It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Expelled: Why Do Creationists Have to Lie?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:10 AM

The Expelled movie isn’t yet out so we can’t make fun of it in its entirety, but as everyone knows by now, the filmmakers started things off rather badly by lying to the pro-science people they interviewed, making them think that it was an entirely different film with a different name and a different premise. That’s a good taste of the kind of sleaze we’re dealing with.

Link to the Expelled movie site

Well, this article and the others linked to it on Panda's Thumb is not surprising to me in the least. As I've researched ID topics, a common theme is apparent:

1) The founder of ID has said outright that ID is not about science, but about philosophy and religion. It is about attacking science and "destroying it's ammunition dump," said dump being the theory of evolution.

2) In order for their idea to have a snowball's chance in hell of competing against scientific theory, proponents of ID and makers of ID propaganda have to lie.

I find this offensive. People who believe in ID and attempt to push it into the mainstream as an "alternative" to science have to lie in order to make it work. The founders and the movers and shakers of the movement KNOW they are lying.

The majority of ID proponents are Christians. Their religion abhors liars. One of the ten commandments expressly forbids it.

If ID was a real alternative to evolution, would they have to lie about it? I think not.

Not only are the film's makers lying to the people who are going to be the film's audience, they lied to the scientists interviewed:

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

the words of scientist Mark Mathis

What's wrong with ID that their advocates have to lie? It is religion, not science. This film and the sneaky way the producers went about interviewing the scientists to be featured in it demonstrate that clearly.

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 11:13 AM
O.K., I'm looking at that rather bitter and hateful website and I can't make out where the creationists actually lied to the evolutionists...
They wanted interviews from said evolutionist scholars without telling them it was for later christians?
So??? How often do these evolutionist sites try to "pound" creationists with "intelligent"(childish) name-calling and derision?!!!
Your confidence in evolution sure doesn't like anyone questioning it.
So much for denying ignorance

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 11:15 AM
I'm not surprised. People of a strong faith will justify just about anything for the "greater glory of god". I've seen it done many times by radical Christians. They'll lie and cheat in order to obtain their end goal which they feel is righteous. If they feel science is misleading and turning people away from god, they won't hesitate to declare war on science, including participating in whatever underhanded tactics are necessary to cause it's downfall.

Difference between them and scientists is, scientists don't have to lie to prove their point. You can't beat logic with faith.

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 11:33 AM
It's kind of sad that (religious) people are still trying to argue against evolution. Seriously, it has all the evidence in the world going for it. I remember a few years back when scientists found a fossil of a fish with leg bones beginning to develop in the front fins. The day before that discovery, ID people's only argument was "well you've never found any steps on the evolutionary chain" (even though science had, it just wasn't obvious enough for these people). The day after that discovery the ID people changed their argument to "well god must be trying to trick us to test our faith." Yeah right

If you're going to argue in favor of ID it has to be that your god created a set up and allowed things to evolve. Of course then you can't be proved wrong (yet), so it is basically a defeated cop out. But who knows maybe I'm just a pawn of the devil using my evil, satanic "logic and rational thinking." Oh no you christians couldn't have any of that, could you.

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Clearskies
O.K., I'm looking at that rather bitter and hateful website and I can't make out where the creationists actually lied to the evolutionists...
They wanted interviews from said evolutionist scholars without telling them it was for later christians?

You seem to be equating evolution with atheism or non-christians.

Many people who contribute to Panda's Thumb are christian (e.g., Wesley Elsberry) or deist (Ed Brayton).

If you are talking about PZ's site, then, yeah, he has no love lost for theists of all classes. Not bitter or hateful though. Just lots of p***-taking and exposure of stupidity.

If you want a good example of ID distortions and misrepresentation, this PZ post, I feel, makes it clear:

[edit on 28-8-2007 by melatonin]

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by Clearskies

Clearskies, if you read the page given through the link in the second box, it is clear that the producers of the film were far from honest in how they went about getting their science interviews.

Misrepresentation is still lying. Which I believe violates one of the ten commandments. Or perhaps that commandment has been repealed when it comes to the ID movement? Has god given a dispensation for liars when it comes to trying to put religion in the hands of the populace wrapped up in a disguise of scientific fallacy?

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by MajorMalfunction

heh the sad part is (and im not saying they did or didn't lie) is they would have to lie in most cases to get any evolutionist scholar to engage in rational discourse. I've watched MANY evolution vs creation debates and the best thing evolutionists seem to have is ad hominem arguments. If the theory of evolution was as sound and logical as most people make it out to be, scientists should have no problem doing interviews like this.

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:18 PM
Who is Ben Stein?

Seriously. I watched the trailer, and although his voice sounds a little familiar, I can`t say I know who he is.

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:38 PM
Maybe this'll get you ...

"Bueller? Bueller?"

And his show on Comedy Central is "Win Ben Stein's Money."

And to Meatclown:

If they have to lie to have discourse, it's not rational. They are lying because ID/creationism is not science.

Scientists are not the one using the logical fallacies to argue, nor do they have to lie to prove a point.

top topics


log in