to see it. Angry Christian (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This article at PZ's blog links to an Alexa graph that shows the Expelled blog hardly gets any traffic at all Angry Christian (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But they still are more highly ranked than us. Hmm...--Filll (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"But they still are more highly ranked than us. Hmm" What? Angry Christian (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In most search engines I check, our article is ranked as number 3, behind 2 of the film company's websites for Expelled.-Filll (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In simple terms Alexa has little to do with search engine relevance and everything to do with the amound of visitors who go to a site. Search engine relevance (ranking via a search) has nothing to do with the amount of visitors who frequent a website and everything to do with how the site is laid out and especially how many quality incoming linkes the site has and the quality of the content. A website called "exp[elled" will typically always show up first in any search,m assuming they have relevant content. Angry Christian (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics Guide

This week's interviewee is Genie Scott who drops all kinds of "bombshells" about the making of the film. She outlines a lot of "suggestive" evidence which points to deliberate public deception about the film. Things such as the films listed as produced by "Rampant" weren't listed in IMDB, that the domain name for the "Expelled:" version of the film was registered before the producers approached Scott and other evolution supporters for interviews, etc. [9] - I don't have the time now myself to work with it, but this is a good source for some interesting claims about the making of the film itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Any idea if a transcript will be available? Angry Christian (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The domain name issue is discussed here. There's also a link there to the Bad Idea blog that covered several reasons to believe that "Crossroads"/"Expelled" production operated on a less than completely honest basis. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

kick back scheme

Looks like they have made some changes to their kick back scheme. Go here for more. Angry Christian (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow this is sad

Two morons getting stupider and stupider, talking to each other:[10] Preacher RC Sproul interviewing Stein about this movie. If I was to critique this, every second or two I would stop them and write 20 pages on another idiotic statement one or the other has made. My god these morons have no idea what they are talking about. --Filll (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If I follow the logic of these two, I should be allowed to go to a store, and purchase a 3 dollar item and a 5 dollar item, and then demand that because of free speech, the price of my total bill is 2 dollars. And if the clerk disagrees, I should be allowed to call for the police to have the clerk put in prison for saying my bill is 8 dollars since she is violating my constitutional right to free speech.--Filll (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat Robertson interview

[11] with Stein. Stein calls both the Germans and the Danes "master races". Stein says the problem with Darwnism is it does not explain how gravity keeps the planets where they are or the laws of thermodynamics. Stein claims no one has ever observed the evolution of a new species or has even seen fossil evidence of the evolution of a new species! What the heck??? He also claims many dozens of scientists have lost their jobs and grants and been humiliated for not believing in Darwinism. He claims that if you had a Ford Foundation grant and said you did not know how the planets stayed in their orbits or how light beams began, you would be fired. He says that Darwin did not mention astronomy or physics, so that any scientist who points that out should not be fired. It just goes on and on, one assinine comment after another.--Filll (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stein/AFA interviews

Here is a transcript of some interviews Stein did with the American Family Association. May be a useful source for settling arguments as to the movie's purpose etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason Myers Expelled

Supposedly because he had placed bootlegged film footage [12] on his website:[13] --Filll (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that directly contradictory to all previous explanations? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--Filll (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty good compilation of the various contradictory reasons that have been given for PZ's expulsion. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

funny Angry Christian (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Length of talkpage

The talkpage is now 360k, which is way too long. Would it be worthwhile putting it onto bot-autoarchive for a while until things cool down? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It used to be in that mode. Also, we need some tweaking to the archives because one is full.--Filll (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot seems to have been doing something really strange -- archiving to both /Archive 1 (see history) and /Archive 2 (see history) at the same time. I have manually incremented the counter (up to 2), so hopefully it may start to function normally (and only archive to Archive 2), but have no idea what was causing this bizarre behaviour. We should also consider decreasing the archive-age down from 14d to 7d until things cool down. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think 14d is already awfully short.

360k is not particularly large, unless you are using dial-up. It pops right up for me. As an experiment, for comparison, I just saved the MSNBC main page, and the result was 96 files totaling 676,560 bytes, and many of the files were incompressible picture files.

Oddly enough, when I did the same thing with this Talk page, it was about the same size - in fact, slightly larger. So I'm not sure how the displayed page sizes are calculated. Perhaps they take into account an expected level of compression. However, when I pkzip'd (compressed) both folders (the one for MSDN and the one for this Talk page), the compressed MSDN files totaled 318,009 bytes, and the compressed Talk page files (mostly one big file) totaled only 200,936 bytes.

So I don't see a problem with the size of this Talk page. It would have to be ~50% bigger to be as slow to load as the main MSDN page. NCdave (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh review

I just heard the Rush Limbaugh review. Amazing. Rush says it is an extremely good and powerful film. Rush says that Darwinism does not allow anyone to believe in God. Rush states that our greatness as a nation comes because our country, and in particular Republicans, know creation produced a desire in men for freedom. Rush states that Barack Obama is not someone who knows this. That is, he manages to confuse the current US presidential race, creationism, evolution, atheism, intelligent design, the constitution of the United States, and freedom into a mess, and spew it all out in a pandering review in just a few seconds.--Filll (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats the most well written example of soapboxing ive heard in a long time, thanks Fill. but it has now place on a wikipedia article Rubico (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an article, this is a talk page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

it also excellently drives home the point that by "creation" they mean "creation of America", and that "ID" has no application outside the borders of the US. This is a topic of US American sociology beginning to end, it has nothing to do with theology, theism, atheism, biology, reason, academia or "intelligence" but exclusively with the nervous state of US American society towards the later 2000s. dab (𒁳) 08:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI

As you can see the creationists attempt to link Darwin and Hitler via a propaganda film is not new. It will be interesting to see what the ADL has to say about Stein's film. Angry Christian (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

this topic should be discussed in context somewhere, at Creationism and Social Darwinism or similar. It cannot be the point of this article to rehash this. In fact, this entire movie appears to be just a rather lame footnote to the topic. I am sure we can give a more encyclopedic discussion if we're not trying to keep up with last minute developments in the blogosphere at the same time. dab (𒁳) 16:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrative action and NCdave

I personally am fed up with NCdave's ongoing campaign to disrupt the article. He continues to slap the POV tag after he has been told over and over to knock it off. His only complaint seems to be he personally does not like the article. I think administratiove action is warranted. Angry Christian (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What a joke! The article IS POV, deny it all you want. From the needless quotes around "persecuted" (which is clearly there to demean the claim, since the sentence already clearly states that it is a claim, not a fact) to the needless "background" that overwhelms any material actually relating to the subject of the page, to the blatant disregard for Wiki standards shown by the coffee clatch of culture warriors discussing the subject of the film rather than the film itself on the edit page, this whole thing is a joke. The page has been hijacked by people who are actively trying to prove Conservapedia correct by setting itself up as the exact opposite, and loaded with the same degree of intellectual dishonesty all the while.

The page is a POV waste of space. I came here to read about THE FILM, not the debate that stands behind the film, and this page is absolutely useless for anyone actually trying to learn about the film. The writers have decided that if you should dare come here, you run too much of a risk of falling victim to the foul plans of the DI, and they need to put a great bulwark in place to make sure you don't make it all the way to the article without having been thoroughly schooled in the vast right-wing conspiracy to turn the nation into a theocracy. Oh noes!

Yes, it's POV as all get-out. I don't bother complaining about that, though because that's the least of the article's problems. It's totally illegible, meaningless, and a complete tangent from the start. With such a colossal waste of time, who really cares if it's POV anymore? Dolewhite (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dolewhite wrote, "the same degree of intellectual dishonesty". That's a pretty serious charge, you might want to consider either substantiating it, with specific examples and support, or backing off from it. Meanwhile, I'm unclear on why you should be upset to find discussion of a controversy on the page about a film that seeks to initiate discussion of a controversy. It's what the film is about, so naturally the WP page on it should touch upon the film's subject and aims. --Ichneumon (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well thanks for your comments. Have a nice day! --Filll (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning Raul654 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pray tell, on what grounds does tagging an article so highly disputed as this as NPOV warrant such action? I'm really, really starting to buy into the persecution theory of the film. You guys are incredible. Dolewhite (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well no valid reason for tagging it has been presented. If someone wanted to claim the English sucked in it, that I would agree with however (do we have a tag for bad English? I think we probably do). But while it is being changed so often and under attack, it is a bit difficult to clean up the language in it I am afraid.--Filll (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, pretty much every review discusses the debate behind the fgilm's premises. Wikipedia summarises reliable sources to create its articles, hence the debate, which appears in pretty much evry review, has to be included. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia, or is this a movie review? Dolewhite (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't block NCdave. It seems that the POV issue is still under dispute, as there appear to be multiple users who believe that. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

People who believe our article should be a carbon copy of the Conservapedia article on the film are always going to claim we have POV issues. We have explained repeatedly why we have to write our article the way it is written; because of our rules. Now you can either accept that and abide by our rules, or leave, or argue tendentiously and disruptively. And if you argue tendentiously and disruptively, it is likely that eventually you will receive some sort of administrative sanction.

The same is true at Conservapedia. I guarantee you that if I did not "toe the party line" at Conservapedia, they would block me incredibly quickly. So? What is your point?--Filll (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Call off your dogs, bro. I'm not claiming it *should* be a carbon copy of the Conservapedia article. I'm reflecting the view that Ice T once espoused: you can believe with some of what I say or most of what I say, but if you believe all of what I say or none of what I say, then only one of us is doing the thinking. This article in it's current form seems to be the exact antithesis of the Conservapedia article. It's not about the film, it's about what a completely stupid theory ID is and how ID is a mental poison that is trying to burn the Constitution and piss on its ashes. This article is becoming defined by the proponents of ID, as the opponents of ID work as hard as they can to ensure that the exact opposite viewpoint is solely expressed.

It looks to me like this whole thing is a clear violation of pillars 1, 2, and 4. It violates #1 by serving as a soapbox and collecting irrelevant, non-encyclopedic concatenations of factoids and opinions. It violates #2 by refusing to remain neutral and refusing to balance biased claims with counter-claims. And it violates #4 by turning into a completely petty collection of disputes. Here you are, trying to threaten me with administrative action when I've done absolutely nothing whatsoever to earn any such scorn. Comment ironique, non? Dolewhite (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that it seems to be a blatant lie that you suggest it's "because of our rules" that this is turning into a war. Look above. When I first asked the question, I got a bunch of claims that it was the other side that started it, or it was preemption because the other side would nit pick the matter. It has nothing to do with rules, and you've all admitted that point above. It has to do with blocking the dreaded "other side." You ignored professor marginalia's apt criticisms entirely. Dolewhite (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, are you suggesting that I should be blocked for not "toeing the party line" here at Wikipedia? NCdave (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul, on my user Talk page you asserted that you can block me because "The rules prohibit me from blocking someone I am currently in a dispute with. You do not qualify."

But we most certainly are in dispute here. You are actively involved with editing this article and talk page, and you have sided against me repeatedly. For example, you have reinserted material that I explicitly objected to, regarding the Establishment Clause. Perhaps you were unaware of my objection to that material, since Hrafn deleted the discussion from the Talk page, but you can read it in the diff.

Additionally, you reverted edits which were in agreement with my stated view that ID is not a form of creationism.

Additionally, you've made no secret of your disdain for the film, even to the point of expressing glee that it is playing in few theaters, and reverting other edits which were intended to make the article less unbalanced, and defending incivility on the Talk page.

You are not a neutral admin, Raul, so please recuse yourself.

Also, please do me the courtesy of <s>striking</s> your "warning" on my Talk page, and noting that it was a mistake, since it is embarrassing to have that sort of thing on my Talk page.

Nevertheless, if you are aware of any comments that I've made which are impolite or violate Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, I would be grateful if you would point them out to me. I do my best to apply the Golden Rule to my Wikipedia editing, but that doesn't mean that I never slip up, and I'd like to know about it when I do. NCdave (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a lot of tough talk and bluster and ranting, with very little content folks. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your stances before this gets ugly? I will not even bother to refute all the nonsense spewed here. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Raul654. Angry Christian (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCDave: your objections the Establishment Clause language was proven to be without merit (by the controlling SCOTUS precedent on the issue, no less -- which employed almost identical language), yet you continued to try to turn this talkpage into a WP:SOAPBOX for your WP:FRINGE views on the subject. You have offered no credible objections to this article's neutrality, nor any that that haven't been comprehensively rebutted. You therefore have no legitimate basis for a POV-template. You are the very model of a disruptive editor. I am frankly sick of your futile and pointless disruption. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't begin to express how much I agree. Your objections to the inclusion of Kitmiller was baseless and disruptive. Your constant POV tagging is baseless and disruptive and I'm still astonished you claim to know anything about ID while admitting you have no idea who Michael Behe is. Your arguing here on the talk page squelches those who are trying to make improvements to the article but no one can hear them over the nonsense you bring to the table. What exactly have you contributed to the article other than baseless claims on the talk page? Angry Christian (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Same story, different town. NCdave is engaging in precisely identical behavior on global warming-related articles. As an example, he has disputed the use of a term by the joint science academies of the major industrialized nations because it doesn't fit his interpretation of the dictionary definition of the word. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not do a good job of dealing with editors who have learned to play the WP:CIVIL game while engaging in tendentious editing that exhausts the patience of others. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article itself is an enormous soapbox. The whole intro focuses primarily on how incorrect ID and the DI are and very, very little on the actual FILM ITSELF. Can anyone point to where NCDave is trying to force a POV into the matter? And that's a serious question--this page has spun out of control, and I've read most of it, but not all of it. It seems to me that NCDave is trying to remove POV in good faith. However, a vocal group has decided that the best way to win the war against ID is to force the presumption that the fight is already over, and deny any possibility that open-mindedness should be considered neutral.

Look at the length of this page. Has anyone addressed the concerns raised by Professor Marginalia? Are we now smearing the good name of that man too by the presumption that he's a shill for the religious right? His comments are valid, and aren't in any way about trying to make this article carry a POV. Is there any chance remaining that people aiming for a fair discussion of the FILM will manage to stand forward and turn this into an encyclopedic article, rather than a long and tortuous rant against ID and the DI? Dolewhite (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since my name has been raised in this, let me chime in here. To be fair, it's important to re-iterate that the ball was put back in my court on these challenges (rightly so). I was asked to come back with specifics so others can better understand my concerns, and that was a fitting response to my challenges. If I could be quicker about it, my response would be done already. But as I cautioned earlier, I'm struggling to wrap my arms around this article because it is so all-over-the-place. I'm not focused only on NPOV-really, I'm focusing on sourcing now, because of overall intelligibility chiefly, but also OR and NPOV. NPOV follows good sourcing--editors have to determine weight to issues by objective review of the best sources.

I've seen too much time wasted at WP unnecessarily to let this opportunity for a PSA go by. Tags don't fix problems. Tags may draw attention to problems. However, if one finds they're edit warring to keep a tag, the attention quickly shifts from problems in articles to problems with an editor's behavior. These conflicts between editors can be the fault of POV pushers. They can also be the result of editors who can not understand each other. Editors who are here to push a POV need to find another website. But editors who are trying to understand how to communicate the subject in the most honest and direct way to readers need to listen as much as they need to talk. I'm just sayin'.....I have problems with the article. It's my job now to explain them better. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCDave appears to be attempting to defend Wikipedia from subversives who want to turn it into a propaganda vehicle. I heartily endorse his efforts. Until this article becomes something other than a long-winded rant against the viewpoints expressed by the movie, it should be tagged for NPOV. Aminorex (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Okay, let us look at the two versions here and discuss changes.

The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of what are portrayed as societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood, while failing to define or explain either evolution or its supposed alternative, intelligent design.[12] The evidence that this scientific theory is responsible for social problems does not exist.[15] Within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[16] and intelligent design is not considered to be valid science,[17][18][19] but is viewed as creationism.[20]

vs.

The film claims that the theory of evolution is responsible for a range of what are portrayed as negative consequences, including communism, fascism, atheism, the Holocaust, and Planned Parenthood, while failing to define or explain either evolution or its supposed alternative, intelligent design.[12] Critics of this perspective point out that such claims are based in anecdotes, assumptions, or limited analyses, with no reliable studies to back this claim.[15] Within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[16] and intelligent design is considered to be pseudoscience,[17][18][19] due to its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses.[20]

Why is the second POV? What's the complaint here, exactly? Dolewhite (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. For what it's worth, I prefer the second one. The statement in the first that "the evidence [...] does not exist" seems a bit overstated, whereas the second version ("critics [...] point out that such claims are...") seems less disputable. --Ichneumon (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1. "Claim" and "point out" are WP:WTAs.
2. If we are to use a language from the cited paper, it would be informative to look at the direct quote: "Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population" (emphasis mine -- a word that somehow got missed from the new language. "Agreement" based upon "assumption" implies evidence doesn't exist).
3. ID is creationism, specifically Neo-creationism. The list of science's legitimate reasons for dismissing it would fill an entire book. Giving only one of them underplays the scientific argument.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "claim" is to be avoided because it has a tendency to undermine the content. A mere tendency. Yet you have no problem at all with stating categorically that the evidence DOES NOT EXIST. Not that it hasn't been found, no, but that it cannot be found because it isn't out there. That's a disingenuous claim. Likewise, "point out" is criticized in the WP:WTA as it gives extra weight; it certainly doesn't give more weight than passing the opinion as direct fact.

The second point strikes me as nit-picking, but it still doesn't justify completely undoing the edits. If you want to see the language more closely mirrored, then change "assumptions" to "assumption" and "anecdotes" to "anecdotal evidence." I'd contend that the differences there are insubstantial, and the point of Wikipedia is not to be a collection of verbatim quotes alone. There's no justification in this claim for completely reverting it to the former version, which is even further from the information linked.

Finally, it has been stated again about a dozen times in the article that the consensus view is ID is form of creationism. You state it again and again and again and again and it's in the footnotes a few dozen times, too. There are many criticisms, but I'd contend firstly that the agreement on ID as pseudoscience is of primary importance, and second that the primary problem the scientific community would agree upon is that ID lacks the requisite falsifiability to be considered a scientific theory. As this is an encyclopedia article (in theory), it seems to me more useful to the reader to articulate the primary reasons for rejecting ID, rather than this litany of equivocation that only seems to me to confirm the suspicions of the ID community.

I really don't understand why opponents to ID are so dead-set on silencing the ID crowd. The entire force of intellectual honesty and good science weighs in on the part of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It seems counter-productive to engage in bush-league propagandists when honesty and truth favor presenting the material in unambiguous terms. I don't know what you expect to accomplish by making these edits that lead to such a heavy-handed article which clearly displays an intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to force the conversation.

This debate won't be settled by the film Expelled, and it certainly won't be settled by the intro to the Wikipedia article about the film Expelled. So let's just make an honest and encyclopedic article about THE FILM, and let the data speak for themselves, m'kay? Dolewhite (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise between the latest reverted-to & reverted-from versions. The article is still extremely unbalanced, but it would be a good first step if we could try to find some compromises. My version is about halfway[14][15] between Dave souza's and Dolewhite's. NCdave (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was obviously a waste of time.  :-(

How are we to ever achieve consensus, if some editors just revert without discussion or any willingness to compromise?

For instance, one of the two tiny bits of text that I retained from Dolewhite in the compromise version was this:

"Intelligent design is not considered to be valid science, due to its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses."

The current version is:

"Intelligent design is not considered to be valid science, but as creationist pseudoscience."

Can we talk about this? NCdave (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of what are portrayed as societal ills

vs

The film claims that the theory of evolution is responsible for a range of what are portrayed as negative consequences

The first one is much more readable. From what I have read the film does "blame" evolution. From what I have read, it's an assertion, not a case where the evidence is discussed.

from Communism to Planned Parenthood,

vs

including communism, fascism, atheism, the Holocaust, and Planned Parenthood

The first one flows much better. There's no need to list everything that they lay at the feet of evolution

The evidence that this scientific theory is responsible for social problems does not exist.

vs

Critics of this perspective point out that such claims are based in anecdotes, assumptions, or limited analyses, with no reliable studies to back this claim

"Critics...claim" is always bad form. We should avoid it. Presenting an obvious falsehood as a "perspective" is misleading.

Within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[16] and intelligent design is not considered to be valid science,[17][18][19] but is viewed as creationism.

vs

Within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[16] and intelligent design is considered to be pseudoscience,[17][18][19] due to its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses

I don't like "by scientific consensus" - it's too weak. Evolutionary biology is the foundation of modern biology. We don't say that "the theory of the element" is accepted by consensus in modern chemistry. The incompatibility of ID with science comes from its creationism, not its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses. The rejection of ID is its desire to inject supernaturalism into science. Supernaturalism is incompatible with science (as it is with medicine or law)...if you fail to reject "the impossible", you have no reason not to do like Dirk Gently and spend a three weeks in the Bahamas searching for a dog that was lost in England. Guettarda (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In no wise is supernaturalism a necessary consequence of creationism. In no wise is creationism a necessary consequence of intelligent design. It does not contribute to the discussion to make category mistakes. Aminorex (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete agreement with Guettarda Angry Christian (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the 1st ("blames")

Agree on the 2nd (short list of ills), except that the two retained should be the two most prominent in the film. I'm pretty sure one of them is racism, and I'm pretty sure Planned Parenthood is not one of them.

Strongly disagree with 3rd; "evidence... does not exist" overstates the case to the point of inaccuracy. Even anecdotes are evidence, they just aren't necessarily persuasive evidence.

Disagree on the 4th. The problem with ID in the scientific community is not that it is mistaken for creationism, but that it is arguably untestable, due to its failure to make falsifiable hypotheses. (Of course, theories of the abiotic origins of life have the same problem.)

Disagree on the final comment, too. ID is not inconsistent with evolutionary biology. Also, "scientific consensus" is code language for "we are not sure enough to permit debate" (thanks, Dalewhite, for that great link!).

Also, "supernaturalism" as you call it is incompatible with neither medicine nor law. Have you never been sworn in to testify in a court case, with your hand on a Bible? In fact, George Washington's opinion was that atheism and agnosticism are incompatible with our judicial system. He wrote, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.... Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?" NCdave (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, once again you demonstrate you are wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter. The fact that ID "theory" cannot be tested does not make it secular. We have a court ruling and every science organization in North America saying ID is creationism/pseudoscience I am sick of your disruptions and ignorance on the subject of ID, Kitzmiller, etc. Sick of it. Angry Christian (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ID advocates claim that it can be tested, so I cannot take your claims to the contrary as a given, without evidence or argument to support them. Your sickness is of no interest or concern to Wikipedia.Aminorex (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Have you never been sworn in to testify in a court case, with your hand on a Bible?" Nope. I think the only time I have set food inside a court house was in Dayton, Tennessee, to visit the Skopes trial museum.

But you miss the point. Swearing on the Bible does not invoke supernaturalism - not as long as you accept the fact that people can lie all they want under oath (and not be struck dead). The idea of supernaturalism in courts of law would be to allow "demonic possession" as an acceptable defense. Courts don't generally accept as a defense "since you didn't see him pull the trigger, you need to allow the possibility that it was just coincidence, and some force we can't explain (but we'll call it God in private) is actually a more reasonable explanation since you weren't there and you can't prove it!" Guettarda (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, NCdave suceeded in introducing complete nonsense and side tracking your proposal. I think it's important that we do not lose sight of our objective to improve the article. What you have suggested makes it better. This is the kind of disruption that leads to good editors leaving an article and the article never matures. We need to move forward and ignore nonsense and disruptions. Angry Christian (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AC, will you please discuss the article, instead of attacking the editors? NCdave (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Blames"..."unfairly blames" is probably much more accurate (although, of course, trickier when it comes to sourcing). Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, again, I would encourage you to learn about Wikipedia policies. And note making an observation about behaviour here on the talk page, even characterizing nonsense as nonsense is not making a personal attack. It's making an observation. A personal attack would be something like FUCK YOU which is not permitted. Angry Christian (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks works for Baylor University, the title given to him by Baylor University is Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering (2003-present)

I realize his position sounds peacockish, but that is what his title is. I had put it in caps (as it is on the Baylor website) which indicates it is a title and not a description but it continues to be reverted. It has been reverted several times. I don't think hiding the title given to him where he works from the article shows good faith. The man's title is Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and I don't think we should hide his title in favor of describing his work ("engineering professor").

We spell out what people's current titles are (except Shermer, he doesn't seem to have a single title) and we're hiding Marks. This is uncalled for. If you don't like Mark's title or think it sounds too peacockish please take it up with Baylor University and stop reverting accurate information. I spent quite a bit of time researching what these people currently do and making sure I had accurate information. If i need to put a ref/source after every sinlge word I add to the article I'll be happy to do that. Whoever keeps reverting this might want to look up the information themselves, like I did.

I will let it stand as is for a day in case anyone has a different idea or thinks I'm mistaken (or insane), and then I plan to add Robert Marks' title back to the article as it should be. Again, I admit I could be wrong. I am not familiar with any Wiki policies that state we must/should/can hide a person's title given to them by their employer if we don't like the way it sounds. Again, I am all ears for competing ideas and in light on new evidence I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong and hang it up. Angry Christian (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added his job title(s) again and added the other folks presented in the film. I removed Marks' fellowships for reasons of economy. If we add every fellowship he or dawkins or the others have we'll end up dwarfing the content. I left the DI fellowships for the other folks since those are highly relevant to the claims made in the subject matter/film. Angry Christian (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why his title matters - his or anyone else's. A simple description (with a lot fewer capital letters) strikes me as more encyclopaedic. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Order...ORDER I SAY!

That was a joke. Ha ha. But speaking of order...Once we've seen the movie or more know we might want to see if it would make sense to change the oder of some of the article to match the order that people or ideas are presented in the film. The order now seems to be random and I'm not suggesting that's good or bad. Anyhow, it might be something to consider if it looks like it would improve the flow of the article. Angry Christian (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but not much we can do at the moment =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:29, 1 April 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 [16]

including this New York Times article on the event: [17]--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)

Minor correction to the initial comment: Meyers did not have a ticket. Nor did anyone else. It was an online sign-up, and there were no tickets. However, he did have a properly reserved seat made in his own name. So, people saying he was "gatecrashing" are either misinformed or lying, and people saying "he was not invited" are being disingenuous, since an invitation was not required and most people going at that time were not specifically invited either. -- HiEv 06:01, 2 April 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)

I think that in order to effectively discuss the article we all should see the movie when it comes out. If only a few of us see it, we have an "advantage" in discussion over those that haven't. (the term advantage is used sarcastically) Saksjn (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What? You radical, you! It is the most sacred principle of Wikipedia that whether of not you know something about a topic has nothing to do with your qualifications to write an encyclopedia article about it!  ;-) NCdave (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's why creationists continue to edit science articles. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:52, 9 April 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)

Does the movie criticize Cornell? If not, then Cornell's tolerance of ID viewpoints is irrelevant. Surely the movie did not say that no colleges tolerate belief in intelligent design... did it? NCdave (talk) 02:34, 9 April 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)

for the record, in Richard_G._Colling's wikiarticle it is reported that he does not teach the general biology classes anymore. Seems he still teaches biology.Northfox (talk) 02:23, 25 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)

The situation where a scientist was forbiden from teaching biology shouldn't have happened. My physics/earth-space teacher openly professes to be a theistic evolutionist... at a Christian school... and he still teaches. Although I don't agree with the decision of the college, I can see why they might do something like that. The school has a Christian base and wants to keep everything in the college inside the "Christian" box. What that box is depends on who you ask. This is the same as a Muslim school condeming a teacher for saying Christianity and Islam can co-exist. Saksjn (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But the fact that such cases exist, show that the situation is far more complicated and not as one-sided as those who produced this movie would have you believe.--Filll (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A commenter on The Panda's Thumb (blog) compiled a useful list:

I thought I’d post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution.

2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton)
1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet)
1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist)
1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian)
1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas)
1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas)
Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski
Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists.

Up to 9 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven’t even gotten to the secondary science school teachers.[18]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

what does 'successful death treat' mean? Was Gwen Pearson murdered? A quick google did not give any hit. Or was he successfully fired? Northfox (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More candidates: More irony from the ID creationist crowd details Terry M. Gray & Howard Van Till's heresy trials and Van Till's ongoing inquisition and harassment thereafter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we put a sentence in this article, with a link to a list article, listing some of these cases? What should we do?--Filll (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To get them into this article, we'd need WP:RSs linking them to Expelled, which we don't seem to have to date. Assuming that even some of these examples have WP:RSs simply on the persecution angle (which is almost certainly true), we should be able to find enough to meet WP:NOTE on a 'Creationist persecution of theistic evolutionists' article, which could legitimately be see-also-ed from this one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v Dover primer

Several editors have expressed a lack of knowledge about Kitzmiller. You can watch the entire Nova special Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on trial here. It's even broken into smaller "chapters" to make online viewing easier. It's a pretty good place to start. Angry Christian (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting link, AC. NCdave (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. There are also interviews and other material not in the film on the Nova site. A treasure trove of links to other articles and official documents (briefs, testimony, ruling etc) awaits anyone interested in the subject at the Kitzmiller v Dover article. The thing that fascinates me about Kitzmiller is the fact that some of the best minds from both sides of the argument gave testimony which was refereed by a federal judge. This beats the heck out of these public kangaroo hearings or staged "debates" Angry Christian (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank God we scientists have federal judges to settle our disputes for us. Consensus science strikes again!. Dolewhite (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What a great link, Dolewhite! That article is what should be required reading in the Dover, PA schools.  ;-) NCdave (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of god filing a brief in that trial so I don't see how thanking him enters into the discussion. I thought I had read all the briefs submitted to the court but perhaps I overlooked that one. Jones did not mention any argument made by god in his ruling so I suspect whatever role god played in Kitzmiller was insignificant. Angry Christian (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, AC, the DI did not participate in the Kitzmiller case at all. The Dover folks brought a knife to a gunfight. NCdave (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (strikeout added 02:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC) by NCdave)

NCdave, actually they did. Please see the numerous amicus briefs the Discovery Institute filed in the kitzmiller V Dover trial here. A bit of trivia - You'll note the Discovery Institute specifcially asked Judge Jones to rule whether or not ID is science. You seem like a bright guy, I suspect you'll enjoy being familair with the subject matter. It will enhance your ability to contribute to the article and probably earn the respect of your fellow editors. I would encourage you to learn about this important court case, especilly if you are wanting us to listen to your opinions on the matter. And more accurately the Dover folks brought religion to a public science class. Angry Christian (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You can also read transcripts of all of the testimony here You mentioned you did not know who Michale Behe is. His transcript is there as well. Angry Christian (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, AC, and I thank you for the information and the links. I was relying on Barbara Forrest's statement that, "DI did not want this case, because the Dover board, urged on by TMLC, had explicitly crafted its policy to promote 'intelligent design.'" She was talking about the withdrawal of several DI-provided expert witnesses from participation in the case. However, apparently the DI people bailed out after they'd already filed (and then revised and refiled) their amicus brief. So the DI had some level of involvement in the case, though perhaps not much in the actual trial. My bad. NCdave (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The DI certainly did not want the case; they had long ago given up on using the "intelligent design" label as the thin edge of the wedge for inserting ye old-time religious antievolution arguments into science classrooms. That has nothing to do, though, with whether they were involved, which they certainly were. Five DI Fellows were signed on as expert witnesses by TMLC early in 2005. Michael Behe and Scott Minnich were the first two to be deposed. Sometime following those depositions, Bruce Chapman, one of the founders of the DI, figured out that the Dover case was a loser, and requested the DI Fellows not participate (stated in an interview in 2006). Thought there's a great deal of murk surrounding exactly what went on behind the scenes, the fallout was obvious: three out of five DI Fellows were withdrawn as witnesses by TMLC. (TMLC itself promoted two contradictory stories of how Dembski came to be withdrawn from the case. One, the "the DI was a jackass" version is in a press account:

But Richard Thompson, Thomas More president, said the decision to not use the three experts had nothing to do with their positions on intelligent design and whether it should be mandated in a classroom. Rather, he said he objected to the experts bringing along their own lawyers, calling it a “conflict of interest.” “The case involves the school board and the parents,” he said. “Now, if you have attorneys coming in and representing the experts and their attorneys are saying, ‘Don’t answer that question,’ then you have a conflict with the aims of the school board.” Thompson said the problem arose in the past several weeks when the Discovery Institute insisted that its people have separate legal representation.

The other appears in legal documents in the case, the "Dembski was browbeaten by the cruel Darwinists" version in, IIRC, their motion for a protective order in the case.) By mid-June, it was clear that the three DI no-shows were gone from the case in any capacity for TMLC. The DI afterwards sought to influence the case, though, through machinations to have the Foundation for Thought and Ethics made a co-defendant, a move that would have brought at least William Dembski and perhaps Stephen Meyer back into the case as expert witnesses handled by lawyers more amenable to suggestion by the DI. After that failed, the DI submitted an amicus brief containing the expert report Meyer as an appendix. Judge Jones disallowed the submission. There's a hilarious interchange in the trial transcript with the TMLC lawyers disavowing any connection to the illicit smuggling of withdrawn expert witnesses back into the case, and a comment there about the legal ineptitude shown by the DI. The DI did manage to file an amicus brief accepted by the court eventually, minus the expert report. Want? No. Involved? Yes, and right through the end stage of the proceedings. There's no problem with Forrest's description, but there are all sorts of problems with the erroneous version in the comment by NCDave just previous. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, NCdave. Did you read the parts where the TMLC and the DI tried to get Barbara Forrest disqualified as an expert witness? It's pretty hilarious. Angry Christian (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but being on the board of a secular humanist association, IMO, gives the appearance of bias on her part. NCdave (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So are we likewise allowed to eliminate everybody who is a member of any Christian organisation on the grounds of "appearance of bias"? This is rank hypocrisy! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Being a Christian does not make one automatically either supportive of or hostile to ID (or this movie). That is not a primary focus of Christianity. However, being on the board of a secular humanist association does imply hostility to ID, because promoting atheism is what secular humanist associations are all about. ID has nothing to say about Biblical creationism, but it does say that atheism is erroneous. NCdave (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All Christian are theists. ID is a theistic position. Therefore Christians are predisposed to be more sympathetic to ID than atheists, Buddhists, Taoists, Pantheists, etc. Therefore Christians are biased. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, may I assume that we're agreed on the six inaccuracies in the current sentence, and my proposed replacement, here? Or does someone have a better idea? NCdave (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you may assume that we are sick of citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at you over them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Clips from the movie

here is Dembski and here is Berlinski and Schroeder etc. Lots of images of the plagiarized video material as well. Watch now before it disappears!--Filll (talk) 15:39, 10 April 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 (&#55304;&#56435;) 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)

JBFrenchhorn, I am not interested in gallup polls, even if you refrain from misrepresenting them. See WP:RS. The percentage of US Americans embracing ID is merely a gauge of the level of general education in US population. What Wikipedia is interested in is academic mainstream. If an appreciable percentage of USians think ID makes sense, it is the US education system that has a problem, not academia. Wikipedia is built to reflect academic mainstream. If you disagree with academic mainstream (e.g., you like ID), you are certainly free to do that (no persecution), but you cannot expect to be given any voice on Wikipedia (which is a privately owned website which only grants you permission to edit content provided you submit to its policies). ID is not just "a belief" like, say, immaculate conception. It is a religious belief that masquerades as science. No academic would be discriminated against because they religiously believe in immaculate conception. They are rightly treated as incompetent if they are unable to distinguish their religious belief from scientific hypothesis: if you fraudulently try to pass off religious belief as a rational hypothesis I should hope academia treats you as a fraud, anything else would mean academia has broken down. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, dab, refrain from disparaging other people's Faith. When you say that, "if you fraudulently try to pass off religious belief as a rational hypothesis I should hope academia treats you as a fraud," you are calling non-atheists irrational, and those non-atheists who are scientists you are calling frauds. Neither accusation is accurate, and making such accusations or disparaging other people's faith is never acceptable on Wikipedia. NCdave (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is interested in is academic mainstream... Therein lies the problem. This means, any article about a movie, book, or position that challenges the academic mainstream as being dogmatic doesn't stand a chance of a fair shake on Wikipedia when measured against the onslaught of those who wish to defend the dogma.Madjack59 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Woof! .. dave souza, talk 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, that is reality. This Wiki is aimed towards academic standard and has the goal of building an encyclopedia. There are many other wikis which have different goals. I would be pleased to direct you to another one which might suit your tastes better.--Filll (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course the irony of this reply in light of this particular section is that you're essentially proving the whole point here. The point of the movie is that the academic community suppresses opinions that are contrary to the mainstream academic community - to the point of persecution. You are arguing that Wikipedia isn't the place for anything contrary to the academic community, and those that are trying to say others are essentially disruptive editors. This of course makes them open to the various forms of Wikipedia moderation, which is essentially a form of censorship (perhaps appropriate in some cases). However, regardless of whether the censorship is appropriate or not, it does uphold the point that those who advocate for ID are essentially censored, to the point where some have posted block warnings on user pages...Rich0 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, Rich0. NCdave (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Academic community, and wikipedia too, has a dreadful bias against unsubstantiated, illogical hyperbole, and "suppresses", suppresses I tell you, claims for no other reason than that they have no factual basis. Do you know how difficult it is to get the WP:TRUTH that the moon is made of green cheese into either a scientific journal or wikipedia? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn is of course right, and WP:V trumps "Truth". As a parallel to this film, the cheese theory[19] is given full backing in the movie A Grand Day Out. .. dave souza, talk 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about the movie, not about ID, inside the article is not the proper place to debunk ID. The question of what is mainstream science does not apply here. This is a MOVIE, not a scientific hypothesis. If we are so concerned about following mainstream write the criticism of ID on the ID page. DerekVF (talk) 00:30, 18 April 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[20][21] 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)

The main point of the film is the persecution of scientists and educators who think there is evidence of a designer's workmanship in the universe. You say that the complaint of persecution is "unsubstantiated," but since the thrust of the film is substantiating that complaint, what you are really saying is simply, "the film is all wrong."

That is essentially what the article currently says. It is a perfect reflection of your POV. However, it is supposed to be balanced. NCdave (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, you had better settle down a bit. When I last checked on the "balance" in the article a few weeks ago (before I had added several more paragraphs of material from interviews with producers etc discussing the film's POV), the article was 88% pro-film and about 12% rebuttal (not counting footnotes). Now, given the rules of WP:NPOV, it could easily be balanced at 95% anti-film, however, we are more generous than that. I have no reason to believe that the article does not still include mainly material discussing the film's agenda and POV, with a small amount of material rebutting it. Some of it discusses controversy about the film, much of which was created by the filmmakers themselves, by their cackhanded handling of the creation and promotion of this film. Now if you want some promotional puff piece, you should look to Conservapedia. We do not do that kind of article here, nor are we allowed to, by our rules. Do you understand?--Filll (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said Conservapedia? Their article about Expelled is a fascinating read. The notes and talk page as well. Every editor here would do well to read it. Angry Christian (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

um, why? It's Conservapedia. I could tell they like it without looking. And come on, "persecution" is simply ridiculous. "Not given fair hearing" would sound more reasonable, although it is difficult to imagine what a "fair hearing" would be in this case. dab (𒁳) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Conservapedia article is interesting, but it is still lousy. They decided against discussing any controversy or critical reviews. It is very short and has no content. I think for an encyclopedia article, it should have substantial content, on all sides. It should be valuable for someone 10 or 50 years from now who wants to do research on this event and this movement and this period. The Conservapedia article serves none of those purposes. It is a one-sided embarassment.--Filll (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Conservapedia article is wholesale trash. I linked to it to illustrate what a POV pushing article looks like. Well and for humor reasons, nothing wrong with a little brevity here from time to time :-) Angry Christian (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That "wholesale trash" is at least more informative and less biased than this Wikipedia article. NCdave (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is very negative about the film. Yet Filll says that, by his count, the article is "88% pro-film and about 12% rebuttal." How did you arrive at that, Filll? 88%+12%=100%. Did you find nothing in the article that was actually neutral? Or do you equate neutrality with "pro-film?"

For instance, the current lead sentence is, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of design in nature." Other than the negative bias introduced by use of the word "claim," that sentence seems purely descriptive to me, neither pro- nor anti-film. I would count that 29-word sentence as a 28-word neutrally descriptive sentence, plus one word carrying a negative (i.e., anti-film) connotation. How do you count it? NCdave (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Change it to "argues that" rather than "claims". I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. The problem with the conservapedia article is that it ignores almost the totality of reviews published in mainstream media outlets, and chooses a clearly biased source for its one review. The page also contains original research and an amazing amount of biased language in the Critical response section. It cites only two articles, when a great deal more have been written, almost all negative, and uses an attack on the reporter's integrity that was not made by any reliable sources. The conservapedia article is a textbook example of a biased article. Kumagi (talk) 22:49, 15 April 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: [22]--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: [23]--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)

My reading of that is that all future free private showings have been hidden, and invitations will now go out by a secure method. Tied to pigeons or something. Of course since they're showing an extremely rough bodged version without its proper soundtrack only a few weeks from release, expect them to cancel release with the complaint that "Big Science ate my homework". ...... dave souza, talk 22:21, 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)

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Hopefully, a side benefit for people who are not well versed in this material who are visiting this page, is that they will actually learn a bit about what evolution is. Kookywolf, remember a book called "On the Origin of Species It was Darwin's book that described evolution. And guess what evolution describes? How we get different species! Amazing, isnt it?--Filll (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC) If evolution is how we get different species, then obviously evolution must be how we got the first living creature on earth, which would then produce varieties of more complex creatures. So my rational conclusion is that evolution must be how life originated. If it is not, please educate me - how did life originate? Kookywolf (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Um there is some confusion here. No it is not "obvious" that evolution is how we got the first living creature on earth. And evolution has no internal mechanism that leads to necessarily more complicated organisms (another common fallacy). No one knows how life originated, although there are dozens of theories. But the origin of life (or abiogenesis) is not part of evolution. Discussing it at length is outside the purview of this page, however.--Filll (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC) please educate me - no, please don't. This isn't the place to correct an editor's general misconceptions. Guettarda (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Basic, Darwinistic, Natural Selection evolution does not describe how life began, it just attempts to explain a way that species change. Modern evolutionists on the other hand, have used explanations like Primordial Soup to describe how life began. So really, you're both right, and you're both wrong. Whether or not evolution tries to explain the origins of life depends on whether you're talking about basic darwinistic evolution, or talking about modern attempts to explain the origin as well as diversification of life. Saksjn (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC) My problem with abiogenesis is this, long ago the scientific community said that all life must come from life. Theories like primordial soup go against that. A reverse in theory has taken place, and a long time accepted theory has been discarded. Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[Archiving restored and further disruptive off-topic WP:SOAPboxing by NCDave removed per WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) ]

Edit needed

The following needs to be changed:

The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial, which forbids the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools, as promotion of religion by the government violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The paired commas makes the bit about the Kitzmiller trial a parenthetical statement, and hence it would appear that the film discusses the trial as a promotion of religion.

Furthermore, there's a problem with saying that it violates the constitution. Judicial rulings change from time to time. The 14th amendment didn't change between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. What changed were the rulings and their resultant precedent. My rewrite would be to the following:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal judge ruled the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If that's kosher with all y'all, I'd like to make that change. Dolewhite (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The existing grammar is unclear, however I do not support your proposed change. Better wording would be: "The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial which forbids, as promotion of religion by the government and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The *trial* doesn't forbid anything. The ruling does. That sentence is a run-on nightmare. If you don't understand that the first amendment contains the establishment clause, then click on the link. That's way too much information for a single sentence. Dolewhite (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the original language is tortuous at best. I have a couple minor issues with Dolewhite's suggested change, while finding Hrafn's still rather hard to follow for the average reader. I like Dolewhite's version better, but I'd drop "wherein a federal judge" and simply have it read, "..., which ruled the...". And there ought to be some quick mention of *why* the teaching of Intelligent Design was considered afoul of the First Amendment, something along the lines of, "...a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it promoted a religious position." Also, this isn't the place to get into it, but the Kitzmiller decision didn't actually prohibit "the teaching of intelligent design" per se, it only prohibited teaching of ID performed similar to the manner attempted in Dover. It would still be allowable to "teach ID" in a purely secular manner, or as a topic in a religious study class, just not (as was attempted in Dover and almost everywhere else people have attempted to introduce "ID" to a curriculum) as a vehicle by which to make students more receptive to creationist views. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the *case* didn't "rule" anything. The judge did. A judge is a person, and a person can do things. The abstract 'trial' is not an actor. As for the why, I'd suggest I throw in "the establishment clause" of the first amendment. So how about:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal judge ruled the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Better? Dolewhite (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Readers are well aware that judges are responsible for case rulings. The extra verbiage adds nothing, and a quick Google turns up tens of thousands of examples of language along the lines of, "the decision ruled that..." As a compromise, how about, "...the consequences of Kitzmiller blah, which prohibits the teaching of..." Even after the judge has gone home, the case itself now prohibits such teaching. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources such as Larson use terms like "essentially" to characterize similar ambiguities in earlier anti-evolution cases. Didn't Kitzmiller explicitly only "forbid" the Dover version of ID presented at trial? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly, yes, but by implication it (and all other court decisions) have the effect of also affecting other situations which would be "essentially" similar enough to run afoul of the same criteria used to nix the one explicitly struck down. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording needs changing. However, it is inaccurate to say that "Kitzmiller... prohibits the teaching of," because the case is valid precedent only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and also because even in the Middle District of Pennsylvania what it prohibited was not the teaching of ID, but the requirement to teach it. It is not a gag order on science teachers.

What's more, "Establishment Clause" is the wrong term. The "Establishment Clause," itself, says nothing at all about schools, it only restricts "Congress." In fact, when it was adopted most States had "establishments of religion" (official State-supported churches). Ironically, Congress still has daily prayers, which are not deemed to violate the Establishment clause, but in the schools prayers are prohibited, ostensibly by the Establishment Clause. In truth, it was not the Establishment Clause which prohibited school prayer and the support of religion in public K-12 schools, it was an activist SCOTUS, ruling supposedly on the basis of the 14th and 1st Amendments in combination, after the authors and ratifiers of both those Amendments were all safely in their graves (along with most of their grandchildren), with an interpretation of that Amendment that would have astounded those authors. So, rather than saying "Establishment Clause," we should simply refer to (un)constitutionality, which gets the job done without wading into this whole ugly can of worms.

I tried to fix this, but was immediately reverted, and Hrafn then also deleted the discussion of a possible compromise wording from the Talk page (contravening WP:Talk).

The compromise wording we were narrowing in on was something along the lines of, "according to current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, promotion of religion in American public schools is unconstitutional." So what do you folks think about a wording like this:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

The three key points are:

• We need to just refer to (un)constitutionality, since the basis for that alleged unconstitutionality is much more complex than just "the establishment clause" or "the 14th amendment," and a discussion of 14th Amendment Incorporation is way, way beyond the scope of this article.
• Kitzmiller did not prohibit teaching ID, it prohibited a requirement to teach it. The difference is important.
• The Kitzmiller case is not a generally binding precedent. It applies only to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

So, what do you folks think of that wording? NCdave (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from NCdave. What we "need" is for you to stop repeating this baseless, discredited line about the Establishment Clause. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You might find the Incorporation (Bill of Rights) article informative, Hrafn. NCdave (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kitzmiller verdict is regarded as a "broad ruling", usable as a legal precedent for all similar cases throughout America (in the sense that any attempt to introduce ID in a similar fashion elsewhere will be swiftly dismissed because it would be a rehash of Kitzmiller). Therefore any claim that the precedent is technically limited to just that district is essentially moot: legally, ID is dead. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, I'd like to second what Hrafn and Robert Stevens have said. They are correct, and your attempts at nit-picking do not add anything to the discussion, much less the WP articles. Like it or not, the Kitzmiller decision does indeed have the effect of nixing the teaching of "ID" as a surrogate for creationism in all public schools. This remains the case until/if someone mounts a successful challenge to it somewhere. Until then, however, you haven't a leg to stand on. Deal with it. You also need to deal with the fact that your personal interpretation of the Establishment clause and its judicial/legislative implications is not the one that holds sway in the courts. And your irrelevant side issues (such as the fact that Congress has prayers) does nothing to change that. Maybe you can't figure out why, but if anything this is only more reason for you to sit back and leave the subject to those who do actually understand the subject well enough to not keep tilting at windmills. In short, your repeated attempts to force your personal viewpoint into articles instead of describing the world as it actually exists are more disruptive and irritating than useful. --Ichneumon (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, ID can be taught in Dover, just not portrayed as science in science class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Christian (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Oops Angry Christian (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert, the term "broad" as in "broad ruling" is descriptive of what the ruling says, and has nothing to do with where the ruling is binding. Appellate-level courts can create binding precedents within their jurisdictions, but Judge Jones is not an appellate judge. The decision is binding only in the particular case, though it is likely to be respected as non-binding precedent within rest of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Consider the opinion of Barbara Forrest, who was an expert witness for the ACLU in the case, and who is on the board of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. She speculated that the reason Discovery Institute did not participate in the case was their concern that the Dover policy was on shaky legal grounds. She wrote, "The problem, however, was that DI did not want this case because the Dover board, urged on by TMLC, had explicitly crafted its policy to promote “intelligent design.”"

Ichneumon, welcome to the discussion. I plead guilty to nit-picking. In fact, if you click on my name you will see that the one thing I say about myself is that I am a "sticker stickler" for truth and accuracy. Even if an inaccuracy is a "nit," I still want it fixed. Don't you?

Discovery Institute's position is (and always has been) opposed to requirements like Dover's, which require teaching ID. Here's is what they say:

Discovery Institute's science education policy has been consistent and clear. We strongly believe that teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, but we think mandatory inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula is ill-advised. Instead, we recommend that schools require only that the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinism be taught, while not infringing on the academic freedom of teachers to present appropriate information about intelligent design if they choose. Although we believe teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, we think mandating intelligent design politicizes what should be a scientific debate and harms the efforts of scientists who support design to gain a fair hearing in the scientific community.[24]

The difference between requiring and permitting is important enough that DI's participation in the Kitzmiller case hinged on that difference, and they ultimately declined to participate because Dover's policy was mandatory. So I think you'll agree that at least the 2nd of my three bullets is no nit.

Now, can we please discuss the specifics of the proposed compromise wording? What do you folks think about this version:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

Is there anything there that anyone thinks is inaccurate, unbalanced, or even just clumsily worded? NCdave (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, if you're not going to listen to what other people say, I see no point in repeating the same material over again for you to ignore again. Suffice to say that I do not agree to your proposed rewording. For reasons why, look above, and stop your time-wasting attempts to succeed by repetition that which you have not achieved the first time. And no, it's not worth being a "sticker [sic]" for truth and accuracy when your attempted "fixes" muddle the issue more than they clarify it, and/or give a misleading impression to the reader unfamiliar with the details of the topic. --Ichneumon (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a typo. My page actually says "stickler." Thanks for the correction, Ichneumon. (How embarrassing to have a typo in a sentence about being a stickler for truth and accuracy!)

However, accuracy does not "muddle" or "mislead." Thus far, nobody has identified any problems with the proposed sentence. But the current version is misleading or inaccurate in multiple ways. Here it is again:

The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial, which forbids the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools, as promotion of religion by the government violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Look at all the inaccuracies in that sentence:

• The Kitzmiller trial didn't forbid anything, the presiding judge did. (Okay, this one's a nit.)
• Judge Jones didn't forbid teaching intelligent design, he blocked the requirement to make teachers read a statement about intelligent design. (This is definitely not a nit.)
• Jones' decision didn't forbid anything in the "American public schools," his ruling applied only to the Dover schools. (This is definitely not a nit.)
• "The government" is a misnomer, and an important one, since what is prohibited to one level of government is not always prohibited to others. (Okay, this one's maybe a nit, but it is kind of a pet peeve of mine.)
• Promotion of religion by government has not been held by the courts to violate the constitution in all cases. For example, the Congress and State legislatures customarily open with daily prayer, the military employs chaplains, currency displays the motto "In God We Trust," etc. (This is not a nit.)
• It is a gross oversimplification to say that the Establishment Clause (alone) enjoins government promotion of religion; see Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights). (You might think this is a nit, but I do not.)

That's six inaccuracies in just one sentence! Admittedly, a couple of them are nits. But even nits should be fixed. The proposed version fixes them all. So won't you please discuss it? NCdave (talk) 22:06, 27 March & 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pertinent to bullets 2 and 3, this is what Judge Jones ordered:

"...we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

(The "ID Policy" was the school district's requirement "that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement [regarding ID] to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School...")

Note that Judge Jones' order applied to the Dover Area School District, not to "American public schools." Also, note that he enjoined the school district from requiring teachers to mention ID, or requiring them to "denigrate or disparage" evolution. He did not forbid teachers from teaching or disparaging anything at all. NCdave (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

May I assume, from the lack of replies/argument, that there is no disagreement with this list of inaccuracies in the current sentence, and thus no disagreement with the need to fix it? NCdave (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You can take from this that we're sick to death of your tendentious, disruptive & WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments and have given up on searching through this way-over-bloated talk page to find them repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kitmiller case established that ID is not science. Period. Rather, it is religious creationism. Period. Because ID is religion and not science, it will never be legal to teach it as science within American state schools anywhere: ID won't suddenly become science if it's taught in the next district, nor if it isn't made mandatory by the school board. That is the actual consequence of the Kitzmiller ruling, regardless of any technical details. That's why the DI is now complaining that Jones "shouldn't have ruled" on whether ID is science: because it is accepted that he DID so rule. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if a later judicial ruling overturns Kitzmiller, something highly unlikely to happen now, this might be reversed. The precedent established by this ruling is the thing that hurts ID badly. And I do not quite understand all the complaining about our wording; it appears accurate to me.

I also do not understand all the whining from the creationist community on this issue. What they really want is the right to force other people's children to be indoctrinated into the beliefs of their particular narrow miniscule minority religious sects, in public secular schools, using public funds, in science classes, and to force teachers to do it using the power of the state (police, jails, fines, etc). This is just pure nonsense, and of course it is opposed as unreasonable, which it should be. What if I tried to force your churches to preach that all their beliefs were nonsense every Sunday, or else I would put your preachers in jail? And forced your churches to pay for this? When you examine this in a bit of detail, the entire arguments fall apart.--Filll (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The KvD case is analogous to the McLean case. "Creation science" got its clock cleaned in McLean, but only for Arkansas, since the state of Arkansas declined to appeal the decision. The Edwards case got taken to the Supreme Court, and that's the decision that applies nationwide and is precedential for "creation science". McLean, though, certainly influenced the courts, and is largely the reason that the plaintiffs in Louisiana got a summary judgment leading to the Edwards case. As some wag put it, ID has had its McLean but not its Edwards. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you have some misconceptions regarding the ID hypothesis and its supporters. Nobody I've heard of who supports it wants "the right to force other people's children to be indoctrinated into the beliefs of their particular narrow miniscule minority religious sects, in public secular schools, using public funds, in science classes, and to force teachers to do it using the power of the state (police, jails, fines, etc)." Certainly there's no indication that any of the people involved with this movie hold such a view. Unfortunately, however, there are plenty of folks like Dawkins who demand that other people's children be indoctrinated with atheism in the schools. NCdave (talk)

NCdave, again you are confused and, to be blunt, flat out wrong (I guess this should not be too surprising, considering that you had never heard of Behe, the most important scientist in Intelligent Design, and the one scientist on whose testimony the Intelligent Design case rested on in KvD, yet you claim to be an ID expert and presume to lecture us on what ID is about and what ID people and supporters think about every single issue with some presumed authority and knowledge).

You should of course know that Dawkins is on record, numerous times, in print and in his books, of advocating the teaching of mandatory religion classes and comparative religion classes in publicly funded government secular schools (for example, read The God Delusion). You should also know that Dawkins at one time signed a petition arguing that religious upbringing of children should be illegal, but then withdrew his support for this campaign when he realized this would prevent the teaching of religion classes as he wanted in public secular schools with public tax money. That is not really promoting atheism, but choice, right? More information, not less. Knowing what the organizing principle is behind biology, that is subscribed to by over 99.9% of all professional biologists (over 99.99% by my calculations) is not about teaching atheism. If it causes trouble for biblical literalists, well their beliefs are either too fragile, or they need to consider other options for their children's educations, which are of course available to them. What they really are doing is not worrying about their own children's education (which they can already accommodate in many different ways), but wanting to force other people's children to get exposed to their own ridiculous beliefs.

The creationists and intelligent design proponents push to have less information available, so people have fewer choices, and less information on which to base their decisions. In state after state, and now in Florida, the intelligent design movement is all about forcing others to pay to promote the narrow religious beliefs of a tiny segment of the US population and an infinitesimally small fraction of Christendom and the world's population, and forcing others to preach their religious beliefs. Read the Wedge Document. Listen to the interviews with the producers of the film, or the interviews seeking to promote the film. These are not good people, or honest people. And before you promote their agenda much more, you should understand it a bit better.--Filll (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can present a whole host of examples where ID advocates have attempted to have children "indoctrinated" with fallacious, religiously-motivated "criticisms" of evolution -- the Kansas & Ohio SBOEs come immediately to mind. Also, I would ask you to substantiate or retract your claim that Dawkins "demand[s] that other people's children be indoctrinated with atheism in the schools." He may demand that they be taught accurate science, and may disapprove of them being indoctrinated with religion, but I highly doubt if he's ever demanded atheism indoctrination. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wesley, you are correct about the court cases. As a matter of law, Judge Jones' ruling applies only to the Dover Area School District. Federal district judges do not create binding precedents for the whole country.

Also, Jones' order did not prohibit teaching about ID, it only prohibited a requirement to teach about ID. (Aside: the McLean and Edwards decisions regarding creation science also only prohibited a requirement to teach creation science.) NCdave (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that it was a "requirement to teach about ID" that he was ruling on, that is hardly surprising. However, his findings of fact and law would equally apply to 'unrequired' teaching in public schools as well. That is the power of a legal precedent -- it doesn't apply to just identical situations, but situations with sufficient similarity. And while it might not be binding outside the Federal District, it is likely to be influential (in the same way that Epperson v. Arkansas‎ was). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the Kitzmiller decision might influence future decisions. But it is not binding anywhere except in the Dover Area Schools. As it was not an appellate decision, it has no authority as a precedent elsewhere. So it isn't accurate to say that it "might not be binding" outside the Dover Area Schools. It is not binding anywhere else, there's no "might" about it. NCdave (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The current sentence about Kitzmiller in this Wikipedia article is wildly inaccurate. May we please discuss how to fix it? Here is a proposed replacement:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require teaching about intelligent design in public schools.

That doesn't explicitly make the point that Jones' decision applies only to the Dover Area Schools, but that might be more detail that is really necessary. Would anyone care to suggest improvements? Wesley, what do you think? NCdave (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree with this heavily watered-down wording. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The only "watering down" I did in in that sentence was to omit the clear statement that the decision applies only to the Dover Area Schools. We could say:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require teaching about intelligent design in the Dover, PA public schools.

So what, specifically, don't you like about it, Hrafn? NCdave (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...I'm sorry, but one or more of three things are true: 1. You have no knowledge of how legal systems ANYWHERE work. 2. You are a ridiculously tendentious editor or 3. ...Well, WP:CIVIL doesn't allow me to say 3.

"ruled that it is unconstitutional to require teaching about intelligent design in the Dover, PA public schools." That is one of the most idiotic suggestions I have ever seen. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Idiotic or not, it is factual. But we're now discussing a proposed replacement for a version of the sentence that is long gone from the article. The current version is much expanded, and is improved in several ways: it now explicitly states that what was at issue was a requirement to teach about ID (though the final sentence obfuscates that fact), and it no longer expounds unnecessarily & inaccurately on the Establishment Clause. The current version (reformatted as one paragraph) reads:

The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Kitzmiller was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution. The court ruling noted that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" and that it was "not science" and, indeed, "fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science." The court concluded, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43) and finally noted, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

Despite the improvement, I still have problems with the current version. For one thing, it is way, way too long. More importantly, it is misleading in several ways:

• The summary of the Judge Jones' ruling draws entirely on his ancillary remarks, and not at all on what he actually ordered, which has the effect of dramatically increasing the apparent scope of the decision beyond what he actually ordered.
• There is no indication that this was a district-level case, which has no binding precedent authority outside the Dover Area Schools - an extremely important fact.
• There is no indication that this decision was the opinion of just one judge.

The last problem is trivially fixed, simply by substituting "the judge" for "the court," throughout. Or, better yet, substitute District Judge John E. Jones, III for the first one, and either "the judge" or "Judge Jones" for the 2nd one. Can we all agree on that simple change? NCdave (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your concerns, I don't agree with that one. If it's in the issued opinion, then it's the court, according to standard description of judicial opinions. You can throw in that "Jones wrote" something, but it's still the court. Only if it's an independent statement would you really say it's the Judge. However, I do agree that the paragraph is too long, and might suggest removing the block quote portion of it so people can see it's just a brief summary, and get more information about the case in that article. Mackan79 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NCDave, you were blocked once for all this tendentious arguing. Can you please drop the damn quibbling? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's tendentious arguing or an unreasonable suggestion. Mackan79 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At least add the POV dispute tag

Mostly off-topic, out of chronological order, comment & reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article certainly needs the POV designation, because it is plainly biased against the topic (both the "Expelled" movie and intelligent design), and uses various fallacious, straw-man arguments against both parts of the topic. The author is entitled to hold a point of view, but so are those who oppose that POV. It should be plainly identified that this is a review that is antagonistic to the issue, and does not fairly or accurately represent the intellectual arguments of the proponents of this issue. Conversely, I freely state that my comments favor intelligent design, because it is true science - the best explanation of the scientific facts. Even evolutionists have admitted that design is obvious to the unbiased observer, in every cell and in the EXTREME fine-tuning of the laws of physics in the universe (otherwise we could not live). This article is a negative editorial, therefore not an "encyclopedia-type" composition. //"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." - Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research. //"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." - Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology. //"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." - Sir Julian Huxley, evolutionist. //"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know." - Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionist. //"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." - Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton. //"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." - Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission. //"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." - Sir Fred Hoyle, greatest astronomer of the 20th century. //"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." "My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic." "We are now presented with the specter of atheistic evolutionists and liberal theologians whose understanding of evolutionary process is demonstrable nonsense, joining together with the ACLU and the highest courts in the land to lambast creationists, who are caught in an increasing bind. Evolutionary biology, as taught in public schools, shows no evidence of a purposive force of any kind. This is deeply disturbing to creationists. Yet in court, scientists proclaim that nothing in evolutionary biology is incompatible with reasonable religion." - William Provine, Professor of Biology, Cornell. //"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." - Malcolm Muggeridge. //"The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist." - Stephen Hawking, evolutionist. //"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." - Sir Arthur Keith Criswell, evolutionist. Jafem (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I am afraid this post displays very little understanding of what Wikipedia is, what principles Wikipedia operates under, what WP:NPOV and etc are. According to mainstream science and the movie review community, this movie is a lousy movie, promoting unscientific mumbo jumbo. In addition: This article certainly needs the POV designation, because it is plainly biased against the topic (both the "Expelled" movie and intelligent design), and uses various fallacious, straw-man arguments against both parts of the topic. By WP:NPOV we go with the mainstream views mainly. And guess what those are? The author is entitled to hold a point of view, but so are those who oppose that POV. This article has literally hundreds of "authors" with all different POV. And the article is more than 50 percent positive to the movie and to intelligent design. We just cannot make it 100 percent positive by WP:NPOV. There are many sites that are however; you are welcome to go there. It should be plainly identified that this is a review that is antagonistic to the issue, Who told you to go to Wikipedia for movie reviews? If you want a movie review, we have linked and summarized many many here. Do some reading. and does not fairly or accurately represent the intellectual arguments of the proponents of this issue. Our goal on Wikipedia is not to present uncritical descriptions. It is to follow WP:NPOV. Sorry. Conversely, I freely state that my comments favor intelligent design, because it is true science - the best explanation of the scientific facts. Well you can believe what you want. But well over 99.9 percent of the scientists in the relevant scientific fields disagree with you, as well as every major scientific organization on earth, representing literally millions of scientists. This article is a negative editorial, therefore not an "encyclopedia-type" composition. There are literally hundreds of other wikis. You might find Conservapedia more attractive to someone of your particular mindset. All the quotes you presented in your post are typical creationist quote mined lies and nonsense.--Filll (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

This article is obviously DEVOTED to deconstructing the movie and dismissing the theory of ID. It's not neutral. 147.226.236.199 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 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.[25]

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. [26]

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)

I think that's right. "Creationism" has come to be almost synonymous with young-earth creationism (YEC). ID is clearly an attempt to create a bigger tent by remaining officially agnostic on the age of the earth, flood geology, and the other positive claims of YEC, while still repeating other common YEC arguments against evolution. But even so, many of the leaders of ID are also YEC advocates, and only Behe seems to accept common descent, even though ID *should* be compatible with theistic evolution (though Philip Johnson has argued otherwise, using what I've argued are contradictory claims, in the FAQ on Johnson's _First Things_ article at talkorigins.org). Lippard (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is outrageously biased. I came here because I honestly did not know what the movie was about. Instead of being informed what it was about I was bombarded with criticisms from the very first paragraph to the very end. There are pages in Wikipedia that debate the merits of the ID movement in great detail, this page doesn't need to be another. Not that it matters, but I am not an ID proponent, I am chiming in just because this is a classic example of Wikipedia editors who obviously have an agenda far beyond the mere presentation of factual information. Daniel Freeman (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I agree with Daniel Freeman. Here is the pertinent Wikipedia policy (emphasis added):

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

This article should not take a stand about the validity of intelligent design (ID), or about the validity of mentioning it in science classes as an alternative theory (in either private or public schools). Personally, I am 99.999% sure that ID is a load of crap, but this article has no business presenting such personal opinions as the view of Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Daniel Freeman. NCdave (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the article shows exceptional bias outside of the mainstream scientific and media bias, but I do think that the statements criticizing ID in general have no place in this article. The quotes on ID in general should be replaced with criticisms of the movie that have to do with its acceptance of ID. ID criticisms belong on the ID page. There are more than enough direct criticisms of the movie, use those sources rather than generic ones. 68.22.242.33 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not about to read everything that was written about this article's blatant bashing of the entire idea of Intelligent Design, but I will say this much: the fact that this article has remained unchanged for as long as it has is absolutely abominable. What is this, a jihad against anything that offers an alternative to the unproven theory of evolution? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia is it not? I'm going to assume that I'm write. An encyclopedic article is one that presents general information about a topic in an unbiased way without promoting any one agenda. That isn't what I see in the article; in fact, all I see is a desperate attempt in any way possible to discredit or explain away the topics that this documentary will be examine. To those people, I will say this: one of the reasons the world is as screwed up as it is is because people refuse to sit down and listen to each other. Do you realize that a large part of the wars that have taken place over the centuries could have been prevented if the people involved had been able to sit down and work out their problems? People, regardless of what is true, the most important lesson you can learn is how important it is to understand where your oppenent is coming from and I say this to the creationists and the evolutionists.

Anyway, this article is in need of immediate and drastic changes that will make it compatible with a neutal, non-advocate informational encyclopedia, or at least that's what I thought Wikipedia was. Raecoli (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Raecoli: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning that it is a general reference collection of knowledge. Because it strives for accurate knowledge, there is a bias toward truth, reflected in the policies of NPOV and RS. Though the article should be unbiased, it should not necessarily be even handed on all topics. Treatment should reflect the consensus of experts. In the case of science articles, those experts are scientists. In the case of movies, those experts are reviewers. So, if an article deals with a movie that talks about science, the content should reflect the opinions on it of scientists and movie critics. So far, response from those two groups has been overwhelmingly negative. This is reflected in the article. Kumagi (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning that it is a general reference collection of knowledge. Because it strives for accurate knowledge, there is a bias toward truth,

Yet in this case (and many others) there is a dispute as to what IS "truth". Whose idea of truth should determine how this article is written? Currently it has been written by people whose conception of truth is radically different then that of the film makers. Therefore, can it honestly be said that it's neutral? There are several sections that are written purely to disprove the film, instead of just giving facts on what the film is about.

Example:"In fact, the works of Darwin were burned by the Nazi Party."

This statement may be true, but there are no citations as to whether this is said in the movie or by reviewers, only that it was said by someone sometime. Therefore, there is no substantial relevance to this article. It's there merely to try to dispute the film. If people wanted to know what Nazi's thought of Darwinism, I'm sure there's a slanted article out there for them.If this article is allowed to make farfetched statements, not said in the movie, as to it's falsity, I should think it only fair that there should also be statements which support the movie. But that wouldn't be allowed because that would violate NPOV now wouldn't it? Funny how it doesn't work the other way (ironic since that's what the movie is about). Xtrm3writ3r (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning that it is a general reference collection of knowledge. Because it strives for accurate knowledge, there is a bias toward truth" --Kumagi. Is that so? Raecoli (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know earlier I said I wasn’t going to read everything in this article and the stuff on the talk page. Well, the subject matter intrigued me, so I decided to read through and analyze the issues in question. While I didn’t read all of the material, I will say this much: Wow. This movie hasn’t even hit the theaters yet and already we have people in tears and threatening to hack each other’s heads off. Is this exciting or what? I've also kind of changed my opinion a bit, and here's why:

After reading the article, I don’t see how anyone could say that it isn’t slanted. If you can, that’s fine, we’re all entitled to our own opinion. Regardless, the article takes special care to make the entire subject matter and people involved look like complete idiots. If you don’t believe me, re-read the article. Now my question is, why? If the movie is a load of crap, then what’s the problem with letting people go and see it? Are people afraid that those not part of the “higher academia” aren’t smart enough to ascertain fact from fiction? Forgive the euphemism, but that is rather condescending, don’t you think? I don’t have a PhD, but I can Post-hole Dig anywhere (notice I highlighted the letters so the “higher academics” would know what I meant, te he he.) My point is if you’re fairly, if not entirely, certain the movie is a load of crock, then you have nothing to worry about.

Now, on the subject of the debate taking place on this talk page, come on guys, let’s be civil with each other here. I’m not going to get into a debate with any of you on the factuality of the existence of God, but I will say this: it takes a lot more faith to believe all of existence formed from a series of accidents to be this orderly universe than it does to believe a God, by his art, created us in his image. A man once described the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory by saying, “It’s like dropping a nuclear bomb into a junkyard and hoping to get a space program.” I can’t remember who said it, but someone on this talk page made a very good point. He said, “consensus does not truth make.” Evolutionists, remember when there was a “consensus” the Earth was the center of the universe? That was when science was controlled by religion. Now, science is controlled by atheism and you know how history has a funny knack at repeating herself.

And to the others, stop running around thinking everyone is out to get you. Even though they probably are, don’t worry about it. If anything, all this attention and attack the movie is getting is GOOD! It gets people interested! If all people see is everyone frantically trying to discredit every aspect of this film, they might be more interested in it. It certainly has me interested; it has me thinking, “Hmm, I wonder what this movie has to say that everyone hates so much?" Raecoli (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If the movie is a load of crap, then what’s the problem with letting people go and see it? No one here or anywhere is preventing people from going to see this movie. However, if you expect people who are educated on the subject matter to remain silent on the complete banal vacuity of their opponent's stance, than your argument is absurd. That hasn't work with combating Holocaust Deniers or traditional YEC Creationism. Freedom of Speech, yes, but idiots spreading deadly ideas justly need to be ridiculed, in public. 66.77.144.5 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is so much fun! Let me help you out a bit, whoever wrote that. Basically you used a lot of really big words ("banal vacuity?"; I may need to see a doctor to find out if my bane is vacuous) to describe something that could be said much simpler: "I don't like this movie because I don't agree with the subject matter, so I'm going to make the people involved look stupid." Writing it that way makes it a lot easier to understand, don't you agree :). By the way, "deadly ideas?" My cooking is deadly, but I think that might be stretching it just a smidgeon. Raecoli (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, whether or not you agree or disagree with the movie is besides the point. The fact is that as an Encyclopedic source, Wikipedia strives to present an account of the world consistent with current expert opinion. For a movie about science, that means scientists and professional movie critics in the mainstream media. Although it's always possible that their take is wrong, they have a more educated point of view. The fact is that most scientists and mainstream media critics who have weighed in have panned this movie, and that should be reflected in the page. I would agree that many of the current criticisms go too far out of the way, and are criticisms of ID in general, and not necessarily this movie, and that should be changed. But the movie page shouldn't be all bubbles and joy. It should reflect the fact that the movie is considered wrong and badly made by many experts. Kumagi (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Kumagi, you make an excellent point, only I've decided I don't have a problem with it anymore. Refer to my comments above. And, ona side note, I guess my elementary school teachers told me wrong when they said encyclopedias present only information. If all the bigwigs with college degrees don't like the movie, of course it should be included, but it should be found in a section called "Criticism" and not be saturated throughout the article. But anyway, I stick to my view that all the attention, good or bad, is good; it gets people interested. Raecoli (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

...but idiots spreading deadly ideas justly need to be ridiculed, in public.

So what you're saying in a more intelligent way, is that people who think differently from the accepted way of thinking should should be made examples of, for doing so, by punishment of public humiliation? (gee, and I thought atheists were all about tolerance >_> maybe that's cultural relativists though, i thought they were the same) It's funny though, history has done the same thing. When Aristarchus of Samos made the claim that the sun was the center of the universe in 270 B.C. I doubt the the scientists of his day welcomed him with open arms. Is he such an idiot that should be ridiculed publicly? He probably was. Now granted that is a terrible (and over used) example, but there are hundreds of cases very similar. It's important to note that in none of those situations did the truth change, just the people's belief of what truth was. I'm just sick of hearing people call religion "intolerant" when your very own comment proves the statement, "Those who yell the loudest are the most insecure." Xtrm3writ3r (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

These rants are inappropriate violations of WP:SOAP and do not belong on this talk page.--Filll (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While I think Filll may need a lesson in diplomacy and tactfulness, I agree. I think we need to keep the conversation on topic. Xtrm3writ3r, the user that made those comments has been blocked from Wikipedia numerous times for vandalism and inflammatory remarks so I don't think there's anything to worry about from him. Raecoli (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad, apologies. Xtrm3writ3r (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proof that GOD doesn't exist

This article reads like a denigrating movie review rather than an objective view of the movie. The article itself does prove the point of the movie. Which is ironic since the article was intended to discredit the movie's premise. It makes you wonder what other proofs could be made in science if the controlling segments of the scientific community weren't so close minded. I believe that the scientific community has a real ego issue. The real challenge in the scientific community would be to provide a proof that GOD doesn't exist. To do that you would have to create a proof for every theory about creation and evolution. That in itself would make you a God at least in the omniscient aspect. That brings us to the point. Faith! Faith is the believe in that which cannot be proven. It may be the belief in GOD or the belief in science. Faith is what separates us from the animals. Animals only know what they have experienced. They don't believe in anything.

The question is what do you believe in. All encompassing theories developed in the last 300 years or the beliefs handed down from generations that span 1000's of years. I wouldn't be so quick to throw out traditional beliefs. A good example is the ten commandments. It is self evident to any one over 30 years old that violating any of the commandments eventually results in dire consequences. 71.249.194.138 (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) JoeTeeRuk

I'm not trying to be rude, 71.249.194.138, but I think it is customary to post new topics at the bottom of the page, so as to avoid confusion. Raecoli (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Claims that scientists were misled by interviewers" additional information

This section should really mention the whole "domain registration" issue -- apparently the domain "expelledthemovie.com" was registered by them a couple months BEFORE PZ and Dawkins were questioned by the filmmakers; So their claim that "Crossroads" was simply the working title are very dubious. This information should really be included in the appropriate section of this article, as I think it's very pertinent. How should it be sourced? We could probably find a WHOIS link to show when the domain was initially registered. Elecmahm (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to second this. I actually came to the talk page to suggest the same thing. It's also mentioned in the last three paragraphs of Dawkins' "Lying for Jesus?" blog article. It's a piece of objective evidence that makes the deceitful practices of the makers of the film blatantly obvious. -- HiEv 07:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there's more on the topic. Interviews with Ben Stein have him contradicting the story Mathis insists upon concerning "Crossroads" and raises the likelihood that the "Expelled" producers used (without permission) the Harvard/XVIVO animation to recruit Stein for the project. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok -- I'm going to go ahead and add this under the "Interview Controversy" section. Here are some references I'm using: Whois.net entry for expelledthemovie.com and Whois.net entry for expelledmovie.com. The former entry was created on March 2nd 2007, (registered through Tucows) the latter one month later (via Godaddy). But both domains point to the Expelled movie's website. PZ claims he was contacted in April 2007. I've been looking for some corroboration on this point, but have not yet found any. Is it worth noting in the wiki article anyways, perhaps with the preface that it's a claim made by PZ himself? I don't think this is damning PROOF of deception, but it certainly lends credibility to those that claim they were deceived. Elecmahm (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Intrusion or Inclusion

Consider this edit. It seems to me that User:Brain Rodeo was correct in making this change. But it was reverted by User:Dave souza, restored by yours truly, and reverted again by User:Hrafn. Hrafn stated: "'religious doctrines' have no legitimate place in 'science classes' -- so it is an 'intrusion', not an 'inclusion'"

I think that using "intrusion" violates POV. We aren't supposed to decide what does or does not have a legitimate place in a science class (even if this court or that court has said so) and tailor our wording to reflect that belief. We are just supposed to state the facts. Those people who are being described are opposed to the inclusion of ID in science classes. That is the fact. There is considerable disagreement as to whether or not such inclusion would in fact be an inclusion.

Please reply here if you agree or disagree. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"We aren't supposed to decide what does or does not have a legitimate place in a science class" or whether ID is religion-based or not. While I do not think this is in serious dispute, it is still being contested by the promoters of ID and others. Gralgrathor (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, care to explain what "I think that using "intrusion" violates POV" means? And how the word intrusion violates it? Since there are about 20 or more court rulings stating this, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and science classes are for science, and teaching other things in science classes is an intrusion, I do not understand what the problem is.

I will point out that we are not deciding what belongs or doe not belong. We are just reporting what the courts have ruled and the science community has stated. The law of the land. And the consensus of the science community. Period.

Now, I am uncertain about which word to use from a linguistic perspective. However, there is no problem with using the word intrusion if we are just worried about accuracy and exposition.--Filll (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite what are biases are I think inclusion does sound less POV. I mean, is it really that different and the changing of it would appease some of the more radical editors and save us from a long argument. Saksjn (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When there is sloppy language and reasoning used, like "less POV", this discussion starts to lose any meaning whatsoever.--Filll (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

'inclusion' is "less POV" than 'intrusion' because intrusion has very negative meanings that inclusion does not. We could say Judge X said this was an intrusion into the classroom but wikipedia should avoid strong language like that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If its my language you are talking about, please point out the mistakes. I am willing to learn and want to be given advice. Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note well that the sentence in question explicitly shows the views of those opposed to teaching of religion in science classes – "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes." The change to the mealy-mouthed "inclusion" casts their view in the terms preferred by the minority who oppose the US constitutional separation of church and state, and so violates NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, there is the issue of context: these scientists would themselves see it as an intrusion, therefore this form accurately reflects the nature of their objection. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The article currently says: "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes" (emphasis added).

Some people evidently want to replace the word "intrusion" with the word "inclusion". I would disagree. There's no reason why Wikipedia cannot say that those scientists view it as an "intrusion". On the other hand, we don't want to give the impression that Wikipedia views it as an intrusion, lest we violate the NPOV principle. So, I would suggest rewriting the sentence like so: "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what they view as the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes" (emphasis added).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also the view of Edwards v. Aguillard, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, & McLean v. Arkansas. In fact it would be difficult to find a credible authority that didn't consider it to be an "intrusion" (and no dissenting credible authority has been cited). Therefore stating that it is only viewed by "scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution" as an intrusion is not to give it its WP:DUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The language I suggested did not say or imply that "only" the interviewed scientists view those doctrines as an intrusion. As the article stands right now, Wikipedia is taking the position that those doctrines are an intrusion.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in getting into a revert war. This comment My most recent edit will be my last edit today at this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia should not take the position that these doctrines are an intrusion or are not an intrusion. If someone wants to edit this article to say that various court decisions have viewed them as an intrusion, then that would be fine. That is not the same thing as Wikipedia taking a position on the matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your enthusiassm for giving equal validity to the minority viewpoint, your proposal gives undue weight to the minority position and misrepresents the clear majority view in science and amongst science educators as well as the established legal position. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So should wikipedia also carefully avoid stating that a burglar breaking into a home is an "intrusion"? The basis for that "position" is the same as for the statement under debate -- strong legal precedent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We can weasel word things a lot, but at some point the writing becomes tortured and hard to read. When there have been something like 15 major court decisions saying it is an intrusion, including a couple of supreme court decisions, and many many dozens of minor court decisions saying it is an intrusion, and well in excess of 99.9% of the scientists in relevant fields in favor of teaching only evolution in science classes, and every major scientific and educational body stating the same thing, as well as all the major religious organizations in the US (covering over 80% of all Americans) then it is pretty overwhelming that it is an intrusion. The only groups that are in favor of putting intelligent design in the classroom are (1) a tiny fraction of religious fundamentalists and other extremists, somewhat like a Christian version of the Taliban; an extreme minority among Christians worldwide (way less than 5%) (2) a large fraction of the US public that have been confused about the issue by propaganda; most members of the US public could not pick the definition of "evolution" out of a multiple choice list (as shown repeatedly in surveys) (3) a few politicians who pander to this faction of the public for votes (4) assorted religious leaders like Ken Ham who make money (over 200,000 dollar a year salary, last I checked) from spewing lies and other nonsense, or Discovery Institute fellows who are paid an extra 30, 40 or 50 thousand dollars a year to publish unscientific drivel.

So all in all, intrusion does not sound so bad and so unrealistic.--Filll (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing weaselly about striking through these three words: "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes."[27] This strikethrough was reverted, and the effect of the reversion is to insist that Wikipedia take a position, and abandon NPOV. There is not the slightest problem of undue weight if those words are struck out. Nor is there any problem of undue weight if instead the words "what they view as" are inserted.[28]

It is very clear that some editors here wish to rely on several court decisions to justify Wikipedia taking the same positions as those courts. That is a blatant POV violation. Reporting in this article what those courts said would be fine, but adopting it as the Wikipedia position is not fine.

Additionally, if you want to discuss what courts have said, not a single court in the United States has said that those doctrines are an intrusion in any science course at a private school. All of the court decisions have been about public schools. So, you're not only violating NPOV principles, but are using false arguments to try to justify it.

Personally, I don't think religious doctrines or pseudoscience belong in science classes at private school or public school, but that is my personal opinion, and I would not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advance that personal opinion of mine (as you folks are doing).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you do seem to be using this talk page to advocate a rather liberal concern to pander to the minority view at the expense of clearly showing the overwhelming majority view as required by NPOV policy. Nuff said. .. dave souza, talk 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously against Wikipedia policy to portray a majority view as the correct and only view, and to furthermore adopt it as the Wikipedia view. You are free to say what the majority view is and what the minority view is in this article, but it is not Wikipedia's business to take sides. And if you ever do decide to conform this article to NPOV, you might also mention that courts in the United States are unanimous that mentioning creationism and the like in science courses is not an intrusion, except at public schools.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made an edit on the matter, with reasoning being in my edit summary. I have never before edited or even looked at this article before today, and I think that the theory of intelligent design is complete and utter nonsense, so I can hardly be described as POV pushing. Restepc (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ferrylodge, the courts in the United States have consistently ruled that these are not science. It therefore follows that teaching non-science in science classes would be an "intrusion" in any school, not just a public school: it's just that the church/state angle doesn't cover private schools, which are actually free to teach anything (creationism, skateboarding, hip-hop, wrestling...) in "science" classes. But I think Restepc's edit does the job: it keeps "intrusion" and attributes it to those who care. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the edit by Restepc, and also with everything that Restepc said in his comment, with a few caveats. It does seem like the basic laws of physics emanated from an intelligent design, and lots of eminent scientists have said so, from Newton to Einstein. So, it's not completely outlandish to suppose that scientists in the future might find some intelligent design at work in conjunction with the evolutionary process of natural selection --- but that hasn't happened yet. And don't forget that choosing your mate does involve some intelligent design: would you choose a mate who would cause your offspring to be hideous? I think not.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

current edit war

I'm really tempted to get involved in the current edit war, but I'm not going to. I'm going to ask every one else to do the same and finish discussing it here before we start edit war this thing to mush. Saksjn (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit war untile the conservative blogger /pov tag team showed up. There's a COI violation in there somewhere I bet. Odd nature (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How funny! I'm going to have to stop reading this talk page: my stomach is starting to bruise from the hysterics! Raecoli (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stein would have liked Darwin to just keep quiet

I am not about to try to edit this Wikipedia entry, but I'd like to bring up something that might be worth including. Ben Stein basically saying that Darwin should have just shut up:

"5. What would you like to say to Darwin?

[Ben Stein answers]" "You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don’t you just live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?" "

So much for their concern about freedom, academic or otherwise. If Stein could have persuaded him not to publish science, that's what he'd have done.

I am not sure where this might go in the entry. Obviously it could serve as a counterexample to any of their claims to be promoting "academic freedom," but that's up to those who know more about editing.

Glen Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Davidson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting link, Stein certainly makes some bizarre statements, such as "If you’re taught something, and asked to take it on faith, in your science class, then you should say, “Sir, you’re asking me to take it on faith. And if we’re talking about things that are taken on faith, then could we also talk about Intelligent Design, which is my faith?” Yup, that argument's really going to help next time there's a court case about pushing religion into science classes. However, my feeling is that it's a primary source in terms of WP: no original research and we really need a published reliable secondary source verifiably making the assessment of Stein's statements. . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that little interview snippet, but I would prefer to wait until after the interview with Dobson air to incorporate them both into this article. --Filll (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what were the comments made by Ben Stein immediately before or after he made that statement? I'm interested to know if they may have been taken out of context. Not saying you did, of course, I would just like to see that information made available before something we're not sure wasn't a joke, or sarcastic, or serious. Raecoli (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raecoli, the article is linked. Notice that Dave Souza wrote "Thanks for an interesting link". The phrase "Ben Stein basically saying that Darwin should have just shut up" is in a lighter blue color than most blue words in the discussion page, because it is an outside link that you may click on to read the quote in its original context. That link takes you to this address: http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007058.cfm Glen Davidson

Thank you, Glen. I had always had trouble with those bright blue words, what do you call them? hyper something? No, Glen I read the interview on the website and it looks to me like he was making a joking remark (the kind I make on a daily basis.) But of course, if it really is that big of a deal, I suppose I'm doomed to Hell for sure. Raecoli (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a very original dodge. Glen Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Davidson (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he was dodging anything. I simply think he was making a humorous remark (we all know Ben Stein is notorious for his dry wit) before getting to the crux of the matter. One of the most important things to know in life is not to take everything at face value. We've all said things that I'm sure could be considered questionable or offensive on paper, but when looking at them in the context they were used a lot of the time you see what was said wasn't really meant at all. And that's the truth, son. Raecoli (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming that Stein was dodging anything. Other than telling Darwin to shut up, that statement is consistent with everything else he says. So it's pretty clear that he meant it. What is not an original dodge is for creationist apologists to claim that someone was joking when there is nothing to indicate that he was. Glen Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Davidson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Glen, if you get nothing else out of this discussion, I want you to learn two things: 1) a major reason why we have so many problems in the world is because instead of sitting down and talking to each other respectfully, people tend to say inflammatory things at one another and get all sorts of feathers ruffled until we wip out the AK-47s and settle it the old-fashioned way. 2) You want to avoid using vague generalities to legitimize a claim (i.e., "that statement is consistent with everthing else he says"; with what other statements is it consistent?, and how so?)

I am not a creationist apologist (as far as I'm concerned, neither creation nor evolution has been proven scientifically) and if I appeared to be dogding, please allow me to clarify. Granted, the comment on its own, may indicate a lack of belief in academic freedom. But, when read in the context of the entire interview, it is blatanly obvious he making a casual remark, possibly out of sarcastic frustration. In the previous question, he said, "No science teacher can tell a student how life originated on this earth, or anywhere. No science teacher can tell anyone for sure where matter originated. A biology teacher cannot offer any evidence of a single, distinct species that has evolved under observation. You can clearly see the effects of gravity. Where is the observed proof of Darwinism?" And earlier, he said, "Darwinism had led to academic suppression. Anyone who questioned the orthodoxy of Darwinism was losing his job, getting harassed, losing his grants, losing his office, her office. This was not supposed to happen in a country based upon freedom of speech. I was very worried about that."

He was not going on a ideological tirade against a proven fact, he was listing grievances caused by a widespread teaching of an unproven, unsubstantiated theory as irrefutable scientific fact. For example, at a football game, one team totally wipes the other out. Afterward, the winning coach says, "They [the losers] might as well have stayed home." Did he literally mean they should have stayed home? Of course not. Plus, I want you to look at what he says immediately after making that comment, "I want to emphasize, Darwin was not like the crazed neo-Darwinists of today. Darwin believed in the freedom of inquiry. He encouraged there to be further study and debate. He said that in writing before he died. Neo-Darwinists ask us to believe in things not seen. We’re not supposed to have an established religion in America, but we do, and it’s called Darwinism." Doesn't look like a literal attempt to suppress a scientific idea to me, but an example of sarcastic frustration.

And, that's really all there is to say on this whole thing. You can take the one comment at face value, or look at in the context of the interview as a whole, but I think you should really consider it before including this comment in the article. You might mess around and prove Stein's point if you're not careful. Raecoli (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An edit conflict ate my first response, which may be just as well. Look, what matters is that Ron came in here with the idea that the context would mean that Stein's remarks were "joke, or sarcastic", not serious, and of course he concluded that they were. Nothing he says changes anything, and little is even to the point.

Ron is an apologist for creationism (that is what I meant with "creationist apologists", which I admit is ambiguous), or he wouldn't be calling a highly substantiated theory an "unsubstantiated theory". That is the only context that he's actually appealing to, the idea that Stein is relating true grievances over the teaching of evolution as an "irrefutable fact" (strawman fallacy), which has been thoroughly refuted across the web, and especially in the journals. But the fact is that forcing scientists to accept pseudoscience and its anti-science underpinnings as if these count as real science is already a violation of free speech, freedom of religion, and of the freedom of inquiry, hence Stein's statement that he'd tell Darwin to live quietly and to keep his science to himself only fits the broader context.

However, the case demonstrating Stein's assaults against freedom is not to be made here (I agree that Raecoli wrote an off-topic rant), nor is this the place to claim that Stein is a freedom fighter, hence his remark is out of character. The fact is that it is in-character, and only states explicitly what is inherent in his whole attack on science and scientists. We should be operating with this well-substantiated conclusion in mind, and not be arguing all over again about issues that have been resolved to the satisfaction of all interested parties except for the partisans of ID and anti-evolutionism. Glen Davidson

Okay, Glen if you say so. By the way, my name is Roy. I was confused about who you were talking about when I started reading your response. Regardless of what you may have your mind set on, I am not an apologist for creationism; sorry, but I think I made that very clear. If you think that disagreeing with a theory that in my view is unsubstantiated, then I guess maybe under that definition I am. That's a sort of, "If you're not with me, then you're against me," mindset, which is the point that Ben Stein is trying to make. On a side note, I think the same burden of proof applies to both creation and evolution, and as far as I'm concerned, neither side has satisfied it. But, you can rest assured that I will raise hell if this quote is added to the page as "proof" of Ben Stein being a hyprocrite. He may be, I don't know the man personally, but this quote does not offer any sort of proof in the affirmative. Raecoli (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I did not enter this discussion with any predispositions. It's actually funny how you selectively chose my words to form a quote. Just for reference, my actual words were, "Just out of curiosity, what were the comments made by Ben Stein immediately before or after he made that statement? I'm interested to know if they may have been taken out of context. Not saying you did, of course, I would just like to see that information made available before something we're not sure wasn't a joke, or sarcastic, or serious." Raecoli (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, Roy, you know nothing about what you're "discussing," but you're bound and determined to force your prejudices onto Wikipedia. And you may succeed in your prejudiced aims, since not understanding these issues is no actual barrier to editing Wikipedia. This is exactly what we have learned to expect from your side, along with the nauseatingly dull and baseless charges of having an "if you're not with me, you're against me" mentality. Clearly anti-science know-nothings are against science proponents such as myself, it's simply part of the structure of reality. Glen Davidson

You should maintain your civility, Glen. I do not have prejudices, and I am not close-minded. If I were to see evidence that convinced me evolution was more than a theory, I would be expected to give that evidence a fair consideration. The same is also true of creation.It's really not that big of a deal to begin with, but it really makes you look bad when you start mounting personal attacks. I've done my best not to insult you and I'll thank you to do the same. Raecoli (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"You might mess around and prove Stein's point if you're not careful" He's going to prove Darwin caused the Nazis? Fascinating, this I gotta see! Angry Christian (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys make me laugh. Really, I just wasted a lot of words on something that makes little or no difference. I'm sticking by what I said up top in the "At least add POV tag" section. When it all comes down to it, Stein has accomplished what he set out to do, which was to start the debate. To that end, I believe the film has been a success. And the funny thing is, it hasn't even been released yet! Raecoli (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this sort of off-topic rant does not belong on this talk page. Please go somewhere else on the internet for these sorts of statements and debates. If you continue, we will have to start summarily archiving and userfying these sorts of posts.--Filll (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Filll. I believe this discussion is very relevant to this article. It has to do with the possibility of adding a statment made by Ben Stein that may or may not mean what it is being portrayed to mean, as a means to show hypocrisy. If that isn't relevant and on-topic, I don't know what is. Raecoli (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

School Field Trips

I have at least one field trip to report. My school is going to watch the movie next Friday. Do we have any other trips that have been reported? Saksjn (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - You're a minor, and while that doesn't mean we don't respect you as an editor, you should probably be careful about revealing too much information about yourself in relation to this discussion. But do tell us what you think of it - your memories and opinions may not reach the level of verifiable, reliable source, but that doesn't make us not interested in them, and they might be useful for letting us know whether we got the balance right. Optionally [if you want to], take a notebook with you (if possible) and jot down notes on what's covered, the order in which things are covered, in which interviewees are introduced, and so on - that would be extremely useful for knowing how to organise the article =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What type of school is this? A private religious school? If it's a state school, that has constitutional implications. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Saksjn does your school have an online student news site? If so send us a link to any articles they might publish about this event. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have an online news site, but the school website might have something on it. I know the school post a school newsletter up, but it mostly just talks about sports and the elementary school. We are a private school, which changes things a lot. I probably should have said that when I posted this. I did mention we were a private school in a different thread, but it should have been re-stated. Thanks for the notebook idea Shoemaker; that's a really good idea. I don't think that mentioning a field trip is revealing to much information, since you guys don't know what school I go to. I'll try to outline when people come in and when different topics are covered. After that we could all have a better idea of what is exactly in the film. Thanks for the idea and I'll try to put my notes in an electronic form at some point so I can post them on here. That way we can all see them. Saksjn (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, just saying you're going on a field trip is probably harmless enough, but, you know, if your school is small, it might start to get too easy to identify you if you start to reveal specific details. And, you know, better to mention it now before you start telling us about the trip itself, which, as a travelogue, offers a lot of chance for revealing personal information. =) Also, be careful about linking the newsletter [or don't do it at all] if the school is fairly small. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Just a note - You're a minor, and while that doesn't mean we don't respect you as an editor, you should probably be careful about revealing too much information about yourself in relation to this discussion. But do tell us what you think of it - your memories and opinions may not reach the level of verifiable, reliable source, but that doesn't make us not interested in them, and they might be useful for letting us know whether we got the balance right." Lord, have mercy. Why do we have to be so vicious to one another? (that's a joke by the way) Raecoli (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, how was the field trip? What are your impressions?

Citation 32 needs attention

[Evoloution is]......"a large set of observations and data showing that adaptive mutation and selection occurs, and a scientific theory explaining why this occurs.[32]". The cited piece references no scientific observations or data and indeed misrepresents evolution as: "...a scientific fact to be known." Any citation in support of observed adaptive mutation (itself controversial) must contain actual information.63.230.77.249 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it doesn't. That is readily available elsewhere. The reference summarizes the scientific view, and specifically mentions the movie. Meanwhile the article itself already links to Evolution in the lead. And how is stating the scientifically-accepted "factual" status of evolution "misrepresenting" it? This topic is not "controversial" (among scientists): as other citations in the article (and related articles) make clear. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The user is saying that it needs to be cited, not arguing about whether it's true. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what the relevant portion of the article says: "...to lend plausibility to the argument that evolution is a matter of faith, rather than a large set of observations and data showing that adaptive mutation and selection occurs, and a scientific theory explaining why this occurs". And here is (some of) what the supporting citation says: "As a natural phenomenon based on scientific evidence, evolution is not a matter of belief or faith, any more than gravity or genetics... ...Stating it that way would acknowledge the fact of evolution and show that those who refuse to accept it are denying established evidence and proof... ...Thus the theory of evolution aims to make logical and rational sense of the facts of evolution, proposing mechanisms to explain how evolution occurs. Those who attack evolution as merely a “theory” misunderstand what a scientific theory is.". It is therefore pretty clear that the authors of the reference are supporting the claim that evolution is a valid scientific theory which explains a large body of actual facts (and they are also saying that ID misrepresents this, and they are criticising the film on this basis). Thus, the reference supports the text of the article. Anyone who actually doubts that the facts of evolution exist, or doubts that those facts support evolution, can go to the appropriate articles instead (or actually enrol at a university and study the evidence firsthand if they're still not convinced). Meanwhile we reflect what notable authorities (in this case, two university professors) are saying. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So when does a theory become of "fact." When scientist decide that it's convenient to have it as a fact. As far as I know, the only "facts" in science are laws; such as the law of gravity. Saksjn (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, evolution is a fact and a theory: the fact is that creatures evolve, the theory explains how. Thus, the facts are the raw data that supports the theory: in this case, changes in populations of organisms over time (which, for short-lived organisms, can be observed in the laboratory). However, the "theory" of evolution is also "fact" in a more colloquial sense, as in "very well supported" and "generally accepted by the relevant experts": like saying that the historical existence of Napoleon is "fact". It's also pretty close to a natural law, as it's a seemingly inevitable consequence of the existence of mutation and natural selection: it will happen unless something stops it from happening. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can clear this up. Laws are really not that important in science; they are just sort of general rules of thumb that have been observed (and can be broken or violated anyway). What are most important are data, also known as scientific facts, and theories, which are the explanations for these data (facts).

So in evolutionary biology, what are the facts? Well there are literally hundreds of millions of them, if not more. For example:

• observations of where a dinosaur bone was dug up, and what shape it was
• genetic markers in human DNA showing the results of endogenous retroviruses
• the observation that humans and other primates have opposable thumbs
• the fraction of people in the population that are colorblind
• observation of a teleomere in the middle of human chromosome number 2
• observation that the species of plants on different sides of the Great Wall of China are different
• discovery of nylon eating organisms
• laboratory observations of fruit fly population changes over time
• observation of the species of mosquitos that live only in the London Underground

These are all data. These are all "scientific facts". They come from observations or measurements or are the results of experiments. They are very hard to argue with since they have been verified to exist, over and over.

The definition of evolution as "change of distribution of alleles in a population over time" can come into play here. Some of these observations are direct observations of a "change of distribution of alleles in a population over time". So that is why people say "evolution is a fact". Because according to that definition, some of these data, or observations, are "evolution". And therefore, it is reasonable to say "evolution is a fact" according to the scientific definition.

Now what does "change of distribution of alleles in a population over time" really mean? Suppose you took all the adults in your neighborhood and found out that 33% had blue eyes and 67% had brown eyes. Then suppose you took all the kids in your neighborhood and found out that 23% had blue eyes and 77% had brown eyes. Wow, the next generation has fewer blue eyes! Blue eyes are one allele, and brown eyes are another. And we have a change of the distribution of alleles in a population (people in your neighborhood) over time. So this IS evolution, by definition. The fact that there are fewer kids with blue eyes than among the adults is a "fact". And it is evolution.

Now what is the "theory of evolution"? A theory of evolution is an explanation for these "facts". There have been many explanations advanced. All of these explanations are called the theory of evolution. Darwin's theory was a very important "theory of evolution". And today, when people say the "theory of evolution" it is an explanation that is not quite Darwin's explanation, but it is related to Darwin's explanation. --Filll (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Adaptive Mutation" is a fact (observed and accepted in NON-evolutionary biology). "Adaptive Mutation" is also a part of "SOME" very specific, developing and controversial hypotheses that contradict mainstream theories of evolution in regards to the randomness of mutations. Please reconsider describing evolution as "a large set of observations and data showing that adaptive mutation and selection occurs". Adaptive mutation is a unique, specific, non-random form of mutation that is not an accepted part of modern evolutionary theory. Reference: "Adaptive Mutation of a lacZ Amber Allele-Patricia L. Foster and John Cairns" - http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/150/3/1329 63.230.77.249 (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

...Ah. Maybe we were "talking past each other" there. I suspect the author of that section of the article meant something different by the phrase "adaptive mutation". Mutations can help an organism adapt to environmental conditions, but the phrase adaptive mutation also describes the more controversial view that some mutations may be non-random. However, current thinking is that while some parts of the genome are more mutation-prone than others, and microbes (at least) may be able to vary their overall mutation rates in response to changing conditions (though this could be something as mundane as preferential selection of "mutation-prone" individuals when a beneficial mutation has occurred in one), there isn't any evidence that the mutations themselves are "guided". But this is still "evolution". Perhaps the word "beneficial" should be substituted for "adaptive". --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As a slight aside, science is full of random things or things with random causes. All of quantum mechanics is random; things like the color of your street lamps are determined "randomly". Ever hear the Einstein phrase "God does not play dice with the universe"? That is what Einstein was talking about. So he set out to prove it was wrong. And instead, proved it was right (see Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen ). And now the US government is spending literally billions of dollars on projects associated with this; the fact that the universe is intrinsically "random".

All of thermodynamics? Random stuff is involved. All of hydrodynamics? Random stuff is involved. Quality control? Random stuff is involved. Weather forecasting? Random stuff is involved (ever hear "50% chance of rain"?). Brownian motion? Random stuff is involved. Radioactivity? Random stuff is involved. There is just stochasticity throughout science. And huffing and puffing about it being against God or something is sort of silly.

So is there randomness throughout the natural world. All our mainstream accepted theories rely on it, or at least have for well over 100 years. Lots of our technology depends on this. So, if there is randomness in biology too, is that somehow evil and atheistic? Come on be serious here...--Filll (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is still not a fact. Science says that a fact must be observable, and we have not observed the evolution of a species. Don't say that the fossil record is evidence because we still have not found a "missing link" anywhere. Saksjn (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of species has been observed. And there have been several transitional species that have been discovered, if that's what you mean by "missing link." See Speciation. All of the facts of evolution are available right here at the press of a wikilink.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled for plagiarism

See this letter from XVIVO (whose cell animation IDers have been using without permission for some time, which Expelled uses a very thinly disguised re-rendering of). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Any news of them actually acting on the demands. If the segment is still in the film on the 18'th, it could cause an interesting problem. Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching news since last night (google news) and I see no mention of it yet. I am not sure what might happen. Will they just ignore this as legal puffery and go ahead? Will they hope that this is just more good publicity? Will they reschedule? Will they just cut it out of the movie? Cutting it out and redistributing the film would be very expensive. A lawsuit could be even more expensive, both in money and prestige. --Filll (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could they really survive the skeletons that discovery would reveal in their closets? There's been a good deal of skullduggery that they've already been accused of that would be documented in their own words if this came to court, let alone stuff that hasn't made the light of day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the legal letter was sent at the last minute on purpose to cause disruption. However, PZ Myers only got a copy of the CD/DVD containing the movie's video animation when he was expelled from the theatre in late March. PZ then analyzed it and presented the results on his blog. So a couple weeks later or so, the legal letter was sent. However, it is so last minute that it will cause huge embarassment if they have to reschedule again. And it will be expensive to reshoot that part of the movie. And cause another huge delay (remember they wanted to release it on February 12, Darwin Day, originally). It will be interesting to see how they play this. Both the original Harvard video and the version in the movie contain the same errors and omissions, which is usually used by courts to enforce copyright. --Filll (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are diabolically clever, they will have a noncopyright violating version already in the finished film, and only in the preview versions did they show the copyright violation, hoping that they would be called out on it. And this would give them extra publicity.--Filll (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems unlikely -- according to The Inner Life of the Cell the original took "14 months to create for 8.5 minutes of animation" -- by some top professionals that actually knew what they were doing. Can you really see the Premise boys being capable of doing a valid clean room reproduction that would stand legal scrutiny, even assuming they had the time and equipment? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Northfox inserted the following in the article:

On their website, Expelled producers deny any wrongdoing and say that "Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film."

What the Expelled blog actually states is:[29]

Editor’s Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.

The problem is they're not being aaccused of using the XVIVO animation, but a thinly disguised copy (technically a derivative work), as that they "created" it 'clean room' from scratch is highly unlikely. So it is not clear that the 'denial' actually means anything -- which is why I have reverted it until further discussion can be had on its meaning and significance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just was going to post the same thing. It appears that they will go ahead with the screening and take their chances with a potential lawsuit. I think we should include this, but I am not sure how and where. Comments?--Filll (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'denial' is short enough that it could be quoted verbatim. This would eliminate any accusation of WP:SYN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

David Bolinsky of XVIVO has given more details in this email, posted with his permission on Richard Dawkin's site. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why is the title of this section "Expelled for plagiarism" rather than say "Allegations of copyright infringement" or "XVIVO copyright infringement allegations"? The current title is kind of theatrical and not terribly accurate. Plagiarism appears mild, vague, and does not convey the legal issues.24.69.23.142 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific American reviews

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As the scheduled release gets closer, we are getting more and more material. Of course, given the most recent news, I am not sure that we will actually see the movie released on time.--Filll (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at google news shows all kinds of articles of various kinds. Here is a fun one: Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release--Filll (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific American had a conversation with Mathis after viewing the film to review it. MP3s (first & second parts) are available. Chris Heard, associate professor of Religion at Pepperdine University makes use of it (and provides extensive transcripts) in a blog post here asking the question: "Why Ken Miller isn’t in Expelled". The PT discusses this issue further here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee endorses the film

see here--Filll (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really useful here except the fact that a presidential candidate (dropped out) has endorsed it. I'll check to see if there is any info on the endorsement already in the article. If there isn't, I'll add some. Saksjn (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the family interview

here. This is amazing Stein talks about the organic cell and the "inorganic cell". Huh?--Filll (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the beauty of intelligent design. You don't have to know anything about biology or science to be a "design theorist". Angry Christian (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the broadcast, they offer to send you the Expelled Leaders Guide and a DVD, free. I might want to see those, but I am a bit nervous about being on a weird mailing list.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Expelled Leaders Guide is an amazing piece of glossy and flashy propaganda. Take a look here.--Filll (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the Family is not an ID expert. They have no scientist working for them and as far as I know, have not claimed to be an expert on ID. Let not treat thier words like they are experts. Saksjn (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, neither is Stein nor Ruloff nor Mathis. In fact, I would include everyone associated with the Discovery Institute in that list as well.--Filll (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"reportedly"

In this edit, Mackan79 inserted the word "reportedly." AC reverted him, and I unreverted. Here's the beginning of the sentence:

"Hosted by Ben Stein, it reportedly claims that what the film calls “Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and..."

I think the word "reportedly" is good there, because I've not seen documentation that the movie makes that precise claim. I've not seen no statement on the movie promo site that no dissent at all is allowed in Big Science.

The closest I've seen to that is this satirical page about a parody of a school, "Big Science Academy," where there is "no room for dissent" in science classes. But I don't think that is equivalent to saying that every "big science" institution (every university, every gov't research program, etc.) permits no dissent. NCdave (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not that opposed to a few weasel words like "reportedly" but too many and the writing starts to stink. Also, I think if you follow our sources and listen to the interviews and read the interviews and reviews, you will see that "reportedly" is not really that accurate here. --Filll (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article before you start editing it, NCDave. The article clearly states "it claims that what the film calls “Big Science" and does not state every university, every institution, etc. It states what the film calls "Big Science" Please read teh Expelled blog/site/promotional materials if you doubt this. Angry Christian (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NCDave feel free to add ben's quote on big science as an additional ref found here. Angry Christian (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to clarify, the reason I added it was mostly because the movie isn't out, which somewhat raises the question of how Wikipedia knows what is in it. Obviously there have been screenings etc., and Wikipedia is sort of a unique entity, but for instance if the New York Times were writing about a movie none of the writers had been able to see, I think it would have to qualify its reports about what's in it. I think it also insulates WP from looking like it's taking a stance -- the same reason I added the source to the first sentence -- but that was mainly it. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use reportedly you should say who reported it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Time review

Time (magazine) has a review here.

It comes across as a well-meaning, but not particularly well informed (the reviewer seems unaware of the baselessness of the accusations of persecution, the volumes of detailed scientific criticism of ID positions, or of the number of prominent theistic evolutionists on the pro-evolution side), criticism of the film . Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NCdave Expelled

In case any of you haven't heard yet, NCdave has been blocked. The block is due to expire in one week. The edits he made just before being blocked were these: [30] and [31]. If any of you are interested in commenting one the issue, there is a thread at this noticeboard. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good bloody riddance! This means that we don't have to endure his tendentious and disruptive editing for a week. I was getting to the stage of wanting to strangle him whenever he repeated his fallacious Establishment Clause whine yet again. His constant broken-record WP:SOAPboxing added nothing worthwhile to the conversation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

Thank you for your thoughts. But be careful. Saying that someone "added nothing worthwhile to the conversation" borders on violating some of the rules. I believe NCdave is a valuable contributor to the project. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read #Administrative action and NCdave & WP:SPADE. I believe that your contention that "NCdave is a valuable contributor to the project" is wholly unsupported by the facts. You were the one who brought up the subject of this thoroughly objectionable editor, so you should not be surprised when we tell you exactly what we think of his behaviour. The vast majority of opinion on WP:AN/I appears to support this view of his behaviour. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that NCdave has caused some problems, but, those edits were not worthy of a block. The second one is an edit that I almost made myself a couple times. Would I or anyone else have been blocked if we made those edits? I understand that he can be disruptive sometimes, but if he's going to get blocked, he should be blocked over something that actually violates the rules. Those edits didn't violate any rules at all. Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was most probably for an ongoing pattern of disruptive behaviour, not just his last two edits (neither of which were particularly helpful). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

An enlightening quote -- "Consistent POV pushing, long talk page rants, and reverts"[32] -- reason given for blocking NCDave almost three years ago -- it would seem that little has changed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about NCdave's editing, but bringing up something from three years ago as evidence that he hasn't changed seems a bit suspect. Hard to get away from that, I guess? As far as the discussion linked above, I also didn't see anything particularly convincing. I've only watched this from the periphery, but when some editors are calling others worthless contributors, it's not much wonder to me that the discussions have some problems. Mackan79 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that "Consistent POV pushing, long talk page rants, and reverts" is exactly the disruptive behaviour that led to his most recent blocking. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there another kind? :) I'm just pretty sure I've seen worse, and I question whether getting rid of the perspective helps the article. Mackan79 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that he did little more than repeat the same thing over and over again (and throw tantrums when it was excised as off-topic), I rather doubt if we're losing anything new, particularly as his "perspective" was consistently unpersuasive to the majority of editors. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79: if you can point to any valuable contribution NCDave has made, I'll concede that my criticism of him was unwarranted. Unless and until that happens, I stand by my comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, he'd probably have to offer that himself. But problems or not, I think it needs to be a little clearer so someone else can actually see what the problems are, which is honestly difficult here. Mackan79 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I would not consider his judgement to be reliable on the matter. And it is you who is defending the value of his contributions, so it is you who needs to substantiate your claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on Mackan79, give it a rest. If you cannot see the evidence of obstruction and tendentious argumentation from NCDave, then you are not looking very hard. He makes the same arguments over and over and over, after they are dismissed. He wants to use the talk page as a SOAPbox on which to lecture us about how his beliefs and only his beliefs are The TRUTH^TM. If you look above, there is instance after instance of similar nonsense out of him. I just gave up discussing things with him since it was clear he was not willing to listen to or engage in a reasonable rational dialogue. This appears to be someone who is unwilling or unable to abide by the principles of Wikipedia.

People, Wikipedia has to abide by NPOV. That does NOT mean neutral or positive. It means that if there are two ideas, A and B, both A and B get presented. A's criticism of B is presented, and B's criticism of A is presented. If A is much more mainstream in the relevant discipline (in this case, academic science) than B is, then more of A will be presented often. Does anyone here doubt what the dominant view in academic Biology departments is of this film and its claims? In spite of that we still include huge amounts of material from the point of view of crazed religious fanatics of various stripes (declaring such things as human reason is bad and we should only follow the bible etc). We include all the claims of the film, albeit with some allusion to the other side (as we are required to by NPOV). We include numerous long detailed discussions of interviews with the producers. Our article has more material in it from the viewpoint of the film than its critics (excluding the footnotes). We are far more "balanced" than an article in the New York Times, or an article published by Answers in Genesis, as we should be.

If someone wants an article that ONLY attacks the film, Wikipedia is not the place for it. If someone wants an article that ONLY praises the film, or presents its claims without the other side, Wikiipedia is not the place for it.

And NCDave does not seem to understand that point. So, after causing a huge amount of disruption, he was blocked to think about it for a while. And, if anyone else wants to try to the same tactics NCDave tried, they might consider what happened to NCDave.--Filll (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Substantively, of course I agree with you. My question was solely what he did, which I'm still not totally clear about. I also think people should avoid disparaging someone, whether they understand NPOV or not. But, it looks like that's being discussed elsewhere which seems fine with me. Mackan79 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A little over four days into my seven-day block, after many fruitless requests for the blocking admin (or anyone else) to identify the edits which supposedly violated Wikipedia policies, I've finally been unblocked. NCdave (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm making these comments as I scroll down, so if any of them seems inconsistent, look at them in the context of me learning more about the situation as I go. Guys, this is bordering on a witch hunt. I'm not familiar with NCdave's actions and whether or not his blocking was warranted, but I will say this: shame on you guys! When we have reached the point where dissenting opinions, true or not, are spat on and treated like street garbage, we may need to reevaluate our worldview. I'm a Christian, but I'm also very open minded and very open to new ideas. Now, just because I'm open to new ideas doesn't mean I accept all of them. Also, after coming this far from the top of the page, I think we may need to refresh ourselves on what Wikipedia is not. Raecoli (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Second that one. How about really reading through WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially #5. And I have a question. Who here has actually seen the movie? I know WP doesn't post personal opinion, but usually it helps when someone has experience with what they are talking about. Really the article makes me laugh. It's an example of what the movie is saying happens in life. You all have given a great live example. Infonation101 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New resource, expelled's response to Dawkins at screening incident

Just thought it might be interesting to give expelled's side of the story. Here's an article to read. Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We do "give expelled's side of the story" -- particularly how their "side" keeps changing and never seems to match the facts. And what sort of egotistical moron titles a piece "Stein smart bombs Darwin"?

1. Stein is so scientifically illiterate that he couldn't find the Theory of Evolution with a book entitled Evolutionary Biology for Dumbies.
2. Darwin is dead. And his original theory has been modified and improved enormously since his time. "Stein smart bombs Darwin" is about as meaningful as "US defeats Mesopotamia" or "Tenth Armored Division defeats Russian cavalry". Anybody ranting about "Darwin" is almost certainly admitting "I'm a religious fanatic who lives in an 19th century la-la-land where the modern science that has accepted, modified and improved the Theory of Evolution doesn't exist for me".

Oh, and the "astonishing" 'concession' from Dawkins was merely him discussing a hypothetical "what if". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply thought that the dialogue between the producer (just went blank on his name) and Dawkins would be useful. And yes, the title is kinda dumb. Saksjn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read the article? Saksjn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have. There is nothing of use in it. In particular, there is no "description of a dialogue with Dawkins, just one sentence, apparently describing the movie. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"American Society for Clinical Investigation"

It seems like the section that starts "American Society for Clinical Investigation" is original research. Should we be rebutting the film's arguments with references that have nothing to do with the film? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly properly sourced and attributed, not original research, and it's obviously relevant to the movie since the movie's premise is that academics who support ID are persecuted. Odd nature (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like if this were the ID page, then it would be applicable but isn't this page supposed to be about the movie and not just throwing in refs unrelated to it that disagree. Shouldn't we have to find a ref that disagrees with a statement in terms of the movie, not in terms of the general statement? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the reviews do discuss it, though not in as much detail as the cite quoted. We should probably add a second source next to it, to show that the concept has been connected to the film, but (if I were not 200 miles from home) I'm sure I could find one and do it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem with this paragraph is that the cited article does not appear to be an opinion of the American Society for Clinical Investigation but rather an article published in their journal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This week's New Scientist mentions (admittedly in less detail) the same point as taken from the ASCI paper in their review of Expelled. I left mine on a train, though. I'll get another tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Variety review: Thumbs down

Although clearly written by someone who is anti-evolution, the Variety review (to come out Monday I guess) is pretty negative.[33]--Filll (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An outsiders view of the POV of the article

After reading through it, I find that IMO, apart from some small issues of wording, the article is broadly neutral.

I can well understand why many ID supporters find the article biased, essentially for the same reason the film was made: they feel that ID/the movie is being unfairly treated by the establishment because of the massive amount of criticism, whereas in reality this criticism is well deserved for an absolutely retarded theory/awful film.

The article does appear to very heavily attack the film, but this is because it is reflecting the mass-criticism of the film, and I suspect that it is only said criticism which makes the film particularly notable.

So in brief, I think the page should not be tagged.

There are however, some worrying signs that if it were not for the very strong opposition from ID supporters the page would fast become POV biased....the insistence on the use of the suggestive word 'intrusion' is the most plain one I see, and though I have no plans to get involved in any major edits of this article, I will be watching it to ensure that the clarification 'what they view as' remains, although in reality I would much prefer it was simply changed to inclusion.

I don't suppose this will stop you guys arguing for a second, but thought I'd give my 2p, which with current exchange rates is worth about 4 cents :p Restepc (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Unfortunately, Restepc's necessary and proper edit has been reverted. I would like to directly ask the reverters why they think this Wikipedia policy is not applicable here:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

Shouldn't all sides respect this policy?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster define "intrude" as "to thrust or force in or upon someone or something especially without permission, welcome, or fitness". The views in question have been repeatedly "thrust or forced" into classrooms (e.g. by the Dover board) where they are not welcome (e.g. by science teachers) do not have permission (e.g. of the courts, who have ruled against them) and do not (in the opinion of the vast majority of science education experts) have any fitness. If you want to have "intruded" 'qualified' by the long list of those declaring it to be a legal/pedagogical/scientific intrusion, then you're welcome to do it that way, but I do not think that omitting this word makes the statement a more accurate characterisation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems the new version could well be an acceptable compromise, although I think perhaps a specific number should be given in place of 'virtually all'...I seem to remember seeing 99.9% given somewhere with a citation....and I think one of those court rulings that been mentioned labelling it an 'intrusion' will do for the [citation needed] request Restepc (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Even a number of ID advocates have, at various times, admitted that ID is not yet "fit" for the classroom. This was part of the reason for the strategic retreat to the Teach the controversy position -- as it meant that they didn't have to front up with a substantive positive hypothesis of their own. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

'Virtually all' gives undue weight to the claims of the producers. If 99.9% of scientists support evolution over ID (and there is a source for that) and zero scientific professional societies support ID, any phrasing that implies anything less than a monolithic opposition to ID and support of evolution in the scientific community misrepresents the extant to which ID is shunned and violates the undue weight clause of the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

yep, there is a source, but it is just a number; actually it is 99.9%. It is neither published in a peer reviewed paper, nor serious research/polls behind it. Here is a quote from A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism: Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". Northfox (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And we have several other sources that state essentially the same thing. You think that somehow these sources are all incorrect, and maybe secretly there is a huge belief in creationism among biologists and geologists?--Filll (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hovind organization markets Expelled

See here.--Filll (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is opening in 11 theaters near me on Friday. NCdave (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled, Darwin and Antisemitism

It appears that, whilst making a big song and dance about the spurious link between Darwin and the Holocaust, Stein interviewed a ravingly antisemitic Creationist for Expelled. I had thought that the general idea for these sorts of media forays was to keep your more embarrassing membership under lock & key (figuratively speaking) for the duration -- not parade them centre stage. It's getting difficult to find room for all of their assorted pratfalls and unintentional ironies that this movie has generated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed this out repeatedly. The harshest antisemitic types (who use phrases like "Jesus killer" etc) have nothing to do with science and atheism and evolution etc, but are motivated by religion. Martin Luther's text On the Jews and Their Lies was far more of an inspiration for Mein Kampf than On the Origin of Species. Stalinism with its promotion of the antiDarwin Lysenko and its leadership all trained in Russian Orthodox seminaries (including Stalin and Molotov and those running the Gulag prison system and secret police) had more inspiration from religion than from Darwin. The worst racists in the US like the Klu Klux Klan use the bible as their motivation, not Darwin's work. Creationists like the Baptists and Pentecostals were in the lead to retain slavery and segregation in the US, not abolish these practices like the pro-evolution Quakers and Unitarians. Capitalism is far closer to surival of the fittest than communism is. That is why this movie is a huge load of nonsense.--Filll (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the same was true on the eugenics angle -- some of the biggest supporters of the movement during its heyday in the earlier 20th Century (which just happens to also have been the 'eclipse of Darwinism') were evangelicals. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have pointed this out repeatedly. The harshest antisemitic types (who use phrases like "Jesus killer" etc) have nothing to do with science and atheism and evolution etc, but are motivated by religion." -- or nationalism. See Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies Raul654 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin himself was a huge antislavery activist, and was sickened when he witnessed slavery auctions during the voyage of the Beagle. This entire thing is topsy-turvy and is characterized by the lies of the religious fundamentalist lunatics.

Even statements like "The United States is a Christian Nation" (in complete denial of the Treaty of Tripoli) and using things like the pledge of allegiance as evidence of this are stupid. The part of the pledge of allegiance that refers to God ("one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all") had the "under God" part inserted more than 50 years after it was written, in the 1950s, and is also evidence of the fierce racist instincts of the religious fundamentalists. The original phrasing was "with liberty and equality for all" but the Baptists and other religious fundamentalists were so opposed to the idea of "equality" that they forced the change to a more authoritarian and harsh "justice" phrasing, much to the author's dismay. --Filll (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, first of all, I am a Baptist, and (most of us) are not racists, or lunatics, nor even fundamentalists. I am a direct descendant of Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist church in America, and a famous champion of religious liberty. Please do not bash my religion; and

Secondly, I don't understand how your digression into the argument over America's Christian heritage is relevant to this article; and

Thirdly, the Pledge's "under God" phrase isn't particularly relevant to the argument over America's Christian heritage, since it doesn't mention Christ. Much more relevant are foundational documents such as the Treaty of Paris, which concluded the American Revolutionary War, and which begins, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity," and the fact that when the nation was formed, and when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and ratified, most of the States had established official State churches of varying Christian denominations. NCdave (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally would like to create a section of this article that deals with cases like Christine Comer and others who were persecuted by religious types for any hint that evolution needs to be considered. And discussion of the clearly antisemitic Giertych could go in there. However, I am afraid this might run afoul of WP:SYNTH rules. Comments?--Filll (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can tie them together. What would be the title? I've already suggested that a 'Creationist persecution of theistic evolutionists' article would probably be a starter (I'm not sure if Comer would fit in, given that I don't know her religious views). Antisemitism and creationism only really hold together because they're both views of the Christian right. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although Darwin (like pretty near every European in the 19th century) may be a racist by today's standards, by the standards of his day he was extremely progressive in his attitude to non-Europeans. The ironic thing is that the original pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist minister, whose secular wording was subverted because of anti-communist hysteria during the McCarthy era. Go figure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin was actually very non-racist, even by today's standards. However he regarded European civilisation as more advanced than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle he saw in Tierra del Fuego, and some nowadays might claim that was racist. Regarding the persecution of proponents of evolutionary science, some sources have made the point in reference to this film, but it's a question of notability. Going back to the Nazi issue, their list of books to be burned includes Darwin's and Häckel's works. This source makes the point in relation to the film, but it's not a RS. However Dawkins discussed the point in his review, and that's worth citing. .. dave souza, talk 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Ruse had an article Darwin and Hitler: a not-very-intelligent link at http://tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802060339 as of 6 Apr 2008, but it's giving a 404. However, G o o g l e's cache at http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:x0fejjkIR4IJ:tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D2008802060339+%22Tallahassee+Democrat%22+february+2008+Darwin+and+Hitler:+a+not-very-intelligent+link%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk gives the text. Mostly about the disco 'tute campaigning, haven't noticed Xpell'd yet, but will check. .. dave souza, talk 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, bit off topic and no advantage over Dawkins' statement. Re. book burning, Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279 –

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).[34]

dave souza, talk 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Translation by Dr. Roland Richter is a vastly better source as it is an academic source by an expert on the subject. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Idea blog (unfortunately not a WP:RS, I would suspect) takes this one step further with this insightful point:

As Pieret points out, one of the primary complaints from creationists, especially in the film, is that evolution explains nature without reference to any teleology or external purposing or direction. This oft cited lack of purpose supposedly leads people to moral depravity (though, in reality, this critique merely confuses scientific description with moral proscription).

But this complaint is flatly incompatible with the insistence that evolution Holocaust, eugenics, and so on are all the logical end of accepting the evolutionary description of the natural world. For eugenics and Aryan racism alike are nothing if not deeply teleological. Hitler was not interested in human fitness as determined by the natural course of human technology and culture: he sought to impose his own very specific will on it. Eugenics, the same. The Holocaust was, in fact, the directed design of an “intelligent” agent: a depraved and malicious one.[35]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BEN STIEN IS A JEW. Enough said. (My apologies if I come across as angry. All the recent events have gotten me quite frustrated.) Saksjn (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You think Jews can't be misinformed or lie about The Holocaust? Sounds rather racist to me. .. dave souza, talk 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment please? Also, please don't accuse me of racism. Saksjn (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No accusation, simply that Stein's credibility or otherwise cannot be assumed from his racial or religious background. I would suspect that he is simply misinformed, and has as much expertise on that subject as he has on science. .. dave souza, talk 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller

I know this has been discusssed above, but I think one issue with the article may still be the treatment of Kitzmiller v. Dover. I just did a ctrl f search for "Kitzmiller", and wasn't able to find any of the sources that bring it into a discussion about the movie. More importantly, the first time it is raised here, we seem to be discussing the case in isolation, as opposed to presenting anything about what was said in the movie. The second time it is brought in to refute a statement by the Discovery Institute, but again I don't see any source that made this connection. I wouldn't always mind this kind of connection, but the way it is done here seems to create NPOV problems in the article. I think one solution would be just to reduce the discussion of Kitzmiller to possibly one or two sentences, unless we know more about what is said in the movie. Mackan79 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, here's the list of times Kitzmiller comes up:

• "...The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial..."
• "...[The film] went on to assert that "intelligent design also provides a robust positive case, and a serious scientific research approach", a claim that had been explicitly refuted in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area..."
• A link under See Also.

Which of these statements is it that you have issues with? Since the first case is the film talking about the case, I would think the mention is relevant. In the second case, I think the usage is quite NPOV, since it complies with WP:UNDUE. And I can't see an issue with have a See Also link. Could you please clarify which usage you think is in error? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's the first two that I described above, not the "See also." The problem with the first isn't mentioning it, but that following a mention it goes on to provide several statements from the case that aren't drawn into a discussion of the movie. The second is technically a problem of WP:SYNTH, in that it brings up the case to refute the DI without any source having done so. As I said, one could look beyond this, but the initial discussion in particular seems to go off the topic of jthe movie. Mackan79 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The first instance is perfectly fine since film explicitly singles out the Kitzmiller ruling for pointed criticism. By opening that topic it makes properly characterizing the scope and result of Kitzmiller not only fair game but necessary for a complete and accurate article, and fully within the bounds of WP:NPOV. Not properly characterizing Kitzmiller would actually violate NPOV in that it have the article present only one side of the debate, that of the producers (which is a tiny minority POV, BTW). The second instance has the same justification: If we are going to cover the public statements of the DI, who is largely directly responsible of much of the film, in support of the film, then NPOV requires that both sides of the debate around the very specific allegations made in their statement be covered; to do anything less is to favor one side. Particularly since the DI's views are a extreme minority view again. The article covers both the film and the response to it, I'm not seeing the issue here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue is we literally don't have anything on what the film says about Kitzmiller, but instead offer four sentences from the case that contradict the thesis of the movie, without any obvious reason for why these were picked out. You could say this is necessary for balance, in order to provide critical views of the movie, but in that case we should be providing material that is critical of the movie, not critical generally about an argument in the movie. I think it's been discussed that this should be the test here, that material should only be brought in where sources do so to discuss the movie, no? My point is that shortening it, for instance removing the block quote, would improve how it reads. Mackan79 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding the film's specific criticisms of Kitzmiller would be the right move then and should be easy enough given our resources here. Just on general principles, I think we can all agree that if the film's makers challenge a specific court ruling and majority viewpoint it supports then covering all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (including the ruling) is not only consistent with the NPOV policy but necessary, regardless of whether we detail the specifics of their attack on it or how covering it reads. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with the first part, if not fully second, in that I think we should only really criticize aspects to the extent they've been criticized by reliable sources. For that matter, it appears there's plenty to choose from. I'll look it up, though if anyone knows where this part of the film is discussed that would help. Mackan79 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a couple of sources that clearly describe its appearance in the film. For instance, in the round table discussion in the Scientific American articles about the film it is extensively discussed and criticized by Mark Mathis, associate producer of the film. But it appears in other sources as well.--Filll (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that we had this statement sourced back on March 26th or so. But what happens is that with the volume of people frantic to change the article, and the updated news, the article gets destroyed. So what you should be thinking is, this is just the natural result of this article being on a wiki. Editors like yourself are furious when they are prevented from editing or their edits are reverted because the article is guarded too closely. But when it is not so guarded, driveby editors ruin the article and its sourcing. So what you should be doing is patting yourself and your fellow editors on the back for helping to wreck the article. And instead of complaining, try to look back in the history to see if it was always like that and try to fix it. It is extremely taxing to try to manage the editing of an article like this before a film comes out. Hopefully when the film comes out, everyone will just go away so the article can be finally cleaned up a little. I have rewritten it top to bottom twice, and then new editors come in and crap all over and it and ruin it. I am not frantic to do it again while so many are coming here to immediately change whatever work I do. So...that is just how a wiki is. Do not complain. Deal with it. I do.--Filll (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, just keep in mind all I've done is added a source, and the word "reportedly" due to the fact that the movie isn't out yet. I've certainly seen how articles can deteriorate. I'm not entirely sure about the sources, though; you added one, but I couldn't find mention of the case. From Google I do apparently find a podcast of the discussion with Mathis, is that what you mean? I see mention on the Panda's Thumb about his claim that it was written by the ACLU. If we were going to discuss that claim, though, I'm not sure it leads to extended quotes from the case. Unless there's something else, it seems this is still an issue with the article. Mackan79 (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Troublemakers, or as we like to refer to them at Big Science Academy, “The Expelled”…are seemingly everywhere these days. You know the type – they always want to “challenge” the established order and are always in a “questioning” mode. Especially when it comes to science.

The latest “rage” among these Free Speech types is the misguided notion of Intelligent Design, which holds that perhaps life on earth isn’t just an “accident,” and that new evidence is mounting, suggesting some sort of underlying order to the universe, an intelligent “design” and so on and so forth.

Crazy as it may seem, these “cranks” will start questioning atheism, next thing you know!

Fortunately, as you will see in the links listed below – our “graduates” in the nation’s schools, universities, judiciary and government institutions are making sure that these “Expelled” types are rightfully marginalized.

With the help of our friends in “Big Media” and the secularist courts – these self-styled Newtons and Einsteins are being denied tenure, ridiculed and in some cases fired, for their ridiculous beliefs and groundless suppositions.

Click on the links to the right to see for yourself! >

TROUBLEMAKERS:
Guillermo Gonzales

Richard Sternberg

Kitzmiller vs. Dover

Dr. Caroline Crocker[36]

Let's see:

1. The title of the movie is 'Expelled'
2. The movie's website explicitly equates these "expelled" with "troublemakers"
3. On the same page it explicitly states that one of these "troublemakers" is "Kitzmiller vs. Dover"

I therefore think we can safely say that this movie is, at least in part, about KvD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, why are you so obsessed with this film in particular, and defending the Theory of Evolution in general? 06:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.144.63 (talk)

Please see WP:SOCK. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So you still maintain that the film has no mention of Kitzmiller v. Dover? Of course, I restored the Overview link, and the claim was made that it did not include information about the trial. Here it is explicitly, for those who are having trouble:

The Dover Trial The trial in Dover, PA is mentioned, but the film tries to spin the crushing defeat (Watch NOVA's piece on the trial here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ ). Stein says something like "I thought science was decided by evidence, not the courts."

As I said before, go to the large online set of articles that are associated with Scientific American. We have the link in the article, right? Or we sure used to. We have it above on the talk page. Go there and find the round table discussion with Mathis. And play it. And hear what he says explicitly about the Dover trial. And yes the Panda's Thumb discussion you found was commenting on at least part of what Mathis said in the round table to Scientific American. And Hrafn has pointed out that Kitzmiller appears in the marketing materials for the film and on the website. So Kitzmiller appears to be part of the promotion of the film and part of the film. Now I am not sure that our present treatment of Kitzmiller in this article is particularly encyclopedic or well written. Last I saw it was a hash. But this is what happens when an article is popular, and the entire world is allowed to edit it. It turns into a mess. As I have pointed out here repeatedly. We have to just try to manage it until the excitement dies down a bit, which it will after the film comes out. Then when things are quiet, this entire article will have to be drastically rewritten. I have done it twice, and it is a huge amount of work. And I am not anxious to do it again and see all my work undone in a few hours or days. Are you anxious to waste your time like that? So the best we can do is try to keep the article from deteriorating too badly before the movie comes out, and then wait until the fuss dies down.--Filll (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, I'd just like to find the material in order to improve what we have. I understand you're saying problems with it aren't anybody's fault. But, if there were something more focused on a discussion that's occurred I think that would be better than what we have. Otherwise a little background on the case would still be good, it just needs to be focused a little, which I may try after I look a little further. Mackan79 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Kitzmiller case is crucial to the film, as it established that ID is creationist anti-evolution with mentions of God or Creation removed to meet the requirements imposed by the Edwards v. Aguilard case. Their strategy of promoting intelligent design as a credible science was scuppered, and they've turned increasingly to promoting anti-evolution propaganda with the aim of "academic freedom" to teach religion in science classes, without school boards explicitly mandating it as happened at Dover. This infringes precedents set by earlier court cases, but the current legislative moves as in Florida could mean that court cases would be against individual teachers rather than school boards. The case summary is a valuable source for independent analysis of many aspects of intelligent design, and is cited accordingly. .. dave souza, talk 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan seems to have trouble accepting that. I agree it needs to stay, as do the other regulars. Let's move along to a more useful topic and leave this dead horse alone. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The case should be outlined, but not discussed in detail beyond what is found in reviews of the movie. That's why we have an article on the case, where people can go to read about it. I'm not sure to what extent others disagree with this, but if it is contested it's an important issue that should be discussed. Mackan79 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

DaveS, the Kitzmiller case did not "establish that ID is creationis[m]," it established only that that is one District Judge's opinion. I would hope that real scientists would be disturbed by attempts to settle scientific issues through law. NCdave (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell it to the judge :) . . dave souza, talk 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

146 footnotes for an unreleased film?

Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed - is a controversial documentary film and It is due to be released on April 18, 2008.

This page is 109 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

There are 146 footnotes and the film has not been released yet.

This article is barely encyclopedic, if at all.

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. The clique is afraid; very afraid. 06:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.144.63 (talk)

There ought to be no unsubstantiated claims of "consensus" that this article does not need work if it is to conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There are a number of opinions offered on this page, and elsewhere that this article is defective. For a start it is too long, and much material needs to be excised. The film hasn't been released yet, this is way too much information, and much of it is off-topic. --Newbyguesses (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The film has not yet been released to the general public, but the marketing strategy involves showing it to a large number of mostly friendly audiences pre-release. The buzz works both way - there are a lot of reliable sources about this movie already. This is no comment on the other issues - I've not had time to look into the article in much detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SIZE#No need for haste, before making hasty changes to the article. The article is currently only the 676th longest in wikipedia, so the need for reduction isn't exactly compelling. Part of the reason for the size is that it is a controversial topic, so has far more thorough citation than a less controversial article (per requirements of WP:V), adding to the byte-size but not the word-count (and thus not causing readability problems). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just fed the article into a word-processor and it comes out at 9,500 words (probably a bit of an over-estimate, as its count would include some footnote, 'edit', etc links as 'words'), which is within WP:SIZE's 6,000 to 10,000 word recommendation. Therefore there is no problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

--LATE reply to User Hrafn : [37] is fine with me. I will wait to see how long the article gets to once the movie is released. Who knows, maybe some sort of record can be set! I have not read all of it, but I am impressed by the level of detail, and particularly some of the headers and sub-headers. If the writing remains focussed and contextual, and some of it is entertaining and informs the general reader, there could be a candidacy for Featured Article in the offing. Cheers, and thanks for setting me straight. --

Two points - Could the 'word' Controv----l be avoided, if possible. If something is "controversial", describe what happened; is only a suggestion. - I would like to see no foot-notes required in the Lead Section, even if that means it is only twenty words, and the rest goes below the first section-header. That is only a suggestion, thanks, --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore and Micheal Moore's Movies are as equally controversial and they don't have a wall of excessive critism posted by those who personally dipise the thought and primises of them, as is done here by those who vehemently oppose Expelled —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate that the proponentsists are dispised and rejected, as Händel said, the primises of this are rather more complex to describe, and more controversial if the ambitions of the wedge doc are anything to go by. .. dave souza, talk 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How many lawsuits about global warming took place in the last 75 years? How many fights over putting global warming in public schools have taken place? How many controversies were associated with Gore's film? How many scientists were tricked into appearing in Gore's film? To be honest, these two are not at all comparable. But thanks for your input.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re my recent edit to cut a large chunk from the article: Too much of this article is turning into the debate itself. Surely describing the film and what people say about it should be the aim, not describing the debate surrounding the topics raised in the film. I haven't yet touched the paragraphs about what ID is and what people say about it, but hardly any of that is necessary. Why isn't it enough to say: "the films supports ID, read more at "intelligent design" and let the argument over how to present ID rage over there. GDallimore (Talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be about the film, not ID. Refs that concern the film and ID are definitely apropo, but refs only about ID shouldn't be included in my opinion. I'm an atheist, so it isn't that I like ID or something, I just think this article should concentrate on the film and responses to it, not responses to ID in general. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry your arguments are not really particularly compelling. This film is about the intelligent design variety of creationism. It describes the Dover court case. It includes interviews with major proponents of intelligent design and excludes other creationists, much to their disappointment. It repeats common creationist arguments and the claim that evolution is associated with abortions and communism and Naziism and the Holocaust. For this article to make any sense, we have to describe the background a little. For NPOV, we have to present a tiny amount of the other side. If you do not understand these concepts, it is probably best that you do not edit Wikipedia articles until you can absorb some of the foundational principles involved. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote the applicable policies/guidelines that say we should reference unrelated sources about ID when discussing this film? Obviously the majority of editors at this page have a consensus that the positions of this film should be debunked, even if it takes an unrelated reference to do it. This is probably the correct position since even Raul654 seems to agree, but for some reason it seems fishy to me. I guess I would like the reasoning explained to me so that I can feel this article is meeting NPOV and I don't have to worry about it any more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, this film is most certainly not "about the intelligent design variety of creationism," inasmuch as the folks that produced it disagree with your POV that intelligent design is a variety of creationism (as do many other folks, including the ASA, the Discovery Institute, and even preeminent ID critic Dr. Ronald Numbers, who wrote, "I think that both demographically and intellectually, [the charge that ID is a version of creationism] doesn't hold a lot of water... [ID leaders] are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism"[38]).

Also, Filll, please refrain from condescending remarks like, "If you do not understand these concepts, it is probably best that you do not edit Wikipedia articles until you can absorb some of the foundational principles involved." It seems to me that Peregrine_Fisher's understanding is just fine, but even if it were not you still should not insult him. NCdave (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron Numbers is using creationism there in the narrow sense of young Earth creationism, and I'm sure that everyone would agree that it's not necessarily YEC though it takes care to include that variation of creationism in the Big Tent. However, there is conclusive evidence that it's a form of creationism in the broader sense as used at Kitzmiller. Note that the use of the term to mean "anti-evolution for religious reasons" began with proponentsists of old Earth creationism. .. dave souza, talk 12:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

most turbulent time on this talk page ever

I can't wait till things get back to normal around here. Do the regulars suppose that things will calm down after the film comes out? Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been serious fights here before if you check the statistics. Yes people will get bored with this article once the film has closed. It is not clear that it will be a successful opening, since so many have panned it, even on the right. Most of those who have praised it have some sort of ideological axe to grind about this issue.

If one thinks about it, Ben Stein is not as popular as he was 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. And this topic is sort of boring; some academics that might have been in trouble for thinking about Darwinism but really werent. And some link to the Holocaust that is sort of weak. The average person has no idea what the Holocaust was so this is sort of worthless. Even the lawsuit threat has not made it into the regular media, so that is not going to stir up interest. The copyright lawsuit might never happen. Or it might be dismissed immediately. Or it might be so boring that it gets no coverage in the media.

So I think the interest in this article will collapse in a couple of days. It will calm down here, and then eventually the article will be stable enough to actually edit in a productive way and turn its horrendous writing into something readable.--Filll (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The POV ax grinders will wander off soon enough. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope so. NCdave (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is, who are the POV axe grinders? GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

An easy way to find this out would be to take a look at the editors on each side here and add together all of their collective blocks in addition to looking at their contributions. Looks like the wind is blowing in a certain direction already. Baegis (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake Tribune

"Movies: Hiding 'Expelled' from critics a not-so-intelligent move - Salt Lake Tribune". Retrieved 2008-04-14. is a good summary of the situation from a critic excluded from seeing the film who starts with – "Every semi-knowledgeable moviegoer and reader of movie criticism knows what the words "not screened for critics" means: The movie is a dog." Nothing new as far as I can see. .. dave souza, talk 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while not new it's the second source I've seen to be critical of keeping this film away from the critics and instead using supporters as test audiences (the other is the New Scientist blog). Maybe this needs to be worked into the promotion section. GDallimore (Talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

However, "OVERCOMPENSATING: The Journal Comic With a Seething Disdain for Reality". Retrieved 2008-04-14. – best review yet! .. dave souza, talk 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page first... see I'm learning :-)

People in the past couple of days have been fighting over the "99.9%", "nearly all", "some", etc. wording of the sentence leading into the people in the film.

My question is, do we need a qualifier at all? The 99.9% number is not really supported in the given source. The source only states that 99.9% of scientists accept evolution ("Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory," he reported.), not that they view it as an intrusion (they might and probably do, but the 99.9 number is not Verifiable). The "nearly all" and "some" and "most" are weasel-ish and vague. So why don't we just say "scientists", instead of "nearly all scientists", etc.? Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More: Okay, so while I was typing this, Mackan went a step further and removed the whole bit. Is this okay? --Ali'i 18:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right; the reason I removed it, as I said, was simply because the topic of the sentence isn't what scientists believe in general, but rather the fact that scientists are presented in the movie arguing against ID in science class. The problem is also that the article loses credibility if it keeps inserting this where it isn't necessary. Mackan79 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mckan and Ali'i. I'm the person who inserted the "99.9%" figure into this article to begin with, and I only did it because it seemed to be the only way to persuade other editors that we must not take a stand as encyclopedia writers that the minority view is wrong. They agreed to stop taking a stand, if the 99.9% figure was inserted.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The 99.9 percent figure can be sourced to an NIH journal. A 99.85 percent figure is described in a Newsweek article. This is inline with analyses using the Discovery Institute A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition. It squares with the declarations of the AAAS and literally dozens of other scientific societies representing millions upon millions of scientists. It is not in conflict with other petitions like Project Steve or A Scientific Support for Darwinism. If you look at the previous versions of this article, 99.9 percent was in the article with appropriate references. Of course, with many driveby editors coming in here to destroy the article, it was lost. But it was in there.--Filll (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind a figure, but I think you have to admit the placement there was getting close to satirical. Actually in truth I'm not this is the right article for that figure, unless someone mentions it in relation to the film, but the third paragraph of this section is probably the best fit currently. Mackan79 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree it was satirical, I feel FM made some good points. And now I see it is out of the article altogether now. I'm re-adding it as a new mention making the points FM cited. Odd nature (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it is not really worth a lot of effort to try to get the details and wording perfect, because any work you put in will just get swept away quickly. Better to try to aim for getting the broad outlines roughly correct, and not worry about the details now. We can fiddle with cleaning up the horrible language and other problems after this film comes out and the excitement dies down. In the meantime, just relax and enjoy the ride.--Filll (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an assumption here that accepting evolution and accepting ID are contradictory. That's not correct. I accept both. I think just about everybody in relevant fields at least accepts the evolutionary explanation that natural selection causes changes in wild species, just as artificial selection obviously does in domesticated species. Perhaps a few young earth creationists do not accept at least that, but probably even most of them do.

So it does not follow from that fact that nearly all scientists say they accept evolution, that nearly all scientists also reject ID. In fact, I'd wager that most of the members of the American Scientific Affiliation would say that they accept both evolution and ID. Many might also call themselves "creationists," but if so they would not mean young earth creationists. NCdave (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your wager is worthless without a reliable source, and since intelligent design is essentially anti-evolution in drag your argument lacks credibility. .. dave souza, talk 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We have long lists of scientific organizations that explicitly reject ID; dozens of major scientific organizations, representing millions of scientists, have issued statements to that effect. We even had links to these in the article before, but thanks to edit warring driveby editors like yourself, they were removed. People wonder why we put so many references in our articles; well, this is why. Because when we let them get removed, then assorted yahoos and jokers show up to spew all kinds of nonsense. Although I might believe in some aspects of "intelligent design" I think that the program being pushed by the Discovery Institute which has co-opted the name for their own purposes is just pure nonsense and not science at all.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's your reliable source, Dave Souza.

As a matter of common principle, the ASA states, "we believe in creation." But the ASA also advocates the teaching of evolution as science.

About ten years ago the ASA's Commission on Creation produced this interesting report, summarizing the varying positions of the ASA's members. It consists of a "General Statement on Creation" with which all the Commission's members agreed, plus four separate (non-exclusive) position statements for positions held by subsets of the ASA's membership: Young Earth Creation View, Old Earth Creation View, Theistic Evolution View, and Intelligent Design View. It asserts that "ID is logically consistent both with theistic evolution and with special creation in its various forms."

Note that the Young Earth Creation View is a distinctly minority view in the ASA.[39]

This interesting paper by the ASA's Keith B. Miller presents one of the range of positions taken by members of that organization, and here's a relevant quote: "Genesis describes the origin of humankind in precisely the same manner as that of all other living things (Gen 2:7,9,19). The origin of our physical nature is not different from that of other creatures -- we are made of the same stuff. If God used and providentially controlled evolutionary mechanisms in the creation of plants and animals, I see no reason to reject an evolutionary origin for humankind. In fact, the testimony of both scripture and nature is that we share a oneness with the rest of creation. Our physical natures are inseparably connected to the rest of life on Earth.

While Genesis roots our physical origin in the stuff of the Earth, it also places us firmly in a unique position before God and creation. The error is to attribute unique status to our physical nature, as though our exalted position is founded on something other than God's grace. I believe that it is our relationship to God more than anything else which distinguishes us. From the dust of the Earth God had raised up a creature and imparted to it a spiritually conscious soul. By this act of grace God elevated humanity to a special position of conscious and willing fellowship with Himself."

Filll, I hope you don't mind that I indented your comment. NCdave (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not like this progressive indentation. But sure indent me if you like. However, if one looks at the books and other publications associated with the intelligent design movement, they are all anti-evolution. All the pronouncements about materialism and naturalism from proponents of intelligent design are distinctly anti-evolution and even anti-science. And I would not take the ASA as necessarily a very good source for much in this regard. Just like I would be cautious about the declarations of the Discovery Institute. One has to be very very careful to see what the real substance of the concept known as "intelligent design" is. These organizations rely on obfuscation and misrepresentation and even lying as important tools, so they make a lot of confusing statements.--Filll (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an outrageous and unsupportable accusation, Filll. The ASA most certainly does not "rely on obfuscation and misrepresentation and even lying as important tools." NCdave (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The ASA were founded by Creationists, but the organisation moved fairly quickly in the direction of theistic evolution (with a fair number getting off at the progressive creationism station enroute). My impression is that the leadership was (and maybe still is) more conservative than the rank and file. Morris helped form the CRS and later formed the ICR at least partially in reaction to the ASA's perceived apostasy. This is all documented in exhaustive detail in The Creationists. As far as I know it currently includes all sorts from TEs to the likes of Dembski. If Keith B. Miller is the guy I think he is, he's on the board of Kansas Citizens for Science and a fairly vocal anti-creationist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would however point out that TE is generally held to be incompatible with Creationism, including ID, (by both TEs and Creationists) and that whilst TE scientists accept the theology of Creation ('God did it') they reject the claims of Creationism ('God left discernable toolmarks on the universe'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it and will strongly object and any further removals. The fact that a very respected and reputable scientific periodical has published an article stating 99.9% of scientists accept evolution over creationism is highly relevent to an article covering a film whose premise is that the scientific community is trying to hide evidence that creationism is widely accepted by many scientists and that its persecuting those who do. I can't think of a single number other than the release date that could be more relevant to this article. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the number should be mentioned, but Mackan has a point that perhaps where it is now isn't the best place for it Restepc (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The version that ReloniousMonk reverted it to says:

"In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what 99.9% of scientists, science educators and judicial precedent view as the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes."

That has several defects:

• Most obviously, it is grammatically garbled. What are 99.9% of judicial precedent?
• Even if we drop "and judicial precedent" from the sentence, to make it make sense, it is not true. There is no source or evidence for the claim that 99.9% of scientists and science educators view ID as an intrusion in science classes.
• It conflates two distinctly different groups of people: those who advocate the teaching of evolution, and those who view ID as an intrusion in science classes.

Mackan's version is much better, and has none of those defects:

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what they view as the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes."

So I've (un)reverted it back to Mackan's version. NCdave (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about NCdaves points, his argument is pretty much bulletproof, and I think the 'some' version should stay. Though it's still probably be worth mentioning elsewhere in the article, for undue weight reasons, that Evolution is universally accepted by scientists, but NCdave again has a point that this doesn't necessarily mean that all those scientists are dead against ID. Restepc (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

His argument is very much original research, using primary sources and placing an interpretation and weight on them without a reliable third party source as a basis. He doesn't mention the distinction the ASA seem to draw between "intelligent design" which for them includes theistic evolution, and "Intelligent Design" which they use to mean intelligent design as promoted by this film. Their official position is confused and dates back a number of years, but the idea that a significant proportion of the membership support the DI's version is pure speculation. As always, the interpretation of the percentage of scientists supporting evolution should be based on reliable secondary sources. .. dave souza, talk 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call that OR as such, true he hasn't actually presented a source for it, but probably one could be found, I have tried completely rephrasing that line, partly to get around the 99.9% argument, and partly to make it clearer and more grammatically straight forward. I'm happy with it....but I wrote it so I'm biased, what do you lot think? Restepc (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the same problem as I had with view/views really, I happy with saying the supreme court has determined it to be unconstitutional (possibly some small arguments over whether 'intrusion' is also 'determined' but that's just arguing for the sake of it)....but, scientists didn't 'determine' it, they described it. What about.....and this seems ambitious even to me....

"what scientists [science education expert?] have described as and supreme court rulings have determined to be the "unconstitutional intrusion" of blah de blah"? Restepc (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay ignore the above, Hrafn saw it himself, hopefully this is that sentence sorted now Restepc (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The more complex this becomes, the more clear that the one word "intrusion" is the most accurate characterisation of the various determinations of a wide range of experts: 'not good science' by scientists; 'confusing/misrepresenting science' by science education experts; 'not following the methodologies of science' by philosophers of science; and 'not constitutional' by SCOTUS (and lesser courts) -- i.e. it is "without permission, welcome, or fitness" (per definition of "intrude" above). The more we attempt to qualify the word, the more trouble we run into, because the more ways we find that it is an "intrusion" that isn't allowed for by those qualifications we've placed upon it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people are being too sensitive about this, and other things in the article. The problem with "intrusion" is straight forward, that it's subjective whether this is an intrusion. Thus unless some better wording is found, "what they regard as an intrusion" is the simple solution, in that everyone knows "intrusion" is negative and thus that you can't state it as fact. People seem to have come to expect that in every such situation we'll then hammer in how much support there is for this, but this is what is mucking up the article. If you said "what they regard as bad science" we might have a problem, but to say "what they regard as an intrusion" is certainly fair. Otherwise we'd need to reword the whole sentence. Mackan79 (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with naming the people interviewed (in that 2nd sentence). But this first sentence is both bad prose and inaccurate:

"In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what scientists, science education experts and Supreme Court (and lesser court) rulings have determined to be the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes.

• The Supreme Court has said nothing at all about ID.
• The use of the plural form "rulings" is wrong, since just one district court judge has weighed in, and he only ordered that science teachers not be required to teach about ID, he didn't forbid them from teaching about ID.
• Using the word "determined" to express one POV in a two-sided argument is POV.
• Calling ID a "religious doctrine" is POV.

Mackan79's version has none of those problems. NCdave (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ID a religious doctrine. Read Thomas Aquinas. Correctly identifying a spade as a spade is not stating a viewpoint. Odd nature (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The "problem with 'intrusion'" is not straight forward, as it is not "subjective". Objectively an "intrusion" is thrusting something in that doesn't belong. Objectively, creationism meets few or none of the hallmarks of science (depending on exactly what form of creationism you're discussing and exactly how you define these hallmarks). Therefore objectively creationism does not belong in science, and objectively attempting to insert it into a science class is an "intrusion".
2. In any case the "subjective" argument is a complete red herring -- articles use subjective adjectives on a regular basis -- "prominent", "controversial", etc, etc. That they are subjective is not problematical, it is only a problem if the substantiation for them is missing or ambiguous. However, even were "intrusion" subjective, the substantiation for it among the experts is unambiguous and unequivocal.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are sources available that show the scientific community views ID as an intrusion, I suggest using them. Odd nature (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Intrusion/exclusion

We've reworded the sentence to the point of incoherence, trying to bow to the minority viewpoint that religious teaching is appropriate in a science classroom. As now:

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what scientists, science education experts and Supreme Court (and lesser court) rulings have determined to be the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes.[40] These include biologists PZ Myers, William Provine and Richard Dawkins, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, historian of science Michael Shermer and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[3]

My preference would be;

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes.[40] These include biologists PZ Myers, William Provine and Richard Dawkins, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, historian of science Michael Shermer and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[3]

That's clear about what they're opposed to, it's others who argue that religious doctrings should be included. .. dave souza, talk 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Omigosh pleeeease. Enough already. --Ali'i 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a minor issue, and I'd certainly prefer the simple "intrusion" to what's there currently. However, it does have the same problem of suddenly focusing intently on the critics, as opposed to focusing on the movie or the initial topic of a paragraph (in this case, what's shown in the movie). I think that's why it is catching people's attention. Mackan79 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think the best thing is simply to put 'what they view as the' before intrusion, but I'm going with the current version in the spirit of compromise, I would strongly object to having just 'the intrusion', as it sounds distinctly anti-ID, which wikipedia obviously can't do. Restepc (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, to clarify, I think both those versions have that same problem, in switching sharply and unnecessarily to the critical perspective. This is why I prefered "they perceive as." Otherwise "inclusion" means the same thing as "intrusion" minus the judgment, and is actually probably the most correct. However, it might be that we still need a third option. Mackan79 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why editing with a large group, many of who have a distinct agenda, is very difficult. They want to include all kinds of extraneous details. They want to slant the text. They want to introduce weasel words. Of course, simple and direct is better. After all, someone has to read this thing. I get tired of this nonsense. Can people understand why experienced pro-rational editors sometimes get tired and just blast the hell out of assorted malcontents and people pushing narrow points of view or people with agendas? Goodness gracious.--Filll (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean people like me and Ali'i? Restepc (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Restepc, you're objecting to a "distinctly anti-ID" sounding term in a section that presents the views of oponents of ID. If you really want the pro-ID view presented, it would be clearer to add a sentence AFTER the names sentence, saying that "Supporters of intelligent design want it to be included in public school science classes, but this is opposed by the overwhelming majority of scientists and has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts." ... dave souza, talk 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am objecting to the article sounding anti-ID. The article should sound neutral. Articles can say what other peoples views are, but they shouldn't have a view of their own, no matter how 'correct' the view may be Restepc (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and so have others "intrusion" is a very strong word, its fine to atribute it to some one ie the scientists say its an intrusion into the classroom but WIKIPEDIA can't speak with with that sort language. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. Presenting opposing views doesn't mean being sympathetic to minority views, or giving "equal validity" to pseudoscience. .. dave souza, talk 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

giving "equal validity" to pseudoscience - Surely classifying intelligent design as "pseudoscience", and as a form of religious doctrine, is a POV in itself? Hypnosadist is correct; Wikipedia should not make such a judgment. It is not for us to decide what is science and what is religion. We can, and should, say that the majority of scientists view intelligent design as a form of religious creationism and as pseudoscience; we should also say that ID advocates dispute this, and claim that it is a scientific viewpoint distinct from creationism. That is, IMO, the appropriate NPOV approach.

All too often, Wikipedia articles are presenting evolution as the rational scientific viewpoint, and ID as irrational pseudoscience. I don't know whether that's true or not; but, true or not, Wikipedia should not make that judgment.

To Filll: I do not have an agenda, except for making Wikipedia as unbiased as possible. I have no interest in promoting intelligent design. I just don't think we should decide, of our own accord, what is and isn't "science", and write articles accordingly. Walton^One 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make a judgment as to whether ID is pseudoscience, editors have to find verifiable sources showing the overwhelming scientific consensus, which has been done and is demonstrated by sources cited in this article. On the basis of that consensus, NPOV: Pseudoscience has particular relevance to the application of NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions means that we don't have to thrash it out on every article where NPOV: Giving "equal validity" comes into action. Less formally, it's a bit of a hint when Fox News describes ID as "junk science". .. dave souza, talk 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as the view that ID is pseudoscience is verifiable and reliable sources are available for that, it is completely within the bounds of WP:NPOV to include it in the article. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and 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. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Odd nature (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section from Wikipedia's official policy:

The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:

• Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
• Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."

NCdave (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this article

The problem with this article is that most of the criticism isn't about the film at all. I'm not going to get embroiled in the whole controversy over how we should present intelligent design vs. evolution in science articles; I'm not a scientist and I'm not qualified to make that judgment. But this article is not a science article; it's an article about a film. Therefore, it is original research for Wikipedia editors to use scientific sources, which are not about the film, to criticise the film - and this is what most of the article currently consists of. Most of the sources cited have nothing to do with Expelled; they are about intelligent design in general. The article is therefore mostly OR by synthesis. Basically, it's constructed in this way:

The film makes claims X and Y about intelligent design.[cites source] However, this is not consistent with the view held by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[cites various scientific journal articles which do not mention the film]

Certainly, the article should contain criticism. But it should be criticism of the film, not intelligent design in general. Thus, it should be like this:

The film makes claims X and Y about intelligent design.[cites source] However, this has been challenged by critics A and B, who have reviewed the film and argued that these claims are unscientific and false.[cites reviews of the film by A and B]

Basically, we should not be taking sources which criticise intelligent design in general and using them to write our own critique of the film. This is a textbook case of OR. The criticism cited should be from sources about the film. Walton^One 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). We're working on it, providing backup for the statements made by reviewers of the film as appropriate. Do please help. .. dave souza, talk 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me, I have been a Wikipedian for more than two years and know perfectly well how to edit a page. The reason I did not do so is because when I tried cleaning this article up a few months ago, all my changes got reverted, and I was denounced on this talk page by a number of editors. I will work on the article when I can, but I wanted to explain in advance what I will be doing and why, in the (possibly deluded) hope that I might actually not be reverted. Personally I think all our articles on evolution vs. intelligent design display a worrying amount of bias towards the evolutionary viewpoint, but I'm not a scientist (and hence not qualified to deal with the issues knowledgeably), and even if I were, I have no interest in waging a one-man battle. Walton^One 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please don't patronise us when we're working hard with a complex situation to achieve just what you're helpfully advising us to do. Your personal thoughts suggest that you may not be up to speed with the NPOV requirements relating to science and pseudoscience, please be assured that we're doing our best to achieve the required balance. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, my apologies for patronising you, and I do understand that it's a work in progress. I'd also be the first to admit that science isn't my field and I haven't made a habit of editing science articles, so I may well not be up to date with the current consensus on this issue. (As a side note, I should mention that I have also contributed to the corresponding article at Conservapedia, in the hope of creating a more balanced article, but I've predictably been outgunned there by the young-earth creationist crowd; here is the article when I wrote it, and here is the incredibly pro-ID current version, after other Conservapedians finished with it. I mention this just to show that I'm not trying to promote a creationist agenda; rather, I seem to have a habit of inadvertently pissing off both sides.) Walton^One 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Walton One's suggestions make perfect sense. This is what I've been trying to communicate for almost 3 months now. Saksjn (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll both be delighted to read about the new detailed resource shown below. Time to get to work! . . dave souza, talk 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I* think the article is too long. I've helpfully shortened it a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to mention that the film blames evolution for the holocaust. I'm going to revert this, but be free to make changes to it. Actually, please make changes to it. It needs a re-write. Saksjn (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. My version starts The film portrays Darwin's theory of evolution as having been responsible for the Holocaust... what could be more explicit? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version is pretty good. Whoever came in after you did a good job. Sorry, I think I might have misread your's, I just saw a deletion of the section. Saksjn (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave Souza and I seeem to be having fun reverting each other. You may need to have another look. Regardless, all versions contain the text you wanted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd only reverted you once when you wrote that, you were edit warring with someone else. However, I've looked over your changes carefully and find that you'd removed significant information specific to the film, so I have again undone your changes. I'm all in favour of trimming what's there carefully, and of course incorporating the reliable info now available, but more care is needed. Will make a start on it shortly .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, you've joined the edit war now. Please be a bit clearer about which vital bits I've removed, I can't see what it is. And, since you're in favour of trimming, how about cautiously adding back in what was vital rather than re-inserting all the spam? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)