AAAS issues yet another denunciation of ID, this time against EXPELLED

You mean, yet another religious encyclical. JPCollado

Talk about dishonest:

The AAAS statement...rejects the movie as a divisive effort to inject controversial religious ideas into public school science classrooms.

Right, saying that a college instructor should not be fired for mentioning ID and that journalists should not be fired for letting ID speak on its own terms is teaching ID in the public schools? jjcassidy

The AAAS statement responds that evolution is supported by extensive evidence, and rejects the movie as a divisive effort to inject controversial religious ideas into public school science classrooms. All I needed to read... Will someone please tell me what the hell difference it makes in objective thinking whether something is controversial or not? It's either correct or it isn't, beyond, that shut up... And why do they continue to say "evolution" as if design was exclusive to it? And why do they dub the Darwinian method of evolution as the entire theory of evolution? Haven't we witnessed symbiosis? How many different modes of accelerated evolution do you have to mention, before that thought of fish-frog-monkey-ape-man goes away? lol Stone

What they are trying to do is poke holes in the movie in the same way movies like Al Gore's propaganda piece and Michael Moore's slanderous drive by were exposed- But this movie was nothing of the sort. It let moth sides speak honestly and clearly. It's not like PZ Meyer's can honestly say he was quoted out of context or Dawkins claim that he was painted as anti religious. These people are loud and proud of it! So this movie had not real fraud or factual inaccuracies because it wasn't an attempt to appeal to a political crowed or movement like it is trying to be framed. It was an honest view into the controversy. But the sick media wants to be able to make it a two side issue by saying "New Creationist movie proves controversial" just like I saw on TV last night!!! This movie was controversial is was about the controversy! The only controversy over the move that could exist is that some might think it shouldn't have been made. Well I’m sorry its a free country and people have a right to know. The materialists and those politically involved want a slug fest that ends with some ignorant judge saying ID isn't science despite the fact that it is and the judge has shown not only a total lack of scientific, philosophical, and theological credentials but a total lack of understanding of the theory as it is actually defined by its theorists. Frost122585

"A new movie released in support of the intelligent design campaign needlessly drives a wedge between science and religion" Yeah, um, I think that the evolutionists single-handedly have done that already. jinxmchue

I just viewed EXPELLED, NO EVIDENCE ALLOWED which, in a short time of less than two hours make a good case for at least opening the doors of the public to ID. It was manifestly reasonable, as opposed to the BBC's offering, ROOT OF ALL EVIL? , where all scholarship was abandoned in favor of Christian quasi-fundamentalism - watching Dawkins filet these unsuspecting believers. Behe's absence, by the way, is bothersome. Why was he not featured in the film? How else now can neo-Darwinism respond? Can you imagine AAAS's PR department scrambling to answer the outcry of its constituency? They have no other way to respond. By the way, since they make reference to geologic time in this antiphon, I've recently read some obscure but interesting references to Polonium halos found in granite from three or four continents. Are there any geologists among UD readership? Just curious. toc

And Atom, how do you insert a hyperlink, or can you even do that as a commenter? russ

jonny, quote is done by using the blockquote tag. <blockquote>Quoted text in here</blockquote> Atom

"These guys obviously still seem to think that ID seeks a young earth!" I took that statement differently. By the way, how do I quote? johnny

By the way it was scientist Peter Atkins in the film who said, "Religion is Evil." The AAAS didn't take exception to those comments. Whereas it was scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez who said in the film, "I keep science and religion separte." The AAAS didn't complain when the science blogs were promoting "Beware the Believer" also produced by the Expelled crew. scordova

Here is a case for understanding just how Darwinism actually disables minds from even being able to see past its own nose....and its a big ugly one at that. It is truly anti-science and uncivil. Their spin is something Hitler would be proud of. alan

These guys obviously still seem to think that ID seeks a young earth! Yes, these people are incredibly slow learners. They don't want to learn they just want to pretend. William Brookfield

We were... especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called 'Expelled' are inappropriately pitting science against religion,

They must be referring to the Richard Dawkins' and PZ Myers interviews in the film during the course of which, these two openly "pit science against religion". Where is the press release blasting Dawkins and PZ as propagandists? russ

bFast: These guys obviously still seem to think that ID seeks a young earth! I think it is safe to believe that the NAAS already knows that ID isn't about a 'young earth', but that they simply want to set up ID as a strawman version of creationism so as to avoid an actual discussion of ID's merits. PaV

Evolution "is based on a diverse and robust body of physical evidence, from fossilized bones to radiometric measurements of the ages of the Earth's rocks"

(emphasis mine) These guys obviously still seem to think that ID seeks a young earth! bFast