In Theatres April 18, 2008: EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

[loco]

Another lie for Jesus. It seems Christians love to make themselves feel persecuted You can post whatever you like. I'm just telling you, when you post lies I will call you out.

"Another lie"?  What was my first lie?  Your posts are looking more and more childish.  All over a film.   

False. In fact, I just learned there is going to be a conference in Germany organized by the biologist Massimo Pigliucci, for lots of people who question Darwinism, in part or in whole. All of them will be real scientists, not the rag-tag creationist attack dogs, and none of them will be fired for expressing their views, because they are doing real science. Real science is FULL of real scientists who question Darwinism, or some of its premises, or conclusions, or metholodology... but you'd know that if you had bothered to learn any science

Well, good.  Thanks for the info!  When is the conference of scientists to discuss the possibility of intelligence behind the universe and life?  If there is no evidence for it so far, have they really looked?  How can they expect to find any evidence for it when they are not looking?

Please provide a list of people fired from their jobs, denied tenure, etc because they question Darwin or are for ID. If you mention people from the movie, I would urge you to first check them out on www.expelledexposed.com.

The film provides plenty.  I will read your website, and Dawkins' review of the movie when I get a chance, probably after I watch the film.  But just as you don't expect me to take the film's word for it, surely you can't expect me to take those websites word for it. 

As for the film's bombing or not, it is no surprise it grossed a lot so early given the size of the media campaign behind it. It is being advertised 5 times an hour on Fox News alone.

columbusdude82, the point is that the film did not bomb out as you predicted.

BTW, please tell me where you first heard of this film.

An email.

[columbusdude82]

1. You know what you and Richard Dawkins have in common, loco?

You both think that the question of whether or not there is an intelligent designer of the universe is one that can be adjudicated by science and experimentation. I could  swear, you two are a match made in heaven.

That is why it is so tragic that you do not read his books. It is exactly this question that he addresses in "The God Delusion," and in the specific context of evolution, in "The Blind Watchmaker."

On the other end, there are the Ken Millers and Stephen Jay Goulds who insist that religion and science operate in two mutually exclusive spheres and do not overlap.

But here you are, Dawkinsian to the bone... whether you agree with his ideas or not, I can totally see you loving those two books I mentioned.

2. "How can they expect to find any evidence for it when they are not looking?"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're committing a slight fallacy there. You are assuming that if something hasn't been found, that immediately implies that one hasn't been looking for it (rather than that the evidence is absent). In 2000 years of Christianity, theologians and philosophers have had free reign to search for their "evidence" and all they produced was pathetically unsound arguments and spiritualist drivel. That is why you feel the need to have science do the searching.

3. You seem to be a proponent of ID in particular. I understand how tempting it is for a person of faith to fall for that trap... but tell me this: have you read any of the books on ID by Dembski or Behe? Have you learned about their theories like "irreducible complexity"? What do you make of the quality of their work?

4. If you want science to search for evidence of God, you have to be prepared for the possible event that no evidence is found, or contrary evidence is found. Are you willing to take that chance?

5. Specifically, in the case of ID theories like irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, do you really want your faith and your god to stand or fall on account of some protein molecules on a bacterium's butt?

[loco]

A non-bias review of the film:

Fan Rant: 'Expelled' Is Awful, But Let's at Least Be Honest About It

Up front, let me confess an error I made regarding Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the new documentary about the Intelligent Design movement. In Friday's edition of "The (Mostly) Indie Film Calendar," I said the movie was "a documentary about how people who believe in evolution are big meanies who don't understand why 'Intelligent Design' (i.e., that God made everything) should be taught in science classes, too." This was a mistaken summary of what Intelligent Design is.

Having now watched the film -- which is terrible, filled with specious reasoning, false dichotomies, and self-contradiction -- I find that I did learn a thing or two. I had assumed that Creationism and Intelligent Design were the same thing. They are not. Creationism is the belief that God created the Earth more or less the way it's described in Genesis. Intelligent Design merely holds that certain things about life on this planet are best explained by something supernatural. Where there are gaps in scientific knowledge, ID fills 'em in.

There is plenty of overlap between Creationism and ID, of course, and I guess you could say all Creationists are also ID-ists. But you can certainly believe in ID without believing God made the world in six days. The film says that this misunderstanding is why so many scientists are so virulently anti-ID -- because they think it's Creationism, which truly doesn't have much scientific evidence in its favor.

Now then. The film opened on 1,052 screens and made $2.97 million, coming in 10th place at the weekend box office. That's the third best opening in history for a documentary, and it's already enough to make Expelled the 30th highest-grossing doc of all time. By the time it's finished its run, it will almost certainly crack the top 10. It's a terrible movie, but for a documentary, it's very successful. Those are excellent numbers. You gotta give 'em their props.

Or maybe you don't. IMDb's studio briefing for Monday (which used estimated weekend figures, not the final ones) said it "flopped," adding: "The Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which argued on behalf of 'intelligent design' -- that is, the biblical view of creation -- failed to bring out church groups in big numbers and settled for just $3.1 million to wind up in ninth place." Never mind the inaccurate definition of ID -- what's with the slanted assessment of the film's box office haul? Yeah, $3 million and ninth place is a lousy opening weekend for a mainstream wide release -- but Expelled is a documentary, and it played on 1,000 screens instead of the 2,000+ that are typical for a wide release. How many docs have opened in the top 10 at all?

Other box office reports haven't been quite so dismissive. Variety, the Associated Press, and AFP all mention the film's score without comment. Entertainment Weekly's Joshua Rich gives it a fair shake in his report, though, and so did Cinematical's Peter Martin in his. (Whew! That would have been awkward.)

Look, I'm not defending the film. Let me say again that it's utter crap, with jaw-dropping assertions that, for example, a belief in evolution leads to Nazism. (WTF, Ben Stein?) But I don't see how you can deny that its box office take is sizable for a documentary. To suggest otherwise is to let your bias against the film speak for you.
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/04/22/fan-rant-expelled-is-awful-but-lets-at-least-be-honest-abou/

[columbusdude82]

A non-bias review of the film:


Having now watched the film -- which is terrible, filled with specious reasoning, false dichotomies, and self-contradiction -- I find that I did learn a thing or two. I had assumed that Creationism and Intelligent Design were the same thing. They are not. Creationism is the belief that God created the Earth more or less the way it's described in Genesis. Intelligent Design merely holds that certain things about life on this planet are best explained by something supernatural. Where there are gaps in scientific knowledge, ID fills 'em in.

There is plenty of overlap between Creationism and ID, of course, and I guess you could say all Creationists are also ID-ists. But you can certainly believe in ID without believing God made the world in six days. The film says that this misunderstanding is why so many scientists are so virulently anti-ID -- because they think it's Creationism, which truly doesn't have much scientific evidence in its favor.

loco, this is false, and unless you have a very short-winded memory, you will remember me dispelling this lie before.

ID IS NOTHING BUT THE SAME OLD CREATIONISM.

When the Supreme Court banned the teaching of creationism in schools in 1987, the creationist movement invented ID as a way to bypass the Court's ruling.

The court in Dover PA judged (and our own MCWAY agreed) that ID is nothing but the same old creationism.

I urge you to look up the "Wedge Document" by the founder of ID and of the Discovery Institute, Philip Johnson, which makes it very clear that their intent behind ID is not to advance science, it is to prepare the popular culture for a religious revival of Christianity.

I urge you to look up the thread on the PBS documentary about Intelligent Design on trial, and see all the evidence on this that was presented in court.

Finally, I urge to read some of the statements of the mathematician William Dembski, leading ID and DI proponent, who said that:

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.

"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." - Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, 2005

... and many more.

Read this post, loco, then check my sources if you do not believe me.

Then if you continue to claim that ID is a secular movement, then that is the best example of you LYING FOR JESUS!

[loco]

Then if you continue to claim that ID is a secular movement, then that is the best example of you LYING FOR JESUS!

 

You honestly expect me to take you seriously when you continue with this childish crap?

[columbusdude82]

You honestly expect me to take you seriously when you continue with this childish crap?

Presenting evidence against your claims isn't childish.

Don't dodge the argument by calling me names.

[loco]

Presenting evidence against your claims isn't childish.

Don't dodge the argument by calling me names.

That is correct, presenting evidence against my claims isn't childish. 

What is childish is your continuously claiming that anything I post that you don't agree with is "LYING FOR JESUS", that me promoting this film is "LYING FOR JESUS", that me advocating Intelligent Design is "LYING FOR JESUS", that questioning Darwinism is "LYING FOR JESUS", etc.   You know, just because Richard Dawkins put that in the title of his review of the film doesn't mean that it makes any sense or that you have to do it too.

I was actually fired up and ready to address your post above as I read it...until I saw  "LYING FOR JESUS" at the end. 

[columbusdude82]

That is correct, presenting evidence against my claims isn't childish. 

What is childish is your continuously claiming that anything I post that you don't agree with is "LYING FOR JESUS", that me promoting this film is "LYING FOR JESUS", that me advocating Intelligent Design is "LYING FOR JESUS", that questioning Darwinism is "LYING FOR JESUS", etc.   You know, just because Richard Dawkins put that in the title of his review of the film doesn't mean that it makes any sense or that you have to do it too.

I was actually fired up and ready to address your post above as I read it...until I saw  "LYING FOR JESUS" at the end. 

You're just using that as an excuse, because the irrefutable evidence I provide proves without a shadow of doubt that ID IS NOT A SECULAR MOVEMENT, it is just the old-school (Christian) creationism, dressed up in a cheap tuxedo.

[loco]

Another non-bias review of the film, this one from Baylor University, which was mentioned in the film.

Obviously not objective, 'Expelled' explores academic freedom
April 22, 2008

By Stephen Jablonski
Reporter
If you attend Baylor University, you need to see this movie.

But first, do a quick research of the following names: William A. Dembski, the Michael Polyani Center, Robert Marks II, Robert Sloan... In fact, brush up on the past ten or so years of Baylor history.

Whether you agree with Ben Stein and crew's opinions or not, this is a period of Baylor's history that should at least be considered.

That being said, Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is obviously, horrendously, notably one-sided.

Scientific apologists, evolutionary biologists and atheists are ominously lit, and footage of Nazi action is intertwined with interviews to give those speaking in the shadows an air of incompetence.

French history dabbler and two-time (once accidental) Baylor employee Dembski, distinguished professor in the electrical and computer engineering department Marks and a number of intelligent design researchers gain more uncut exposure than the shaded faces of evolutionary scientists.

If a documentary is meant to be an objective account of opposing sides, this movie fails.

Label it what you will, Ben Stein's Expelled is an opinionated movie. And while it largely sensationalizes with correlations between evolutionary proponents and the world's most recognizable symbol of evil, Stein's primary purpose is not to tell you that evolutionary thought is wrong and intelligent design is wholly righteous.

Its purpose is to simply ask, why can't anyone talk about intelligent design?

There is a good portion of Stein's flick that does seem to nudge the thought, "science equals bad" into the brain; the last third of the movie discusses Hitler, the Holocaust and the relation of evil and evolution in eugenics.

Atheism, which shouldn't have had any mention, is definitely given a bad light (literally and figuratively), while religion comes out looking like the bullied innocent.

But what makes Expelled a worthwhile viewing is its exploration into censorship and academic freedom.

What I've gathered from the intelligent design versus evolution conflict is that this is more a war of titles and hypothesis than anything.

Creationism? Intelligent design is not creationism because intelligent design doesn't imply the nullification of evolution or the existence or nonexistence of a religious deity (thus, Expelled places some distance between intelligent design and religion, though, in Mr. Stein's movie, religion does involve itself in the argument when it shouldn't). Science? Philosophy? That's where the controversy seems to arise.

The purpose of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is to show that intelligent design is not being given any acknowledgment when it's a viable topic of academic discussion, whatever it's labeled.

Inexplicably, among those to turn down research, discussion or even take a stance on intelligent design are the Smithsonian Institute, Iowa State University, George Mason University and, of course, Baylor University.

Dr. Ben Kelley, dean of the School of Engineering and Computer Science and director of media relations Lori Fogleman said it has nothing to do with "content," but it's Marks' "process" that led to the removal of his Web site.

But, in light of the Dembski controversy, Sloan/Reynolds -- and Old Baylor/New Baylor -- related conflicts and Baylor's adamant attempts to run far, far away from anything associated with fundamentalism (again with the labels), the answer seems to be that Baylor doesn't want to discuss intelligent design because they don't want to become apart of the controversy. It's easier to make friends when you don't take sides.

What the Expelled tries to say is: the line was never drawn.

Expelled doesn't get high marks as a documentary. But Ben Stein's look into academic censorship, from a Baylor journalism major's perspective, deserves a B.

Grade: B

http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=50601

[Dos Equis]

Yoko Ono Sues Over Use of 'Imagine' in Movie Challenging Evolution
Friday, April 25, 2008

NEW YORK —  Yoko Ono is suing the producers of a movie that challenges the concept of Darwinian evolution, saying they used the song "Imagine" without her permission and led the blogosphere to accuse her of "selling out."

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, Ono accuses the producers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" of suggesting to viewers that those who guard John Lennon's legacy somehow authorized or sponsored the film.

The producers of the film, which features Ben Stein challenging Darwinian theories that prevail in academic circles and suggesting that life could have emerged through intelligent design, said they used only "a very small portion of the song."

"Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do," Premise Media said in a statement. "Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry."

Ono's lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they couldn't get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way "Imagine" is listed in the film's credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song's use had been approved.

"Internet 'bloggers' immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of 'selling out' by licensing the song to defendants," says the complaint, filed this week.

The lawsuit calls "Imagine" Lennon's signature song, saying it "has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon."

The complaint, which also names other firms involved with the movie, asks the court to stop the filmmakers from distributing, selling and promoting the movie, and it seeks financial damages. It was filed on behalf of Ono, Lennon's sons Sean and Julian, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc.

"Expelled" earned the No. 10 spot at the box office this weekend, bringing in nearly $3 million in its first weekend in wide release. Stein, an actor, quiz show host and former speech writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, has been visiting some state capitals to screen the movie for lawmakers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352585,00.html

[MCWAY]

loco, this is false, and unless you have a very short-winded memory, you will remember me dispelling this lie before.

ID IS NOTHING BUT THE SAME OLD CREATIONISM.

When the Supreme Court banned the teaching of creationism in schools in 1987, the creationist movement invented ID as a way to bypass the Court's ruling.

The court in Dover PA judged (and our own MCWAY agreed) that ID is nothing but the same old creationism.

MCWAY agreed about what!!!???

[columbusdude82]

MCWAY agreed about what!!!???

I am referring to these posts from the Judgment Day thread.

The Judge speaks (excerpts from his decision):

intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism....

Tell us something we don't know.

.......

[columbusdude82]

Press Release   Holocaust / Nazis
RULE
Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

    The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

    Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

[loco]

Press Release   Holocaust / Nazis
RULE
Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

    The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

    Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

"Stein does not say belief in the theory of evolution alone leads to genocide, but that it is a necessary component."
 - Ben Stein's Diary #60: From Boston To Berlin," American Spectator 2007 Sep.

"Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy. Darwinism - or at least some naturalistic interpretation of darwinism - succeeded in turning morality on its head."
 - Richard Weikart is professor of modern European history and head of department of history at California State University, Stanislaus.  He has lived in Germany over five years, including one year on a Fulbright Fellowship.

[Deedee]

Ben Stein has a genocide fetish it seems. Not only is Darwin responsible for genocide, but so were Bob Woodward and Mark Felt.   

Quotable quotes:

"So, this is the great boast of the enemies of Richard Nixon, including Mark Felt: they made the conditions necessary for the Cambodian genocide. If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life of the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide. I hope they are happy now -- because their future looks pretty bleak to me."

"Science leads you to killing people."

[Deedee]

How does associating the holocaust to Darwin invalidate his work? Even if there was a connection, which there isn't, Hitler banned Darwin's book, why does this automatically make the theory of evolution "wrong?" If a serial killer paints 2 + 2 = 4 in blood onto the foreheads of 50 victims, does it make the equation wrong, or "evil?" Or to borrow someone else's analogy, are the Wright brothers to blame because some a*holes flew a few of them into two towers... or because they've been used to drop bombs on people which has resulted in the deaths of millions? Just curious how that all works. 

[MCWAY]

I am referring to these posts from the Judgment Day thread.

Tell us something we don't know.

.......

That statement was in reference to the results of the trial, about which I'd known for some time. If you read my later comments, you will see that the major problem I have with ID is that it's too passive, lending itself to all kinds of aspects, including what some call theistic evolution.

The belief in Creation involve a specific deity, creating the world in a specific manner. In other words, I do NOT believe that Creation and ID are the "same old creationism".

And, the point of Stein's interview and his movie is that (he feels, at least) academic freedom is being stifled. Again, all who do not bow before the shrine of Darwin and subscribe to "Goo to you by way of the zoo" doctrine get smeared, blackballed, and even fired from their jobs.

As admitted by a number of evolutionists, the concept of a supernatural entity, creating life on Earth, clashes with their philosophic views. And many hold to those views, even though (by their own admission) the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it (a prime example of that is spontaneous generation).

[Dos Equis]

So I finally watched it, three years later.  Nicely done.  The two most intriguing things were the absolute suppression of free speech in the academic environment, and the links between Darwin and the Nazis.

[Necrosis]

So I finally watched it, three years later.  Nicely done.  The two most intriguing things were the absolute suppression of free speech in the academic environment, and the links between Darwin and the Nazis.

dude the judge said ID is not science, it cannot be it has an untestable hypothesis what don't you understand about this?

the nazis and darwin thing is ridonckulous to say the least, stein knowns nothing about evolution and the film was pure garbage and lies. Read about it on ben stein exposed. The truth will set you free.

[Dos Equis]

dude the judge said ID is not science, it cannot be it has an untestable hypothesis what don't you understand about this?

the nazis and darwin thing is ridonckulous to say the least, stein knowns nothing about evolution and the film was pure garbage and lies. Read about it on ben stein exposed. The truth will set you free.

Did you watch the film?  I don't need to read reviews of the film, so they can tell me what I already watched. 

[loco]

 

Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?

Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?

Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.

[Dos Equis]

Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?

Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?

Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.

That was pretty funny.     He talked about stupid anyone who believes in God is, how dumb it is to believe in intelligent design, then admits the origins of life may involve intelligent design. 

He got frustrated when Stein asked him several times how life began and repeatedly said "I don't know." 

[Dos Equis]

lol

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic
By SUZANNAH HILLS
Last updated at 2:45 PM on 24th February 2012
 
Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Professor Dawkins, the former Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is a dedicated admirer of Charles Darwin, regarding the Victorian pioneer of evolution as the man who explained ‘everything we know about life’.

But when Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams suggested that Professor Darwin is often described as the world's most famous atheist, the geneticist responded: 'Not by me'.
 
He said: 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'
Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed was a '6.9', stating: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.'

They were discussing 'The Nature of Human Beings and the Question of their Ultimate Origin' when Professor Dawkins admitted he was agnostic rather than an atheist

The two high-profile figures were debating whether Biblical writers 'got it wrong' by not saying that the universe is billions of years old.

The Archbishop said: 'The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, were not inspired to do 21st century physics, they were inspired to pass on to their readers what God wanted them to know.

'In the first book of the Bible is the basic information - the universe depends on God, humanity has a very distinctive role in that universe , and humanity has made rather a mess of it.'

But Professor Dawkins said he was 'baffled' by 'the way sophisticated theologians who know Adam and Eve never existed still keep talking about it'.

This latest admission by Professor Dawkins comes after he was left lost for words name the full title of his scientific hero’s most famous work during a radio discussion last week in which he accused Christians of being ignorant of the Bible.

In his frustration, he resorted to a helpless: ‘Oh God.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

[loco]

 WOOOOOOOhhhhaaaaaatttt?   


 

[haider]

I want to punch ben stein in the face  He was clearly spinning Dawkins message to fit his message, its as if his brain has only allowed him to think in certain ways and anything else is discarded or twisted to fit him. Very very shameful tactics employed in that movie.















^^^ Religion of peace