Alma July 6, 2008 at 1:34 p.m.

I find this response to EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED completely unsatisfactory, biased, and unhelpful.

How can you possibly call it "Stein's idiotic thesis" when he presented you with scores of PhD professors and other kinds of perfectly legit academics who have been fired from their positions, and whose contracts have not been renewed, all because they simply mentioned either factual discrepancies in the evolution theory in their classes or because they presented an alternate view simply as an alternative to the evolution theory, only to the effect of carefully and honestly completing their task, which is to present all sides of an argument?

Are you such a dishonest and biased journalist, Mr. Balzer, that you would rather choose to write sentences in this article full of personal partiality against some of the facts presented in this movie by only claiming your own opinion as backup to your claims, that you ignore to even say a word about that main, most important premise, which is the loss of free speech, and of application to rationalism and free thinking within the academic community about the explanation as to where this world comes from? The issue at stake here is much higher, much more important and historical than your personal opinion on the movie.

Alma July 6, 2008 at 1:35 p.m.

(continued)

The issue at hand has to do with an evolutionistic elite wanting to shut down all intelligent thought, lest it might produce some all-altering, foundation-shaking evidence against the evolutionistic theory, which lacks finality on any of its claims, to say in the least. Why do you not expose to the public the outrage that should be provoked by this brave journalist, Ben Stein, bringing forth the courageous and all too unfortunately realistic truth that all evidence or facts leading to a different truth other than what evolutionist proponents seek to dictatorially establish universally as such is shut down and the fact that freedom of speech and pursuit of rational thought is fading in the shadows of the frightening future ahead of us? Do you seek to become an accomplice of such a constitutionally backed civil liberty, sir? Why do you not at least attempt to unbiasedly present the main premise of this movie, instead of wandering off, shamefully sharing your juvenile suggestions as you speak on subjects discussed in the movie by PhD scientists, professors and other such academics who have much more academic credibility and authority to discuss such matters than you, a mere journalist, do.

In fact, does not a journalist present all sides and allow for the audience to make up its own mind without being wavered one way or another by personal bias of an unacademic nature? Furthermore, does not a journalist who makes a claim of truthiness or lack thereof of his review also provide backup of such claims?

Let me give you an example on how a journalist can back up his claims, as I seek to prove that you are evidentially incorrect in maintaining that Charles Darwin was not a "racist purist".

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." - Darwin, Descent, vol. I, 201.

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. - Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, p. 318."

If you were wrong about this, might you have been wrong about all other claims you make against this enlightening movie, Mr. Balzer? I request you reconsider your thoughts and write another article that will showcase and reject the academic shamefulness so apparent in this first one; otherwise, I suggest those above you make whatever disciplinary action it takes to remove you, a supposed "journalist", from their newspaper lest it continues to be stained by a mark of unprofessionalism equalling or surpassing that of this article in the future.

Sincerely,
Alma Prendi

Derek Aubichon July 11, 2008 at 2:10 p.m.

Ms. Prendi,
Darwin's personal viewpoints regarding any hierarchy of races, however reprehensible they may be to 21st century ears, do not negate the value or veracity of the simple and elegant natural principle he described and popularized the understanding of. The belief in evolution held by the vast majority of the scientific community is not based upon blind adherence to the gospel of Darwin, but rather on repeatable experimental evidence that demonstrates its truth, the former hardly equivalent to the latter. The attacks on Darwin's character in Expelled are irreverent to any argument for or against evolution. In Mr. Balzer's defense, a capsule-sized film review is by-nature biased and will rarely cite any specific outside sources -- a different forum would surely have required Mr. Balzer to provide a more thorough analysis of the subject with clearer references -- this one did not. It seems hypocritical to find such fault in Mr. Balzer's argument while applauding Mr. Stein's. I would contend that it requires a substantial personal bias to disregard the mounds of evidence set forth by a scientific community(relying upon methodology and evidence) that widely supports evolutionary theory, and yet accept the opinions of those on the margins at face value. Speaking up against the establishment may be brave and admirable, but doing so does not make you implicitly correct. Stein's argument does not follow -- it is not a violation of free-speech if one is terminated from a job for refusing to fulfill its requirements (in this case failing to share the result of scientifically collected data with students.)There is no controversy to teach, at least not in the science classroom. Near as we can tell (based on evidence) the earth is round. Near as we can tell (based on evidence) species evolve into other species through natural selection. Darwin could have been Jack the Ripper and it would not change the fact that, by most logical accounts, he was correct.

Alma July 14, 2008 at 1:48 p.m.

Mr. Aubichon,
According to YOUR review, it seems to me that you have not watched the movie at all.
Firstly, you say, "The attacks on Darwin's character in Expelled are irreverent to any argument for or against evolution." However, the movie does no such thing, attack on Darwin's character that is. It actually has no interest in Darwin's character whatsoever. Part of it deals with certain absolute statements that Darwin had made, while not only acknowledging that such statements would have to be untrue until the right evidence in large amounts were to be found, but also while he had such an overly simplistic view of the universe given the lack of accessibility to the evidence of the complexity of the human body and the world, that that fact in itself renders his opinions irrelevant to origins of man or of the world. For example, if you had seen the movie, you would notice that a scientist said that if Darwin thought the cell is as complex as a Buick, by now we know that its complexity surpasses that of a galaxy, to put it in an analogy.
However, that's not even the point. The point is that these professors are doing absolutely nothing against their own job or contract. The entire point of the movie is that while they are doing their job, they are getting fired; NOT because they are doing something contrary to their job. If you had watched the movie, these scientists do NOT "preach" alternative theories in their classes. They actually are teaching the evolution theory, unlike what you said ("failing to share the result of scientifically collected data with students")and in so doing, have presented only one slide, in some of these cases, of the alternative theory talked about in scientific circles, namely Intelligent Design.
Now, evolution is not a fact or science in itself - as you rightly point out - "Near as we can tell (based on evidence) species evolve into other species through natural selection." "Near as we can tell" does not cut it in a science class or in the scientific community to pass as an established fact or a repeatedly verifiable, testable and experimentable law, which is the definition of a scientific law (such as the law of gravity, etc ....) Since the science classroom is reduced to teach the theory of evolution as let's say the "first" theory about the origins of the universe and of man, then it follows, in keeping with the rules of academia, that other competing theories should be presented. A theory is a theory because there is no finality of evidence - there could be evidence leading to a conclusion, but no finality yet. For example, the lack of the millions of transitional forms that should be found in the fossil record for Darwin's theory to become a scientific fact (which Darwin himself was concerned about) has resulted in evolution still being only a theory.

Alma July 14, 2008 at 1:49 p.m.

The point is that since we are not dealing with a factual explanation and only presenting the evolution theory in the classroom, other such competing theories should be presented - this the simple law of the academia. Therefore, the fact that these professors are being fired and silenced showcases that the establishment itself is going against the rules of the academia to silence this theory and disallow it from being presented in classrooms, simply because it challenges the evolution theory. No matter what your stance may be Mr. Aubichon, you and I are both citizens of a country that encourages freedom of thought and pursuit of rational thinking. If you saw this documentary, you would be disturbingly presented with professors who show their frustrations with the lack of evidence FOR the evolution theory and they refuse to show their face on camera or to allow their name to be said for fear of losing their job.
This problem is huge, and this is what made me especially disappointed in Mr. Balzer's review. The issue is not the theories in themselves, Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. The issue is that while many scientists are led to find the Intelligent Design theory as more convincing than the Evolution Theory based on the evidence and their own research, they are being silenced from a monopoly of evolutionistic proponents refusing to allow their own theory to be questioned. Even if the Intelligent Design theory does not have as many proponents as evolution (which by the way cannot possibly be known since most scientists who actually believe the ID theory as the more convincing one refuse to publicly admit it), is that fact in itself enough reason to disallow the ID theory even though it actually might better explain the origins of the world and of man?
In a courtroom, for a decision to be made beyond a reasonable doubt, all the jury members have to agree on the final decision. The issue presented in this documentary is that such a unanimous decision does not exist in the scientific community, and, what should worry you and I as citizens is that despite of a divided decision between two theories in this community, one side of the argument or one of the two theories is being silenced unjustly instead of the alternate theory being allotted the equal investigation and consideration that it deserves.
"It seems hypocritical to find such fault in Mr. Balzer's argument while applauding Mr. Stein's". This shows me even more that you have not watched the movie. Mr. Stein does not present his view with lack of backup, as is the case with Mr. Balzer. I have never argued that one does not utilize their own bias in fulfilling their journalism duties; I have merely requested for statements to be evidentially supported.

Alma July 14, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.

Any individual unbiasedly considering Mr. Stein's presentation will understand that he has done a remarkably extensive job in looking at both sides equally, considering their claims and making the conclusion, which is simply that it is a frightening occurrence that questioning the theory of evolution should be forbidden, and that such an occurrence should be immediately interrupted. Also, are you aware of the reply that a leading evolutionistic scientist asked in the movie about how the world came to be, gave this reply, "Stein: So, if an intelligent designer didn't create life on our planet, then how did life begin?" "Michael Ruse: In goo." "Stein: In goo? Well, how did the goo form the first cell?" "Michael Ruse: Well, we don't know for sure, but the particles either hitched a ride on the backs of crystals, or life forms from another civilization out there seeded our planet." This was his answer - I hope you do not believe this is science sir.

And even more importantly, the militant front man of evolutionism, Dawkins, actually said that there is a chance that an intelligent form created this universe, just not God, but he can see it as a possibility that a more advanced civilization brought this one about, such as a space alien or something (I guess you can see that that means begging the question, since the issue is when nothing was, and there something was, what happened? It cannot have been a space alien, right?) By the way, the ID theory does not teach God, its fundamental premise only holds that it required intelligence to create life since it displays massive amounts of intelligence (exactly what that intelligence is, however, is a philosophical matter and is not to be covered within the realm of science). Therefore, Dawkins conceded that this premise IS possible. So, when the issue is raised about ID being at the least presented in class as an alternative, even if a lesser theory for the time being, it does not translate in the class moving away from science, but it propagates ONLY scientific thought. This is the right of every student, to have an education that will not sway them one way or another, but that will present the theories and allow them to make the conclusions based on the evidence. However, this has resulted in expulsions and also the loss of credibility in the scientific community, despite the fact that these are MA and PHD scientists with the same credentials as the evolutionistic theory proponents. Does this not concern you sir? If not, I would say you are more interested in your own view prevailing rather than that which is actually the truth!

Alma July 14, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.

The only thing that is important here is that what is presented in the science classroom will reflect the division of conviction shared in the scientific community rather than silencing one side and making it appear in the science classroom as if everyone is of the same opinion. With lack of verdict, all theories deserve an equal consideration until successfully falsified or verified. Is this much to ask?

Alma Prendi