I’m not going to go into much detail here; people with more time than myself have already answered each and every claim made in the film. However, I would like to point out my biggest complaint about Expelled: they never explained why intelligence design is science in the first place. In fact, this alleged science is presented to the audience as nothing but a clever intuition. The sequence of events literally goes as follows:

1. A couple of scientists lost their jobs after mentioning intelligent design (a lie, by the way)
2. The cell is really, really complex. Therefore we’ll never find a natural explanation. Cut to a long (possibly stolen) journey through the cell expected to sell blatant argument from incredulity.
3. Scientists are suppressing and excluding people who think the complexity of the cell means there is some kind of supernatural power “out there,” kind of like Nazis.
4. By the way, Hitler was inspired by the theory of natural selection. Cut to stock footage of Nazi concentration camps.

Perhaps as incoherent and intellectually vacuous as the entire ID movement. Scientists do not take intelligent design seriously because intelligent design doesn’t take science seriously. They’re going to have to do some research and create some relevant, repeatable experiments to establish their assertion – one that barely counts as a hypothesis – if they want any credibility.

Ben Stein would like you to think ID is the little guy getting pushed around by “big science.” However, in all its actions and lack thereof, the little guy shows no intention of even getting along with “big science.” Here the little guy puts up a thin facade – one the collapses with the slightest touch of investigation – all while his radical agenda of backwardness and social reconstruction is obvious for anyone with eyes.

There’s a lot said, but these appear to be the core arguments.

1. Macro-evolution, or the scientific reality of common descent is an exaggeration of known science.
2. If you believe in evolution, you also believe we all came from a rock. You believe these things because you don’t want to be held accountable for your actions.
3. The missing link is still missing. All transitional fossils have been “proven false.”
4. Scientists have found organic material on dinosaur fossils, hence falsifying the old earth model
5. Christians believe in salvation through grace and faith, ain’t that special?
6. You’re going to die, so why not open your mind, soften your heart, stop eating babies and accept Jesus as your lord and savior lest you make the “biggest mistake in your eternal existence!!!“

To begin with point one, our animated protagonist could not be more wrong. Creationists typically declare a damning difference between macro and micro evolution. They are mistaken. Scientists refer to micro-evolution as change within species. Over thousands of years a population of golden retrievers will adapt with its environment. Suppose, however, that the population gets separated. Half of the golden retrievers are stuck on one side of a mountain, and the other is similarly isolated. Years pass and both populations adapt to their respective environments until they are so different that they can no longer interbreed. They are now separate species, and macro-evolution (also known as speciation) has occurred.

Next, the video tract makes an amusing leap in logic. How believably precedented.

If you believe in evolution you also believe we came from a rock. It’s funny how you believe the most ridiculous concepts of creation just so long as you’re not accountable for your actions.

Whether or not we came from a rock is irrelevant to the libraries of evidence that confirm common ancestry. Evolution is a supported theory that begins with the first cell. It doesn’t pretend to know where that cell came from; that’s a different field of science. This caricature of abiogenesis exists only to distract.

Moving on, he claims there are missing links in the fossil record. Of course there are, and this only serves as evidence for evolution. Every time we find a transitional fossil (y) between species x and z, we fill one gap but wind up creating two new ones. Claiming all transitional fossils have been “proven false” demonstrates a willful ignorance that need not be addressed.

In addition to lying about transitional species, they argue for a young earth by referencing organic tissue found on a dinosaur bone. An impossibility, he claims, given the evolutionary timeline. I remember seeing this last year in a prolonged discussion. As it turns out, the bones were fossilized in sandstone, a material where the enzymes of decay and degeneration are “drained away.” Moreover, the Harvard researchers called this “a brilliant technical achievement, and it’s because we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs that it makes sense.”

Finished disproving “evolution,” our friend gets on his theological soapbox. In yet another leap of topic (where are the transitions?!) he’s asked, “what about Jews, Muslims and Buddhists? Aren’t they going to hell?” The answer is presumably yes, but he goes on to say unlike those other faiths, Christians believe we’re saved through faith, not works. Isn’t that wonderful? The omnipotent, all-loving creator of the universe judges us based on what we believe. Thought crimes are celestial no-nos when it comes to the afterlife. Eternal consequences for thinking the wrong thing – regardless of worldly action! God wants us to have faith. A faith that is demonstrably irrational.

Tearing this pathetic apologetic to shreds was a cheap shot. However, the people that made this video were inspired by the same type of faith we see in the rest of religion. Built on a foundation of dogma blind to contradiction, “faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”

And now two centuries later, controversy prevails as outspoken religious sects carry on in their holy war against science. A recent study shows that as many as 40% of us (including a man running for president) either doubt or downright reject the years of peer-reviewed research that universally verify our common origins, believing instead man and all other forms of life were “created in present form.” This unjustified abandonment of reason should not be acceptable as we enter the 21st century.

What we have here is a failure on the part of our educational system. The public does not understand evolution and we need look no further than the aforementioned survey to see the correlation between education and acknowledgment of modern science. Moreover, the influence of clergy closely trailing behind that of a science teacher cannot be a good sign.

The forces of backwardness are alive now more than ever. In a couple of months, Ben Stein of those lame Clear Eyes commercials will release a documentary (so bad he actually has to bribe people to watch) that attempts to draw a link between evolution, Hitler and scholastic suppression of dissent. As the intelligent design vs. reality debate returns to the spotlight, I hope we can answer these regurgitated arguments patiently and politely, bringing ourselves past this embarrassing belligerence.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do – to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

Why not, Huck? Your god sure did a great job coming up with standards in the Old Testament. How about we ban physical labor on Sundays, kill homosexuals and stone disobedient children while we’re at it? Maybe your pal Chuck Norris could be in charge of the blood sacrifices.

This man is absolutely insane. Not only does he believe that teaching the fact of evolution is “indoctrination” – he’s open about his theocratic intentions and a good number of people want him to be leader of the most powerful country in the world.

What’s strange is that unlike his revisionist counterparts, it appears Huckabee hasn’t bought into the lie of America being founded on “Judeo-Christian principles.” He acknowledges the Constitution as a secular document as well as the government’s responsibility to remain neutral in the realm of religion. Make no mistake: he is the one wanting to change things.

The thought of a possible president with such perverted views of religious liberty would make our nation’s founders roll in the grave. It’s time America realizes the dangers of electing a theocrat salivating over the idea of instituting canon law.

Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And they—along with their families and loved ones—are thus driven over the brink of destruction (Prov. 23:21).

- Republican presidential front-runner Mike Huckabee referring to approximately 15% of the American electorate

Nonetheless, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League (a far-right lobby unaffiliated with the Vatican) has called for a boycott of the film due to an anti-religious sentiment in the final two books of the trilogy.

The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books.

Though the movie promises to be fairly non-controversial, it may very well act as an inducement to buy Pullman’s trilogy, His Dark Materials. And remember, his twin goals are to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity. To kids.

And we’re the angry militants? Now there’s nothing wrong with them wanting people to avoid the movie, but I think the hypocrisy here needs to be pointed out.

Catholics baptize their children – they promise to teach faith as a virtue from the cradle. Indoctrination should be no radical concept, but that’s not what this is about.

Donohue is afraid. He is terrified that kids will get their hands on these books and read something challenging what they’ve been told to just accept. So instead of confronting these fictional attacks on their dogma, Christians are being encouraged to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream frantically in the intellectual gymnastic act known as faith.

I’ve been ironically silent about this issue on my blog, but I’ve been following the case since it’s inception last month. Being somewhat of a legal geek, I’ve even managed to read through the litigation papers.

Local activist Rob Sherman, of whom I have conversed, challenged the bill on the grounds that it interferes with his daughter’s right to an education, failing to provide a purely secular purpose. Unfortunately, the local media seems to be trying to convince us Mr. Sherman’s first name is “outspoken atheist,” which by judging public opinion appears to be all the argument needed to turn a blind eye to the Constitutional conflicts, dismissing the case as just another godless librul out to take God outs of our schools.

The mandated moment of silence gives students two options: to sit quietly in their desks and pray, or as Rep. Monique Davis of Chicago suggests, “to listen to the rustling of leaves, to listen to the chirping of birds.” The former is a transparent endorsement of western religion, excluding eastern tradition and other theists who may need to get out of their desk to chant or bow in a specific direction. The latter, a frightening attempt at government sponsored thought control.

The true intention of this bill is obvious, but why is allotting time for prayer necessary? Students have always been able to pray, reflect, prepare and remember the deceased during their free time at school. The problem is mandating it. The writers of our Constitution understood that the best way to ensure religious liberty is for the government to stay completely neutral.

Mandating what students have already been allowed to do, specifically mentioning a western religious tradition, is nothing but a waste of government time and resources. Aren’t schools for… learning, and… parents for morality, anyway?

Now browsing the blogosphere, I came upon GodTube, a Christian video sharing network. On the front page was a video of a similarly young child reciting Psalm 23 to her father’s clear indulgence. I honestly hope that this too is a paid production, as the result is neither “cute” nor “adorable” as some of the commenters have put it. It’s terrifying on par with Jesus Camp.

I don’t need to be a parent to know the act of memorizing prayers or ideas (religious or not) in exchange for daddy’s approval is abusive. Indoctrination, beginning out of the cradle poisons child’s mind into thinking religion is worthy of an automatic respect – a dogmatic view that has no place in this age.

The double standard is obvious: brainwashing is okay as long as it’s in Sunday School. This is child abuse. Where is the outrage?

Although no philosophical argument can completely disprove God, it can prove our current definition logically impossible. The “evidential problem of evil” is rather simple:

1. Gratuitous evils exist.
2. Gratuitous evils are incompatible with the existence of a god (omnipotent, omniscient, all-good).
3. Therefore, no god exists.

The textbook apologetic dodge varies. Some Christians will adjust their definition to invent a not-completely omnipotent god. Others will blame Satan, creating a second god, and begging the question: why hasn’t God eliminated him? Others still see suffering as a means to spiritual strength, ignoring the fact noble, character shaping acts can be done in the absence of pain.

More, however, will assert God gives humans the choice to commit bad deeds, blaming the fall of Adam. Though this defense tries to explain evil committed by humans it does nothing to justify “acts of God” or natural phenomena that lead to unnecessary suffering. Even if natural events are placed into the same boat, we must address the unnecessary suffering they have caused millions of years before human even walked the earth.

Another interesting objection questions why a god who values free will would create humans, a species dependent on sleep, knowing we waste approximately a third of our life in bed, incapable of making choices.

Like the existence of suffering in general, the idea of sin leading to suffering is still inconsistent with an all-loving god.

Stenger describes specific experiments that could actually support the existence of a personal god. He argues that only a completely irrelevant deity would leave no trace or evidence. If there’s a God, an omnipresent creator with any impact on the natural universe, he would be detectable by natural science.

Was the universe fine tuned? Does our morality come from God? After defining a God model, a falsifiable list of characteristics assigned to God, Stenger refutes the God model with science.

Overall, Victor Stenger provides a welcome, necessary addition to the chain of blasphemic best sellers.