expelled

Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins, Nazis, cartoons, old movies, Intelligent Design, neo-Darwinism, Creationism and more all rolled up into one movie. Yes, for real.

I don't usually watch documentaries but the premise of this movie was intriguing. Ben Stein going to bat for scientists who think that scientists should look at everything, not just Darwinian evolution for answers. That sounds logical. After all, aren't scientists supposed to be openminded?

High point: Ben Stein does a pretty good interview.
Low point: All the funny old movie cuts were distracting to me and made me think less of the movie; and yet others thought that the old movie cuts added interest.
Scary part: How the Nazis used Darwin's ideas to justify killing millions.
Amazing part: Ben Stein got Richard Dawkins to say some ridiculous things.You won't believe it til you see it.
Sad part: How much hatred and foolishness there is in the heart of man.
Unfortunate part: The movie will probably be polarizing on an already polarizing subject.

This is an important movie and although I don't recommend movies it is thought provoking and a discussion starter. It won't convince you of ID. It won't even define ID to any large degree. It does identify an injustice.

flat earth -- climate change

Al Gore was recently interviewed by 60 minutes and in talking about "Global Warming" the interviewer stated that not everyone, including the Vice President of the United States, is convinced that global warming is caused by man. Al Gore snorted disdainfully and scornfully asked, "Dick Cheney?" He went on to state that to deny global warming is the same as believing the world is flat and that the 1969 moon landing never happened.

I've done a survey lately and out of ten randomly selected college educated people only two of them thought that global warming might in part be caused by human beings.

The others made various comments about the lack of conclusive proof at this point and the inadequacy of the science used to draw the conclusions that Al Gore has so dramatically stated.

I'm all for fighting pollution. As a Christian it is part of my obligation to be a good steward of the earth.

Here's what I object to: Taxation to solve the problem of "climate change." Los Angeles is considering a "climate change tax" that would cost the average driver about $90 a year. How would those millions of dollars be spent? How would they know if they were doing any good? Who would determine if they were doing any good or not? What is the optimum temperature? In my opinion this is just another way for the government to take our money and waste it.

Hypocrites. People who fly around in private jets and drive Hummers but then buy "green credits" so that they can say that they're "green." These are the rich and the politicians who are telling other people to alter their lifestyle but they themselves have a huge carbon footprint. California Governor Arnold S. said he doesn't consider it hypocritical when people like Al Gore say one thing and do another as long as they inspire others to change their lifestyle.

What caused climate change before there were so many people driving cars and cooking out in the back yard?

First the talk was of global warming but since scientists have noticed a more recent ten year cooling trend the terminology has had to be changed to "climate change." If it's called "climate change" politicians can tax us if it's too hot or it's too cold.

Global cooling would kill lots of people. Global warming would create some problems but we could grow a lot more food on this planet. I wouldn't want the polar caps to melt but at the same time I'd like to see what might be preserved in all that ice.

An "Inconvenient Truth"? More like a "convenient ploy" to get more of the taxpayer's dollars.