A great work of comedy is likely to hit Australian cinemas later this year. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is the latest attempt by Christian fundamentalists to put a fake moustache on creationism and call it science. As with their previous stabs at winding the clock back to the middle ages, the producers quote respectable researchers wildly out of context and clearly assume that none of the viewers have even a rudimentary grasp of science or the scientific method - an assumption which has paid off in the past.

We know that evolutionary theory provokes hysteria among the religious, but why that theory alone? While our knowledge of selection, adaptation and genetics isn't perfect, evolution is hardly the only incomplete theory out there. Gravity is still a mystery in many respects, and if creationists think that disagreement among biologists invalidates evolution, then the vicious intellectual brawls among physicists should convince them the universe might fall apart at any moment.

Considering that every claim about the natural world made in the Bible is wrong - such as the geocentric universe and flat earth - you'd think that loyal Christians would be railing against astronomy and geograhy as much as evolution.

So, why aren't the fundamentalists producing hysterical propaganda about the "big lie" of quantum physics or dark matter? What is it about evolution that frightens them so much?

Just a quick glance through the masses of material that has already been produced on the topic in the US and Canada tells me this was pretty big over there.

There are even those who preface their comments with "I haven't seen the movie, but...", which is the kind of reaction we would normally expect from po-faced religionists sniffing about some movie that offended their sensibilities, so it is interesting to see the other foot well-booted.

Most fascinating is the blooming of a thousand sites on the theme "How to Share Your Faith Using Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which suggests an orchestrated push by the ID crowd to generate evangelical support activity amongst the faithful.

The movie itself made the top ten in its first week of release, so there's no doubt the pre-publicity had its desired effect. Reviews have been mixed, of course, as is to be expected of a documentary on such a controversial topic (the teaching of ID, that is, not evolution), but not all have been raves.

Even Christianity Today is somewhat lukewarm.

"the film succeeds in making the point that Intelligent Design should at least be on the table for discussion. But if you're looking for ammunition to argue your Darwinist friends under the table, you may want to look elsewhere."

I suspect the level of hype the movie experienced will not cross the Pacific. We tend to be a little less gullible when it comes to being manipulated into a faux controversy designed merely to get bums on cinema seats.

Mind you, it is altogether a very strong reminder of the power of viral marketing.

Excellent point.

As a side issue, did you see that they've discovered a tree in Sweden that is nearly 10,000 years old? Isn't this 4,000 years older than the world itself, according to creationists?

I thought that was neat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7353357.stm

Come Vanilla..into my counselling room *creepy* ? :)

Please read the first verse of the Bible.. Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"

*kaaaaaBOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM*

Then, you can consider what it means in terms of the age of the Earth.

No..not yet.. don't post.. go back and readddd it.. thinkkkk about it.... more more more.

Ok..now you've reflected, we can progress to verse 2.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

At this point, science and theology seem to have a trial separation.
They increasingly poke at each other from a distance. But Theologically speaking.... all it's saying is that

-God created all things.
-Creation was not an 'instantaneous' process when it comes to the earth.
-There was a 'process' involved.

I don't know enough about science and astro physics to comment much on the possibilities of the 'order' and chronology of the subsequent events.

-Light /Dark
-Day/night
-Sea/ land
-Vegetation.
-Water team with living creatures.

Verse 14 might be a bit of a problem as it seems to suggest that the stars were created after the earth.... but jeepers creepers...this was revealed/made known to people at a time when they had no clue whatsoever about astro physics.

Isn't it possible that God made it known in a comprehensible way?

When it mentions 'the 5th day'.... should we interpret this as literally 24hours..or.. how? There is debate about this, and some people take an extreme view "If you don't believe in a 24hr day/night, you are heretical" Others take a less dogmatic approach suggesting the days might be 'ages'...

Me ? :) I take a "Let's start with the resurrection of Christ approach"

It was the 'athiests' who fired the first shot in this empty headed battle. They managed to get one unscientific theory labelled as scientific. It was inevitable that others would try to follow suit. They should just admit that evolution is not a scientific theory either. Extremists from both sides are giving science a bad name. While they insist that evolution is a scientific theory, they are unable to give any fundamental reason why creationism isn't. While they insist that evolution is a scientific theory, they are unable to define science in a meaningful way. It reflects badly on all scientists to be unable to distance themselves from such a philsophically shallow debate that is capturing the public attention.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Boaz,

I think the 4,004 BC thing has to do with clerics working the OT geneologies back to A&E.

What was a bigger challenge for Christians was seeing the Earth and the Universe both as natural phenomena. The Church/Christians saw Crystal Spheres, the Earth as natural creation and space, as heaven, [supernatural). When Galileo described the orbits of the planets, said motion, would have broken the Spheres meaning space was not the realm of the supernatural. Space was natural and the Church wrong.

Relatedly, a Christian Codex (1616) states regarding the heliocenric verses geocentric universe:

"... Propositions to be forbidden:
the sun is the immovable centre of the heaven*;
the earth is not the centre of heaven*...

* Note the reference to heaven [supernatural] with earth [natural at the centre.

- I posit Science has demonstrated the earth is not the centre of the universe or heaven. Herein, Jesus should have dissolved into space-time not ascended, his body achieving a quantum state of infinite indeterminancy, not floating somewhere in space [as heaven].

Matter evolves too with heavier elements being created intergenerationally between a series of stars. There were likely two solar systems before ours, ten billion years before Earth's creation.

Even before Galileo's discoveries Pope Pope III [1542] stated Christians must fight the new knowledge of the Reformation:

"...against heretical depravity throughout the Christian Commonwealth."

Christians must have taken such decrees seriously because Christian monks destroyed the works [genentics] of Gregor Mendel upon his death in 1884.

Freediver,

I thought I had explained in an earlier post, how proto-humans evolved by not adapting to savannah and the Topi antelope did survive there by natural selection? That is, evolution verses natural selection. Both predictable.