1) The producer ID'd the individual. PZ was interviewed for the movie, and in the movie, so identifying him was probably fairly easy.
2) "Dawkins pushed his question about PZ being expelled over and over until Mathis finally gave his bullshit answer: He wants Mr. Myers to be in this theater… in April, with 10 bucks. He wants to get paid for this. Is that such a bad thing? Well, it wouldn’t be under different circumstances, but it’s a lie. He doesn’t need $10 from PZ when he paid PZ for the interview in the first place! Moreover, PZ was featured in the film; the credits thanked him for his participation."
areasonabledoubt.org


This is basically a response to the earlier post calling for "inclusion" and "tolerance".
Too often, it's a shallow request coming from people whose idea of "tolerance" is just one way, as this story demonstrates.

Since it seems we may need to cover the fundamentals of what a "theory" is...

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American


Trying to insist that a "possibility" be put up in contention with a theory is like demanding the heavy-weight champ and Stephen Hawking be thought as "contendors"...

Did you read my original post AT ALL?...

And then I get called "unfair" for not noting what I noted...nice...


It has done so since the birth of scientific thinking...My next point will be specific...

Galileo using science to factually debase the religiously held belief that the sun revolved around earth...

Wholeheartedly...

Darwinism has become more religious than ID is...

And what evidence of a Big Bang or a comet creating life is there?...(Hint : NONE...It's only from people that DON'T want ID to be legit)...

There is NOTHING in Darwin's theory that ends with "That's the way God created it" or "That's not the way God created it"...

But Darwinists IMPLY the latter with no evidence to the contrary...

And then those facts can easily be refuted with MORE facts that go directly against the original ones...

Just look at my "Pluto" example...

BTW - How many articles could you find that start with something like "Scientist USED to believe blah, blah, blah, but NEW EVIDENCE shows different..."?...I know I could find dozens...probably hundreds...

Eye of the beholder...

ID has a multitude of facts from their believers, just as Darwinism has a multitude of facts from their believers also...

How many terminally ill people have "miraculously" became healthy after praying?...

HOW they became healthy has ZERO percent scientific facts...

So, according to scientists, it didn't happen...

But, unlike Darwinism, the QUESTIONS are shunned from ID...

Before facts can be found, a question has to be asked...

Pretty tough to see if a deep-sea plant can cure cancer until someone asks the question "Can a deep-sea plant cure cancer?"...

Scientists cannot answer the question of ID because they don't know where to start...Just like no one could've answered any questions on cell-structure before the microscope...

Before the microscope, if you were to go back in time and mention how the human body is made up of millions of cells with DNA and chromasomes, you'd be considered off your rocker...Just like ID proponants are now...

But BECAUSE of the microscope, you'd eventually be vindicated and your opponants would look like imbeciles...

Will that ever happen with ID?...Will there be a technological device that will eventually give credence to ID?...no one knows...

But what I DO know is that today's schools and scientific community refuse to accomodate that possibility...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I call bullsh!t.
If that was TRULY what Ben Stein supposedly wanted, then explain to me why he practiced such deceit in his movie, when he could have used it to do precisely that?
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/rel...html#post22964

He doesn't want an "intelligent discussion".
He wants to ALLEGE that the scientific community is to blame for implied bullying when an "intelligent discussion" is not seen.
What he says he "wants" is completely inconsistent with what he actually did.


Good for him.
So do most evolutionary scientists.
Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.


That's like saying my VCR instruction manual doesn't explain where babies come from.
The purpose of "evolution" is not to "explain where gravity or matter comes from".

And regarding "where matter comes from", I put that question up there right next to asking religion where God came from...
When the latter question invalidates religion, then I will be willing to discuss whether or not the former invalidates evolution!

Just a fun little fact...

I's like to point out that if he were alive today, Isaac Newton would be "expelled" from the scientific community...

Gravity and God

Of course, the last statement has the opposite effect in today's day and age...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I didn't read that intention in your statement.
If that's what you meant to include with that statement, I stand corrected.


Quite frankly, I think you've confused which part usurped which territory in the first place.
Whether the sun revolves around the earth is not a matter of "belief".
It's a fact. True or false.
Just because religion takes the inaccurate stance early on (which IMO demonstrates how clearly out of touch they are with a "omniscient being") does not mean that it is a "religious" issue.
It's a scientific issue, which religion has stepped in.


Funny how your reply doesn't even address my actual point, but instead tries to deride by association.

First: ID is based in religion. Period.
It is a religious attempt at scientific pretense.
If you want to refute that, then talk about ID and religion.

Trying to bring up "Darwin Day Supporters" in response to that is like trying to say O.J. is innocent by pointing to a history of slavery.

Second, I could give a flying rat's ass about NON-SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS that revel rouse around "Darwin"
The issue is SCIENCE. Not "freethought organizations" like Council for Secular Humanism, The Freedom from Religion Foundation[22], the Center for Inquiry[23], and the American Humanist Association.
Those aren't SCIENCE organizations.

I went to the "freethought" wikipedia link, and found this: "Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma."
I note something I find absolutely hilarious. I'll repeat it...
"beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic "

Science and logic don't deal with "beliefs". Things either are, or they aren't. It works off of evidence for the conclusions. Not "beliefs".
Zealots have taken "science" up in their own causes, and it's absurd.
Don't try to condemn science based on the actions of "humanists".


One of the lamest parts of such approaches that I (for the life of me) just cannot wrap my head around is this...
HOW the heck do you know that your God didn't "create" the universe in a "Big Bang" moment?

But as for evidence, you can't find what you don't want to see...
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not exactly sure what you're getting at, but it could be akin to my approach that there is nothing in Darwin's theory that refutes God from having any possible influence.
Suppose I drop a ball. Gravity brings it to earth.
I drop another ball, but half-way down I kick it with my foot. Gravity still brings it to earth, but in a different spot.
If you didn't observe where the ball was dropped, how would you know whether or not I influenced it's descent or not?

Too many times religious people insist "NO! That CANNOT be the answer because I don't want it to be" without even bothering to question whether or not it REALLY contradicts with their position or not.
And for that matter, you just gave some perfect examples of ATHEISTICALLY religious people who do the same...


Quite frankly, what you just did is like pointing to Fred Phelps and the KKK in indicting Christianity.
Secular humanists are not "scientists", but rather conforming science to their own "religious" beliefs.


To the rest of the viewing audience, note what is REALLY going on here.
I have been patiently explaining why ID is NOT taught as a scientific theory.
I pressed for reasons WHY it SHOULD be taught as a scientific theory.

The response is typical for the "ID" approach.
Give NO evidence.
NO reason.
But go on the attack against your competitor in an attempt to try to gain credibility by the attack.

If "Pluto" invalidates evolution, then the Bible's acceptance of slavery invalidates Christianity.


And since science has been wrong before, it obviously makes sense to throw out the principles which MANDATE EVIDENCE and PROVIDE THE MECHANISM FOR CORRECTING false ideas in order to favor an idea which can never satisfy any proof.

A bit like saying "Spanking caused this kid to turn out bad, so obviously we should teach the parenting technique of blessing the child whenever he does wrong as just as intelligent".


I challenged you for ID's evidence.
You give none, yet insist it exists.


When you see examples of the same thing happening WITHOUT prayer...
But of course, leaping to conclusions without a control group is the RELIGIOUS approach.
Using independent means to test and verify is SCIENTIFIC.
And that's why religion just can't stand science...


After all the lies and falsehoods I showed about this movie, you still think it's true, don't you...

One of the BIG problems is that the ID "questions" aren't about answering challenges about ID.
They are about TEARING DOWN OTHER things that they see as competition, and pretending validity just because of the attack.


Nobody is preventing ID from doing anything.
They can research what they like. They can see if "a deep-sea plant cures cancer?"
But what they do INSTEAD is try to insist that "a deep-sea plant cures cancer" is a viable option just because chemotherapy doesn't always work. Just because marrow transplants don't always work.
And therefore, we supposedly HAVE to teach "a deep-sea plant may cure cancer" alongside proven treatments like chemotherapy.


What "question of ID" do you think they should answer?


What pure b.s.
What is REALLY going on is that the ID crowd is DEMANDING based on the SPECULATION that one day ID could be thought of as "believable", that we teach it alongside evolution.
That's not how science works.

I'd just like to point out that this claim is full of sh!t.
Nobody is "expelled" from the "scientific community" because they believe in ID.
Nobody is "expelled" because they believe in God.

Like a LOT of the Christian complaints, it's a lot of mass HYSTERIA over the non-existent.


Quite frankly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Newton said.
I can't help but wonder if Newton had lived in Galileo's time, with Galileo's message, would his message be skewed towards the RELIGIOUS crowd which was attempting REAL EXCLUSION?

Newton's message has a mirror image in that just because Gravity exists, and has a theory...
Like evolution exists...
Doesn't mean it disproves God.
If some religious people could grasp that (along with the atheists), maybe we wouldn't have as much of this crap going on...

What if the ID approach to science were applied to RELIGION instead...

Mark: I demand that we teach that Jesus may have been a cannibal. After all, he said *This is my body. Eat it. This is my blood. Drink it.*
John: There is no evidence of that. Plus, the story describes either symbolic or transformed into his body and blood.
Mark: See! You don't know! Therefore, in the interests of tolerance, we need to teach that Jesus may have been preaching cannibalism. Plus, since the bible has changed on issues like eating shellfish or stoning people, obviously that means that Jesus being a cannibal must be a taught possibility. You can't rule it out because you were wrong before!
John: The one thing has nothing to do with the other. You're being absurd.
Mark: Furthermore, have you seen what some of the people who believe in "bread symbolizes body" have done? They also did X and Y wrong, which shows that we have to allow teaching that Jesus could have been a cannibal.
John: They weren't cutting off pieces of Jesus' body, and drinking his blood, so your conclusion is crazy.
Mark: La-la-la. I don't hear your evidence of your position... Why don't you allow me to research whether or not Jesus was a cannibal? Why are you so intolerant?
John: I'm not preventing you from doing anything. Get your facts and present them when you have them.
Mark: You know it's pretty tough for me to prove that deep-sea-plants can't cure cancer when you won't allow me to teach Jesus was a cannibal.
John: WTF?????

Hummmmmmm me thinks your a much deeper thinker than I on movies and theories. Cool You best me. Enjoy.
But it is still one mans point as is the idea behind the movie while your point is noted.. I revert to my earist statement. So that must leave me out of this conversation.