There is absolutely no evidence of evolutionary change over any period of time, let alone a long period thereof. I am not here talking of variation or speciation; I am talking of one kind changing into another, such as reptiles into birds, or land mammals into sea mammals, or something into vegetation, etc. From the Cambrian Explosion to today all we have seen is what we see today without any missing links. Darwin himself said that the fossils should prove his theory right when we find the missing links-none so far!! If evolution had any truth then the transitional forms would have been far more abundant than the end product, but there is absolutely none. And those that try to squeeze in a bird or two, or some other poor specimen as evidence have all failed. Besides, is that all they can muster? There should be millions for every kind of base animal that exists. Have you heard the recent latest? Huge dinosaur soft tissue found!! After over 70 million years ago? Truly ‘the fool hath said in his heart there is no God.’

Thank You Thomas for the reference to Cardinal Dulles’ article in First Things.  It is rather apropos to the discussion of Expelled.  I’ve just finished a second read of the article and these points caught my attention …

“They [science and religion] should search together for a more thorough understanding of one another’s competencies and limitations, and they should look especially for common ground. … Each discipline should therefore retain its integrity and yet be open to the insights and discoveries of the other.”
My being Christian and a scientist I’m on board, but as Expelled demonstrates; the science community, read Darwinian Evolutionists vs. everyone else, “common ground” is seemingly pretty far out there, if on the horizon at all.

“As a matter of policy, it is imprudent to build one’s case for faith on what science has not yet explained, because tomorrow it may be able to explain what it cannot explain today. History teaches us that the “God of the gaps” often proves to be an illusion.”
From my experience this is a perspective that would be well taken by young earth Creationists.

“Future scientific discoveries about evolution will presumably enrich religion and theology, since God reveals himself through the book of nature as well as through redemptive history. Science, however, performs a disservice when it claims to be the only valid form of knowledge, displacing the aesthetic, the interpersonal, the philosophical, and the religious.”
Well said and certainly an offering of Faith and Hope …

“From my experience this is a perspective that would be well taken by young earth Creationists.”

Well said Jim.

I think that the young earth creation hypothesis fails on both a scientific and Biblical scholarship level as it doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge the data which opposes their theories in either field.

I actually see no problem with a young earth perspective; there is strong evidence for a young earth as we explore science. I know for certain, however, that evolution (from non life to life to appearance of creatures through changes from simple to complex)is immediatey rejected by biblical creationists. While it is true that one must not jump to conclusions on matters inexplicable today, the inexplicable in no way validates any form of evolution. Evolution is actually a red herring, a ploy of the devil to demolish creation, the Fall, and Redemption. Acceptance of any form of evolution immediately invalidates biblical Christianity; again, I am not referring to variation in species or to speciation over the years. Concerning the actual earth or outer universe, it really does not matter how old these are. What matters is creation of life on earth. Either God did it fiat, or it evolved. However, evolution can never be entertained because it does not make sense and is impossible. Even if one did not believe in creation one can see clearly that evolution is an impossibility. It is like trying to believe that cars evolved from pieces of metal and other material on the planet.

The movie Expelled rightly criticizes intolerance in Academia, social Darwinism and atheist materialism, but it confounds many subjects and tries to blame the theory of Evolution for all this and to defend Intelligent Design (ID) as the correct answer to many questions about creation. In this I agree with Drs. De Lacalle and De Bellard that the movie is a disservice.

Looking at history we can see the mistake of making sweeping criticism against science or philosophy. It is thought that Newton’s physics influenced Kant’s view of religion so should we do away with Newtonian physics? Aristotle admitted infanticide so should we do away with Aristotle?

I think that philosopher Santiago Collado offers a valid criticism of ID from various perspectives, namely science, natural philosophy and theology (See http://www.unav.es/cryf/pagina_4.html#design). With regards to the latter he points to a significant flaw in ID, the philosophical notion of creation and the confusion between primary and secondary causes. 

Collado explains that for St.Thomas Aquinas there is no conflict between God as First Cause and secondary causes. Everything proceeds from God as the first transcendent cause without any conflict of the causality of secondary causes according to their nature. As Fr. Larry indicated design and randomness are not opposed; they move on different planes of causality, namely Divine and secondary.

I have seen the movie, and thought it excellent.

No one mentions that science is excluding those who don’t agree with the mainstream ideas, another being “global warming.” At the latest conference in the East, scientists who held a differing view were NOT ALLOWED---no admittance unless one accepts the faulty “science” of global warming.  This trend is what Ben Stein documents.

I think readers should go to this website before putting all their support behind this movie...there is a lot that is left to be desired regarding the accuracies of the stories portrayed there:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth