As someone else even wiser once said: sure, they laughed at Einstein, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Groucho Marx. If the best case you have to make for something is that it is widely disliked, then you don’t have much of a case.

An honest scientist must candidly admit that science has not yet been able to answer this question definitively.

And an honest person would would openly admit, as scientists do (and do it far better than almost anyone else), that indeed we don’t know everything. The whole science is premised on this idea.

However, this doesn’t imply the creationist corollary: that we can’t know anything definitively, and so it’s all down to belief in whatever fields and subjects creationists decide they don’t like the science on.

You really seem to have a pretty major misconception about science: science doesn’t claim to know how everything came to be exactly the way it is. In fact, the whole ethos of science is that we can only find out by continuing to LOOK, to test, to constantly go back to the evidence.

But as a result of this process we CAN come to know quite a bit about how a lot of different things happened, when, and what processes drove them.

The problem is that some people don’t like those answers.

What evolutionists do not like – what some find intolerable – is that such a critical examination of natural explanations inevitably leads people to consider the possibility of supernatural explanations.

Again, you’ve quite missed the point of what they object to here. It isn’t that people consider supernatural explanations period. It’s that they consider them scientific. The problem with a “supernatural” explanation is that it’s the virtual opposite of a scientific explanation. Instead of being all about the details, the how, the specifics, supernatural “explanations” offer little more than a title, but no content.

There’s nothing per se wrong with deciding to believe in the supernatural. There’s just something wrong about claiming that doing so is scientifically justified. It gets the very basic idea of science: that conclusions are supposed to be traceable back to testable evidential matters, so very wrong.

They personally refuse to accept the idea of a living God.

Complete BS. There are many scientists who are flat out religious, period. Many of the best and most prominent critics of the ID movement are religious. And the MAJORITY of Christians belong to a denomination, Catholicism, that explicitly says that rationalism science and evolutionary theory are theologically acceptable.

Their personal animosity toward the idea of a supernatural explanation of origins causes them to be less than honest in their teaching of science and in their treatment of others who do not share that animosity.

Again, poppycock. It isn’t about “personal animosity.” It’s about the very real pragmatic incompatibility of untestable appeals to inexplicable magic with doing science. If you believe that there can be such a thing as “supernatural” science, then you are welcome to try and explain exactly how that would work. How would you prove or refute claims with evidence when the very concept of supernatural explanation fatally undermines the very idea of using evidence?

In their teaching they feel compelled to insist that some natural explanation provides a good and satisfactory explanation of origins when in fact every natural explanation that has been offered to date contains serious problems which an honest scientist should probably label fatal flaws.

And yet, whenever these savvy, brilliant critics get around to actually describing what these supposed flaws are, they turn out to be everything from gross misunderstandings to incoherent arguments, to outright falsehoods.

Look at the Florida creationism bill being proposed. One of the claimed “flaws” with evolution that the bill’s authors cite is that there are no half-human half monkey fossils. But of course, if these people had any clue about biology, they’d realize that such an idea, far from being a problem for evolution, is evolutionarily absurd.

And if any brave soul has the professional integrity to refuse to be a part of that conspiracy, he or she is professionally crucified, in spite of whatever positive contributions he or she may have made to the advancement of true science.

That’s certainly what the PR movement that is ID is staking itself on claiming. But look at the facts. The cases they cite turn out to be grossly incomplete representations of the events in question. Nearly always, the people in question have committed some other misconduct that goes conveniently unmentioned by films like Expelled. Or there are other factors than their promotion of ID. Or, and most importantly, the entire issue of whether their ideas have merit is dodged.

Because, you see, REAL science is judged ALL THE TIME on the specific merits of specific arguments. And yet the ID clan seems to want to be exempt from this basic principle of scientific debate… and yet still call these things science. Someone like Gonzalez both wants to claim that his ID work is legitimate science that has real bearing on his status as an academic… but then refuses to face criticism of his ideas, or the possibility that his arguments are lousy, and that this inevitably reflects on him as a scholar.

Science advances when all theories are presented and considered in light of the empirical evidence.

Indeed: but doesn’t this presume that the “consideration” involves some judgment of merit, and how well each “theory” fits the evidence, or even proposes a coherent theory in the first place?

If so, then what happens when one theory consistently fails on the evidence, and fails on providing testable explanations… but has a large bankroll and a large constituency of believers who favor its conclusions even if they can’t make the math work? What happens is that you get a PR movement based on perpetual claims victimhood… all of it dodging the central questions of evidence and merit.

A variety of natural theories of origins have been proposed. A scientist’s professional integrity requires that he or she examine each theory and point out areas where it falls short of providing a full and adequate explanation of the empirical data.

What evolutionists do not like – what some find intolerable – is that such a critical examination of natural explanations inevitably leads people to consider the possibility of supernatural explanations. Evolutionists have decided for themselves (and hold it as one of their most basic core beliefs) that they will not acknowledge even the possibility of an unseen being that possesses the power to design and manufacture the universe and its living beings. They personally refuse to accept the idea of a living God.

It is, of course, their right to make this choice for themselves. The problem enters when they seek to impose their personal choice on others whose minds are still open to all possibilities. Their personal animosity toward the idea of a supernatural explanation of origins causes them to be less than honest in their teaching of science and in their treatment of others who do not share that animosity.

In their teaching they feel compelled to insist that some natural explanation provides a good and satisfactory explanation of origins when in fact every natural explanation that has been offered to date contains serious problems which an honest scientist should probably label fatal flaws. But rather than call attention to those flaws they become willing participants in a conspiracy of silence. They skew their teaching with a view toward hiding the truth.

And if any brave soul has the professional integrity to refuse to be a part of that conspiracy, he or she is professionally crucified, in spite of whatever positive contributions he or she may have made to the advancement of true science.

When the forces of the state and the scientific establishment are arrayed behind one theory in such a way as to squelch all legitimate criticism of it, true scientists must object. When scientists are not allowed to criticize a prevailing theory and propose alternatives, true science does not advance. Science advances when all theories are presented and considered in light of the empirical evidence.

The behavior of accusing people of being Nazis, and then going “hey, look, you’re very angry about it!” has a name. It’s called “trolling.”

If you want to make the sorts of accusations that this film makes, then you’d better be willing to accept criticism, including harsh criticism, and respond substantively to it, if you think it’s unfair.

But whining about how people “care so much” when it you guys making the accusations in the first place is just, well, silly. Yes: I do care about things like honesty and science. Thus, I object to dishonest crap which confuses and butchers science.

And trying to pretend that the fact that people will object to being called a bunch of nasty names is a surprising validation of your views is even sillier. That does seem to be the tactic of the Expelled! folks though: toss out endless accusations and lies, and then when people refute them, instead of actually answering the objections, just scream and carry on about the mere fact that anyone dared criticize them.

Kind of pathetic, really.

Is it any wonder I call them _hypochristians_?