Evolution: Now Showing at a Theater Near You

No god - I have never heard of a "highly intelligent one-celled organism," and I agree that probably none have ever emerged from any puddles. Primitive life was just that: very, very primitive.

Loaded Questions - The problem is not that people have questions. The problem is that most of the people who ask the questions either can't understand the answers, or they reflexively reject any answer that does not perfectly coincide with their myopic religious beliefs. Then they want to force their religious beliefs into science classes.

If all they truly want is an open, honest, and comprehensive discussion, why are they never satisfied with having those discussions in religion and legitimate philosophy classes? Also, why are they never willing too openly, honestly, and completely discuss every possibility? It is because the only explanation they are willing to accept, the only thing they are able to see, is what they already believe.

"Is it really that harmful to just ask why we are here and how did we get here and where are we going after this life?"

Naw, not at all. But why wrestle against Evolution since it doesn't even address those questions let alone purport to 'answer' them.
In fact Darwin eschewed the 'origin' and 'purpose' questions quite explicitly and deliberately. (If anything his 'Origin of Species' was deathly dull reading-hundreds of pages and thousands of examples of species as support for his theory-he offered little more then just...evidence!)

So if that's the latest objection to evolution then....sigh.
"It doesn't answer questions of philosophy, theology or even epistemology-therefore it can't be correct-QED"
Double-sigh.

But then I would and have "objected" to some 'common folk' questioning Physics when it's clear they don't even know what's already known let alone what they're talking about.

I don't 'believe' the Bible was intended as a textbook or The Descent of Man as a spiritual tractate so why the animosity when the 2 get confused?

I love all these people who think they know the theory of evolution well enough to boil it down into two or fewer sentences. Slow change of DNA over long periods of time, right? Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? I think evolution is a good theory, and it has certainly played some part in where we are today. It is not, however, a unified theory for the existence of all forms of life on this planet and the full body of unique characteristics for each living thing, especially the ones we call Homo sapiens.

Coming to theatres soon: Ben Stein's "The World is Flat"

ABC News once again shows bias by referring to this as the "evolution" film. The documentary is actually pro-intelligent design, so let's accurately describe it by what it is, not what it isn't.

Sean...I think evolution is a good theory, and it has certainly played some part in where we are today.

Finally someone who says it correctly...it is a GOOD THEORY - not FACT. That is my biggest issue with the way evlution is presented in any form it that most that believe in the theory present it as fact and evolution has never made that jump due to missing evidence in the line of evolution.

My other question is why can their not be both ID and Evolution working together?

Sean - The Cambrian Explosion was a short period of time only in geological terms, but at 35 million years long it was hardly a short time frame. Even the shortest estimates are that some of the phyla took millions of years to evolve during the Cambrian Explosion. Millions of years should reasonably qualify as a long period of time.

twiggles - "...it is a GOOD THEORY - not FACT.

Do you doubt gravity because it is just a theory?

Do you doubt the theory of the atomic structure of atoms and molecules (you know, proton, neutrons, electrons) because it is just a theory?

Do you doubt the theory of electromagnetism (radios, TVs, cell phones, microwaves, x-rays, MRIs, etc. etc.) because it is just a theory?

How about the theory of magnetism and how we use it to produce electricity? Do you doubt that just because it is a theory?

Theories are almost as good as science gets.

Uhm...people, the thesis of the movie was about how ID is expelled from academia, it doesn't really try to put forth a serious debate on the topic, though it obviously takes a stance for ID.

In the movie, there's a lady with a map of the US with pins in. Those are people her organization has successfully gotten fired from their positions through her actions. Why would she have a map of that up?

No God!!!!!!!!!!!! "Modern" science tells us no such thing! It is people like you who demonstrate not even the rudiments of a scientific education that are the poster children for a renewed emphasis on science in the classroom.

twiggles - "My other question is why can their not be both ID and Evolution working together?"

Because evolution deviates from a literal interpretation of creation as Genesis describes creation in the Bible.

I have yet to see or hear an ID/Creationist proponent who is willing to accept the hypothesis that evolution is the natural process that God designed, implemented, and has been using to naturally develop life.

IDers need God to be a stupid micromanaging puppet master who controls and causes everything. The possibility that God is smart enough to use natural processes that God designed and began with the Big Bang as a passive method for creating the universe and then to naturally create and develop life is totally unacceptable. Why? Because that is not what Genesis literally says.

ID as most proponents push it is only the religious hypothesis of Creationism in the disguise of a different name. And for all practical purposes, ID is merely a Christianized version of Aristotle’s concept of ontology.

I think Ben Stein's entire point of the movie is being proven by the reaction to it. You can't even QUESTION evolution. At all. With any alternative theory.

The movie doesn't promote creationism, it just asks why we can't even talk about it.

Ben Stein was generally liked by the scientific/educated segment of society before this movie. Now he's hated and being ostracized. That's... kinda the point of the movie. I'm sure he expected the backlash because the movie is an exploration to ask why one can't even question evolution without ruining their scientific career.

It is always interesting to see the hostility and intellectual condescension from the "scientific" community. In your "educated" self important wisdom you are closing your minds to new discovery. What if, someday, science proves intelligent design? Ben Stein's little movie makes the point that one theory should not be the only consideration. A dynamic environment is an open environment. It should not serve to intimidate those who explore other possibilities...and you say the faithfilled are narrow minded!

Uh, ID SHOULD be expelled from Acadaemia. It doesn't fit the criteria of a scientific theory for it isn't testable and makes no predictions.

Even as a philosophy it fails for it really doesn't 'answer' anything, either.
Frankly the 'Deus ex machina' dodges from the greek plays read as cop-outs and they're hardly superior when morphed into science classes.

The interminable and emotional forays into minutae regarding inappropriate cross-references of science Vs theology seem to be exactly the sort of thing Satan would savor and support.

'As if' His coup in re-writing the Torah as a nihilistic mandate against Jews wasn't succesful enough we now have people passionately arguing against God because His mechanics and engineering are beyond immediate ken and understanding. (EXACTLY as He informed Job so long ago. Yet Job got the message and moved on-meanwhile it's been 150+ years and counting in Kansas.)

This comment is to 'B K.'

I'd like to point out that I believe in ID, but I'm not a Creationist. To me the two ideas are quite separable. To most religious scientists I know, the idea is separate to them as well. I think the reason you aren't finding as many people that tease out ID from Creationism is that its easy to not bring up your religious beliefs with a naturalistic evolutionist, and most people don't walk around trying to get into fights with their co-workers.

Its harder to not have to bring up your religious views when you believe in Creationism, so that's probably why we hear so much more about it.

Well Aaron, maybe they were terrible scientists who did not deserve a career in the legitimate sciences? Maybe the ID angle just happens to be the only symptom that Stein bothers to mention. Ever consider the possibility that Stein is only out to make some bucks by telling part of the story in a biased fashion? Do you seriously believe that Stein's "documentary" is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And no, I have not seen it or any other movie in about six months, I don't have the time.

For evolution to have begun there must have been a big bang. Who lit the fuse?

Dumb Student - But do you believe that an intelligent designer could have designed evolution to be the natural process to develop life? And if not, why not? That is the real tipping point that indicates a creationist trying to hide. While the ideas can be and probably should be separable, I have yet to see or hear any IDers who are able to keep them separate for very long. IDers who also believe in evolution (and the Big Bang) are rare as far as I can tell. The biggest flaw with ID is that none of its necessary assumptions are testable.

Technically I believe in ID also. But I also believe evolution is the natural process God designed and implemented as the way to develop life. Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit philosopher and paleontologist, does what I think is the best job of explaining the concept.

What if God were an evolutionist? -That is, what if God used evolutionary processes to bring about life? Interesting thought....