Symbitted by: Aaron518
Video Description:
On March 28, 2008, some of the editors of Scientific American watched a screening of Expelled at their offices and had a discussion with the associate producer of the film, Mark Mathis. This is the entire recording of the discussion, uncut.
Notice while listening that Mark will make some type of assertion about the content of the film or about evolution in general, but when confronted with contrary evidence or an answer to his inquiry, he will say things like "Well, I'm not scientist" or "I had no control over that". Really, Mark? How can you make a film about evolution and how wrong it is if you don't even have any idea about it or the evidence for it? Or, if you don't have all the facts about a certain issue, how can you decide what happened and put it in a film as if it was a fact?
This interview is very revealing about the intellectual dishonesty of this movie and its makers. A good illustration is when they point out that Ben Stein will say that "no one is blaming evolution for the holocaust" but then half the movie is trying to illustrate a connection between evolution and the Nazis.
In fairness, I must criticize Scientific American because when they asked Mark if they could post this interview to their website they stated that they would not do so until the film was released, and it has not been released yet. I think they should have stuck to that if it was promised.

URL
Embed Code
Link Code

Tags: american ben darwin design dishonesty evolution expelled intellectual intelligent mark mathis movie scientific stein  scientific am vs. mark mathis 1/9 tech

Category: TECH
All Videos by Aaron518

Comments for this video on YouTube

I actually wish ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

I actually wish evolutionists were MORE forceful towards IDers for the following reasons: 1)ID is not a theory. A group of loosely related statements which disparage natural selection do not constitute a theory. A theory has to propose a new hypothesis. 2)Even if ID were honest and came out and said that it proposes god created and guides life, it would still not be a theory. A theory has to be testable, predictive and predictable. No access to god... therefore, no evidnce, no theory.

Evolution is not ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

Evolution is not fact. That's the problem. It is taught as fact when it is not. Scientists still cannot agree on how we got here. They don't know. Spontaneous life has never been proven and never will. You can try and quote an experiment but it can easily be debunked. Th Bible has answers. While I do not know them all, I can try and answer questions. This world and all its creatures are too perfect not to have a creator.

Array ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

Perfect? 99% of the species that have ever existed on earth are extinct. Some designer. Life can't exist on 80% of the earth. Some designer. The optic nerve passes through the surface of the retina. This causes blind spots in the visual field that the brain fills in. It appears we see 180 degrees but we don't. Blind spots in the visual organ. Some designer. The appendix is a functionless organ which causes immense pain and even death to thousands of people every year. Some designer.

Examples of the ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

Examples of the emergence of new species OBSERVED: A species of butterfly in Hawaii feeds only on banana plants. The butterfly is endemic to Hi, living nowhere else. The proof of evolution? Bananas are not native Hi, being introduced by Polynesian sailors around 1000 CE. At some point in the past, they could not have eaten bananas. They must have evolved to eat bananas from a previous species. QED A species of bacteria can digest nylon. Nylon did not exist until 50 years ago. QED

Everything has a ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

Everything has a purpose. To say that 99% of species that have lived on the earth is based upon your own anxioms. To say that the appendix is a useless organ is also based upon your own anxioms - and wrong. The appenidx is used to fight infection. Doctors in the past have thought it was useless but now have found it to be a useful tool to fight infections and radiation poisoning.

I grant you the ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

I grant you the appendix. No problem for me. The problem for your side is that you can't have even one imperfectly designed organ or structure if your explanation is that a perfect creator created man. The human jaw is too small for the teeth it carries. This is why we have painful eruptions of wisdom teeth. There isn't enough room back there to hold them. The evolutionary explanation for this is that our primate ancestors had larger jaws because they didn't cook their food like we do.

Ah, not true though ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

Ah, not true though. If you take from the Bible (Gen 3:14) God placed a curse on man and anything that comes from it. So it's not hard to see where imperfection comes from since God has cursed man. Romans 5:12 Through one man entered sin into the world, and death through sin. The creator is perfect; the creation was once perfect. Because of sin, we are no longer immune to disease, famine, ect...

The problem in ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

The problem in declaring a fossil ape to be a human ancestor on the basis of certain humanlike features isthat some living apes have these same features and they are not considered to be our ancestors. The only thing teeth tell us is their diet and is not any proof of evolution.

Apes and recent ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

Apes and recent human ancestors have vast differences. Human ancestors have braincases that are 2-3 times as large as modern apes. Human ancestors have browridges that are much less defined than modern apes. Human ancestors have smaller jaws and smaller teeth than modern apes. Human ancestors have foreheads that are much higher than modern apes. And multiple independent radiometric dating techniques tell us that human ancestors lived between 4 million and 250,000 years ago.

So the story ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

So the story yesterday was that perfection was obvious everywhere you looked and that proved god. Today the story is planned imperfections prove god. You want so badly to hang on to a book and a belief system that you learned when you were 6years old that you have come up with multiple contradictory stories, when one alternative explains the world neatly. You twist yourself into a pretzel to explain inconsistencies, when one alternative idea explains life: evolution.

This was my opinion ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

This was my opinion. I realize that we are far from perfect and perhaps I should have substituted the word complex for perfect. One can look at your views the same way. Maybe you weren't taught the Truth as a child, maybe you were. Possibly something happened, I don't know. What I do know is that the Lord is real. If the worst thing in my life is to live a good life and place others ahead of me, only to find out I was wrong, than so be it. No harm, no foul. I'd rather play it safe. Thanks

Radiometric dating ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

Radiometric dating is not an exact science. It's not even in the ballpark according to some scientists. Most agree that Carbon14 dating is much better. I disagree with both as no one knows what the earth was like 'a million years ago'. They can only assume; hence why scientists are wrong all the time and science keeps changing.

Where is the ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

Where is the peer-reviewed data that demonstrates these concerns over the nature of the radiometric dating? Answer, there is none. Here's how it works by the way. We can measure how quickly a radioactive isotope decays. Let's say we observe that substance X decays at the rate of 50% per year. Then we know if there is say, 25% of the original amount left, we know it has been decaying for 2 years. If we see there is a given amount left, we can calculate very easily how old a rock or fossil is.

#1 You can measure ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

#1 You can measure by today's standards but you don't know what the atmosphere was like a million years ago. If the earth is that old, than you MUST admit that you don't know the decay rate. Evolutionist William Stansfield said that "it is obvious that radiometric techniques may not e the absolute dating method tha it was once claimed to be." Evolutionist Frederick Jueneman has said that there has ben a horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought.

We do know what the ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

We do know what the atmosphere was like for almost the entire history of the earth because of samples frozen in airbubbles in icecores in Antarctica and Greenland. We test how accurate this is by creating airbubbles of known gas composition and testing them with the same instruments. We know what the temperature was because of known oxygen-18 isotope ratios. There is more O-18 at certain temperatures and less at others. We know we're right by testing known amounts with the same machines.

Science is not ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

Science is not based on opinion. It is based on peer review. Publication of findings for everyone to see and retest. An individual scientest or group of scientists can have any view they like of whether radiometric dating is accurate or not. Doesn't matter without publication and peer review. The overwhelming preponderance of peer reviewed data shows radiometry to be accurate. So these doubters need to do their own experiments, publish the results and let everyone repeat the experiments.

It is based SOLEY ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

It is based SOLEY on anxioms! An individual scientist can test anything, but God forbid they disagree. Once again, that is what this movie is about.

I don't know who ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

I don't know who planted this idea in you that science is axiomatic but it is incorrect. By the way,if it is axiomatic then you better throw out the computer you are using because it was created using the scientific method which is merely axiomatic. And you better get rid of your car, because it has computers created by the scientific method which is axiomatic. Also, you and your family better never get a flu shot because those are based on evolution AND the scientific method... which are...

If axioms are so ... ( 4 months ago by lynchmobb2000)

If axioms are so bad, then you must despise religion: God exists. God loves you. Jesus saves. Christ will return. He is risen. It is so important to show why you are wrong about science because the next Salk or Einstein could be an anonymous 15 year old reading these boards. If no one disputes your obscurantism, that child might think science is not valid and choose not to go into science. There is a reason why the last two post-Enlightenment centuries have been the best in human history.

Yes it is. It is ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

Yes it is. It is full of presuppositions. I'm not saying all science is bad. But you base much of your science on assumptions. That's why science keeps changing. God's word has stayed the same.

I feel the same way ... ( 4 months ago by mcoop221)

I feel the same way. We have to show our children the Truth before they are brainwashed into believing the pseudo-science.

'"Well, I'm not ... ( 3 months ago by damianGray)

'"Well, I'm not scientist" or "I had no control over that". Really, Mark? How can you make a film about evolution and how wrong it is if you don't even have any idea about it or the evidence for it?' Since Mark is PRODUCER of the film and not DIRECTOR, I think he can say whatever he wants to without having a negative impact on the credibility of the content of the actual movie.

Creationists are so ... ( 1 month ago by sicklesickle)

Creationists are so funny. They pick and choose scientific words or theories, and then try to poke holes in them. Listen fellas, how about you perform some actual research and findings of your own? And then hold it up for worldwide scrutiny and testing? Oh, wait. You're not thinkers, you're 'believers.' Why do you dispute radiometric dating? Because you added up all the stories in the bible, and they add up to 6,000 years. Hoo boy! That's some hardcore mathematics!

wow. When faced ... ( 1 week ago by intelligentfalling)

wow. When faced with tough questions how does a creationist respond? Ignore the question and divert the conv. Maybe they denied you because they didnt want to talk to you. Maybe THAT was because everything involving them so far had been misconstrued and lied about. Maybe that has something to do with their apprehension to your stalking them? Nah must be a massive worldwide scientific conspiricy. dumbass