Responses to What to think?:

Haught’s review is baseless and confused. He is arguing against a straw man. I have not the time to go into this now, but Haught’s confusion regarding the role of worldview in scientific inquiry and in analysis of the results obtained by the scientific method are astounding. -Shane Coley

Intelligent design is far more than irreducible complexity. On the comment that science has done much materially for mankind but "Christainity hasn't made the world a better place" we need to see reason and faith as the twin pillars of human development. These God has provided for those who seek Him. "That Western civilization stands indebted to Christ's Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, important legal principles, and much else besides has not exactly been impressed upon them (his students) with terrific zeal. The Church, in fact, built Western civilization." [From: How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E Woods, Jr.]. Oh, BTW, Woods is a convert to Christ's Church. In Sience and Creation, Fr Stanley Jaki cites how science was hindered in seven great cultures by unfavourable conceptual frameworks -- Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu and Maya -- inall of which science suffered a "stillbirth." Best regards -Peter D Howard

I usually enjoy your articles, but the lead-in comments about "ID proponents" in this latest emailing merely perpetuate stereotypes of the ID movement, and cause me to doubt that any of you have spent time actually reading the work of the major ID proponents like William Dembski, Michael Behe, or David Berlinsky. Perhaps ID proponents insist that ID does not *necessarily* promote belief in God, because prominent ID proponents like David Berlinsky and others are agnostics. ID proponents do not "equate evolution ... with atheistic evolutionism." I challenge you to find one published ID proponent who makes such an unnuanced assertion. ID proponents do not want biology teachers teaching religion. Where did you even come up with that? Apparently, To the Source believes, along with most of the rest of society, that in the case of proponents of ID, it is not necessary to get their arguments right or accurately characterize their positions. ID proponents are second class citizens who can be dismissed in a cavalier manner through contempt and caricatures. Sincerely, -John Bergsma

Editor's note: Regarding teaching religion in biology classes: In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the public school district required that a statement be read aloud in ninth-grade science class including, “Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.” According to the Discover Institute, Intelligent Design promotes belief that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”  Only a supernatural deity can be the intelligent cause of the natural universe and its living things. Aliens (Behe) could have seeded life on earth, but does anyone think the Discovery Institute was formed and funded to promote belief in extra-terrestrials?  Regarding ID Advocates promoting belief in God: Discovery Institute Vice President Stephen Meyers does not want science’s “wing’s clipped to keep them in the naturalist’s yard, when the truth is elsewhere.  God, after all, may not have been away on other business when life originated, or humankind came to be.”  Dembski believes that ID theory “can in the end only be located in Christ.” Berlinski (your best example) is a secular Jew, but his work encourages one’s belief in God against the onslaught of exclussive materialism. Why else would so many Christians read him?  His recent book, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not only a must read, but a sustained attack on the atheistic obsession of “scientism”. Instead of pretending it is not their aim, Intelligent Design advocates should be proud of the wonderful job they are doing promoting belief in God. Regarding ID advocates equating evolution with atheistic evolutionism: Read Behe’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazettet interview, February 8, 2001. Question: You were originally a believer in evolution {a theory that dates back to the Greeks}. What changed your mind? Behe: I was taught Darwin's theory {evolution based solely on unguided events, mutations and selections} from grade school through college and, though I had vague suspicions about its validity, I had no reason to doubt my instructors. I became skeptical of the theory in the late 1980s after reading a book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by an Australian geneticist named Michael Denton.

If Dr. Haught thinks that there is no good reason to see Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed he has missed the entire point of the documentary and indeed from his writing it is evident that he has missed it. In the first place it is not about ID or Darwinism. It is plainly about scholastic freedom and integrity. Darwinism is and always has been a religion. ID is not only good science it is science at its best. The pulpit of the Darwinist in the school room has too long gone unchallenged. Because of this it is not hard to see that the private schools are not far from the same fate of the home school families of California. The juxtapositions in the film with the Berlin wall and Germany of WWII are purposeful indicators of the direction of that chosen path. Anyone who cannot see past the tool of Darwinism being used to control a culture is, in my humble opinion, in real danger of loosing everything on which this country was established. The documentary reminded me of the reaction of an American History instructor of mine. When I was about 40 years old I was taking a class for my own reason. The instructor was obviously enamored with his own education and opinions. He made a number of statements that were often rude and derogatory toward people who held other beliefs from his. The statements were clearly meant to let the young, just out of high school; students know that to question him was only to show their ignorance. When he plainly, and with great bias toward the early religious beliefs of this nation’s founders, stated that women were required to remain at home because of the religious beliefs of the day, I felt compelled to stop him. What I did was to simply ask the following: “Given that women stayed home in every known culture of the day regardless of the religion of that culture, was it not more likely that it was simply a matter of necessity since it might be hard to good deer hunting for food when you were eight months pregnant in a world where there were no cars, busses, etc.” The look on the professor’s face clearly showed that because of his bigotry he had never considered such a possibility. But the look on the faces of the 17 to 19 year olds were a joy to behold as it was evident that they had just had a whole new line of reasoning presented to them that showed them it was ok to think for yourself. We used to teach how to think not what to think and that is the importance of Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed. It is not ID that is being squelched; it is any thought that is considered unacceptable that is being derided and hounded from the “sacred halls”. I noted in Mr. John Berry’s comments RE: 180 a desire to make a hard distinction between Darwin’s Theory and Darwinism. Sorry, but I do not see how that could ever be done. Without the one there could not be the other. The grand claims of today’s science so called are, again in my opinion, verging on the insane. Unlike the resurrection of Christ, Evolution could never truly stand in a court of law. It is only a theory and a belief system. It has not and cannot be proven. Why else do people say, “I believe in evolution.” I know it is like screaming in the dark, but Ben is doing it and so am I. “WAKE UP PEOPLE. Your minds and your freedoms are being stolen.” -William W. Lumry, II

Thank you for your great site. I had to comment on the current issue. Don - You have misrepresented both the intent and content of Intelligent Design. In the intro to the debate, and in Haught¹s response, ID is presented as a conflict between science-as-atheism, represented by Dawkins, and science-as-religion, represented by ID. This is a false model and will not contribute to your expressed desire to take a useful position on this subject. There are 2 facts that influence this issue: The first is that Darwin is simply inadequate to explain the world as we see it. You admit that Darwin cannot explain origins, but the situation is much worse than that. In addition to origins Darwin (and neo-darwinism) cannot explain the cell, the fossil record, the ³origins of species² (to coin a phrase) and most importantly, the massive amount of coded intelligence in our genes. These things are nearly as much of a mystery to the Darwinist today as they were to Darwin himself back in the 19th century, at least in terms of accounting for their evolution within the accepted paradigm. The second, and necessary fact is that if Darwin cannot explain it, then something else should be allowed into the paradigm. That something, at least within ID ranks, is undefined as to its identity, and need not be defined to detect its existence. In other words, Design is detectable, regardless of its source. To say that ID is ³a thinly disguised, not to say emaciated, version of theology² (to use Haught¹s pejorative description) is to move the discussion many years down the road, and away from these troublesome problems with Darwin, and onto a less challenging playing field where the circular argument can be asserted to stop the whole process of questioning Darwinian orthodoxy. It¹s easy; you simply ask ³well who is your designer?² and no matter the answer the Darwinist wins since that answer must be super-natural, (as the natural is defined by atheists) and so they remind us that science deals only with the ³natural world² as they have already defined it. Clever. Ah, but Darwin still doesn¹t work. So ID keeps popping up like the whack-a-mole. This situation will continue until scientists are allowed to ask the right questions. Arthur C. Clarke said ³any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic¹, and it appears that the Darwinists want to put any answer that might actually explain the facts, in the ³magic² category because it may involve a designer to do otherwise. Why? Because of a precommitment to a self-limiting philosophical and theological position. If Darwin cannot explain much of what we see, and he and his followers most assuredly cannot, then what is defined as ³natural² may be absurdly narrow. In fact, I would say it is a science-stopper. ID proponents really do not want ID taught in schools, we want Darwinism, and its limitations, in other words, science without preconditions, taught in schools. We want to be able to ask questions, unencumbered by requiring a certain answer. If the ³way things work² requires a designer, than that is our answer, if it does not require a designer, then that is our answer. Who could object to objectivity? Well, many do. The Darwinists want to assert that (in Sagan¹s famous line) ³the universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be² and that no higher intelligence or designer is required to explain life and existence. This is, of course, faith. On the other hand Creationists want to show how life and the universe leads to God. ID just wants the freedom to ask the right questions. All of this explains why Haught¹s position is doomed. In truth, both sides did a terrible disservice to ID in the Dover case. Haught says: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, P. Z. Myers, William Provine, and Peter Atkins almost willingly become Stein¹s stooges as he makes his case that evolutionary biology is a mask for materialist atheism. Since these authors have eagerly and openly flaunted their personal belief that Darwinian science entails atheism, they turn out to be Stein¹s greatest allies in building up his caricature of academic science as the enemy of religious faith. Caricature? The real caricature here is Haught¹s own conflation of Darwinism with ³Academic Science². If ID is simply true: if some things will never be explained by Darwinism, then Haught¹s comment reminds me very much of those who would accuse the upstart Einstein of attacking Newtonian ³academic science² with his relativity rubbish. How many weeks on the best seller lists have books by Dawkins, Dennett and others enjoyed? How much influence to they have? It is clear that they have massive influence in our world. And these atheists most certainly are not talking about ³personal beliefs² , they are asserting that this is the way that the culture and the schools (from which the culture grows) are to go if we are not to be stupid, ignorant, and evil. Belief in a deity is even presented as child abuse by Dawkins, (but of course, Dawkins¹ seeding of life on earth by space aliens is something that all kids must be taught) and the level of ridicule of those who see the issue differently, and the clear assumption of the cultural and intellectual high ground by these people, are assertions of a desired split in the culture between the intelligent atheists and the poor huddled masses of the mentally deficient. (that¹s the non-atheist to we-the-benighted). The use of these individuals in the film is hardly skewing the issue as they represent the mainstream view in the very institutions that seem so intent on expelling the upstarts who dared ask the wrong questions. Frankly it looks much like the manner in which the Holy Roman Church dealt with Galileo. And let¹s talk about Dover for a minute. Both sides did ID a terrible disservice in Dover. The anti-ID side successfully misrepresented ID to an ignorant jurist, while the pro-ID side attempted to force the teaching of something that is not intended to replace Darwin, but to assist in finding his proper place. Again, ID does not want to teach about a designer, it wants to ask questions when Darwin does not give answers. Finally Haught lets the cat out of the bag when he says: Ever since the 17th century, astute minds have agreed that what we now call ³science² can tell us only about the natural causes of things. Science does not talk about God, purpose, or values. It can neither affirm nor deny the reality of things divine. Of course, subsequent reflection on scientific discoveries may lead one person to God and another to atheism. But science, strictly speaking, is a self-limiting method of inquiry not equipped to answer theological questions nor permitted to introduce references to the supernatural whenever it gets bogged down in seemingly insoluble problems. And there is the crux of it. Haught, and of course, Dawkins, Dennett, et al, want us to have faith that naturalistic explanations will be found. They wish us to believe, against all evidence, that Darwin¹s mystery-religion will someday explain the cell, let alone the intelligence in our genes, let alone origins, let alone the universe. The real issue here is that real scientists, with real Ph.D¹s doing great work in real universities, see just an inkling, just the first rays, of a hard scientific fact; that Darwin is ceasing to have explanatory power for many of the claims his followers make for him and are unwilling to have faith in the Darwin paradigm alone. Haught says: A fundamental premise of Expelled is that science, if it has any interest in truth, should lead us directly to God. Evolutionary biology must be bad science, therefore, since so many of its students are outspoken atheists. and I would respond by asking which came first, the atheism or the science? Which is our priority? Perhaps evolutionary biology is doing just fine, except for the uncanny need of some of the atheists to deny tenure, and hound out of their positions, the non-atheists. Finally Haught must wrestle with the connection ³Expelled² draws between Darwin and Hitler. Second, Expelled further associates evolution with atheism by dipping into the archives of 20th century experiments in human degradation, flashing numerous black and white images of unspeakable atrocities, all allegedly inspired by Charles Darwin. Nazism, eugenics, and the Holocaust, the film proposes, can all be traced back to ideas sprung from the twisted brain of the mild-mannered naturalist from Down House. Well, here is a quote from the above mild-mannered naturalist: ³At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the worldŠ. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.² ‹Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 6. As much as we recoil at the insertion of Hitler (not to mention Sanger) into this issue, we cannot avoid it. If The Church is responsible for Torquemada, then Darwin helped to bring forth Hitler. Worse, if we think we are safe from this evil arising again, we are foolish indeed. -Don Cicchetti

There is a famous painting by Salvador Dali depicting Jesus on a cross. The cross upon which he hangs is above the earth -- a chessboard, in fact -- not planted in it, and there are no nails actually piercing his hands or feet, just a cubist suggestion of them. Dr. Haught wants us to think of science and religion in the same manner: that spiritual truth is suspended transcendently above the earth, with no real connection to it -- that science and religion are divorced realms that cannot inform each other. Aquinas would be surprised by his son in the Church. This is nonsense; a by-product of 19th century "Higher Criticism" seeking to separate the milk of whimsical mysteries from the cream of real stuff. -RB

Who in the world is John F. Haught? Gerogetown University theology prof? Remind me never to send my kid there to learn theology! I wonder what Bible he is reading and pontificating on. Not the one I read, that’s for sure. My Bible makes it unapologetically clear that God is the Creator. He wants us to give in to the Materialists here and agree that science and religion are two totally different areas that should not intersect. But this is illogical. If there is a Creator, He would be the greatest scientist ever. We should be able to see evidence of His design and power in His creation. Don’t you think that if there are things in nature that do not have a natural cause, science might be able to show that a natural cause is not a credible explanation for that thing? If we abdicate science to these guys, we lose the battle. Science is seen to be the science grounded in reality and religion, well, those guys can say whatever they want to, we all know that science is the only thing we can trust. No way. You do that and you can just watch people give up on God. The Bible will lose all credibility. This guy shouldn’t be teaching theology for sure. I just don’t get it. Why would any thinking scientist who really wants to find the truth want to limit explanations to only natural causes from the get go? Where is the proof for this axiom or assumption? Dover was a farce and everyone knows it. Large sections of the Honorable Judge’s ruling were copied verbatim from the document he received from the ACLU. He copied it verbatim! Shows how much thought he put into it. But besides that, even ID scientists agree that it should not be taught in school. However, what we have now is that you can’t even question the status quo and they call that science! Darwin is untouchable dogma and any scientist who dares to question it is out. This is the thing the film was trying to point out. This dogmatic thinking and teaching of Darwinism is what needs to go. Maybe Haught wants to believe in spontaneous generation himself. That’s fine. Maybe he doesn’t respect ID scientists. Again, that’s his prerogative, but given the fact that scientific naturalism is not fact, it would seem that at least the scientific arguments of ID scientists deserve to be heard and honestly answered. Since this seems to be impossible, they resort to bullying, ridicule, and attacks on their job and reputation as well. They call them creationists. It is as if a belief in a Creator disqualifies you from being a scientist. Tell that to the scientists of old who had a strong belief in God and yet did wonderful science! If Darwinists think this type of ridiculous behavior will gain the respect of the public, they have another thing coming. Science is going to be forced to reckon with their ideas in the coming years like it or not. And rightly so in my opinion. -Jim May

There's no good reason to listen to John F. Haught. -JE

Friends: I will confess that I probably don't belong on this mailing list. I sent a note to Dinesh D'Souza a few weeks ago, and I guess that put my address on tothesource. But, hey, I enjoy reading the content, and I'm grateful for your solicitation of feedback. I wanted to challenge Marvin Olasky. "The real question is: Did Darwinism bulwark Hitlerian hatred by providing a scientific rationale for killing those considered less fit in the struggle for survival?" There is no doubt that mid-19th and early 20th century scientific concepts, including Darwinism, were put to horrific use by the tyrants of the mid-20th century. As Daniel Goldhagen has pointed out, fifty years of "race science" was far more destructive than five hundred years of religious anti-Semitism. But how much of this was Darwinism? I would submit that the more important concept employed by the genocidal butchers was classical genetics, of which Darwin was ignorant. They were fixated, along with their eugenicist predecessors, on the notion of genetic determinism. The Other is biologically distinct from Us, and that distinction is immutable. This provided more of a scientific rationale "for killing those considered less fit" than Darwinism. So does anybody propose that Gregor Mendel and Thomas Hunt Morgan were architects of genocide? No. Of course, public health imagery was, and remains, central to the genocidal agenda (see Hezbollah on the Jews). Pestilence, parasitism, hygiene. Should I, as a microbiologist, feel accountable? There is no mystery why Darwin alone is treated this way: Darwinian evolutionary theory is held to challenge theism, and theism is held to provide the foundation for social morality. The real question is: Does respect for intellectual honesty impose any constraints? -Ken Pidcock

(by John F. Haught During the highly publicized Dover School Board trial in 2005 I testified for the plaintiffs that teaching “intelligent design” (ID) has no place in public school biology classes. As the only theologian present)
I find it interesting that the only theologian allowed to speak at the Dover School Board trial is one who believes in evolution. What were they afraid of? My question is "Why don't schools and science follow scientific principles they say they believe in and teach the problems with evolution as well as the reasons for it. There are lots of problems with evolution, but these are never discussed in the classroom. So are our teachers and scientist trying to get the students to believe that only evolution is a possibility? Evolution is only a theory, as it has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So why do they teach it as a "fact"? There is a word for that you know, called indoctrination. They should be ashamed of themselves for violating scientific principles. -Terry Warren

The root of today's controversy over Intelligent Design is not that the scientific community is too good at science, it is that they are too bad at theology. They have become lazy and theophobic in dealing with issues that cannot be smeared onto a microscope slide, and have thus put entire volumes of human experience into a box labeled "DON'T GO THERE." As Ben Stein points out so well in Expelled, some of that community have doffed their lab coats to brandish the badges of Mind Police, enforcing that their fellows not go there either, and that if any should boldly go where they dare not, they are properly ostracized, disciplined, and, well, expelled. How very un-scientific. It's high time that Dawkins, Meyers, Scott, et al stop whistling in the dark fear of extra-terrestrial intelligence and explore the new world in that box that they so desperately try to quarantine. Instead of urging the public to sit numbly before the thousands of computers cooperating in the SETI network, waiting for some random static to pulse-out three or four prime numbers in a row, let them join the seekers who ease into a classroom (or, dare I say it, a pew) to wrestle—desperately but with all the hope of the human soul—alongside the authors of Job and Ecclesiastes, struggling with the apparent injustice and vanity of life. Only the lazy mind and heart will shun the rigor of such inquiry, thought, and debate. True scientists are better and more disciplined than to rope-off such large portions of our world, declaring, in an oddly theological way, that such things are tabu. -Pastor Ron Heffield Orlando, Florida

Do you have an archived article on evolution? thanks, -Irene

Very many thanks for your regular input of much-needed ammunition to counteract secularists and their anti-Christian ideas. Many blessings for all! -Henk Verhoeven and his extended family Sydney, Australia

I would like to recommend a book by Vernon L. Grose, Science But Not Scientists "How Everything Began: Chance or Creation." Although written in 1975 the book was not released for print until 2007. The forward is by Wernher Von Braun, father of America's space program and close friend of Vern Grose. You might consider interviewing Mr. Grose, who is also a FOX NEWS contributer and lives in the Washington, D.C. area. I know he would present an interesting perspective to this debate. Best Regards, -Dan Collins

Thanks for the comparison and contrast in the article on the movie Expelled. I find it amazing that Dr. Haught is trying to argue that science and theology are too diverse to mix together. There should be one integrating thought: Both science and theology should be about discovering and disseminating truth. Oh I know that I’m bringing into the discussion more fields of study, but no one can have any meaningful discussion without agreement of terms. It is a well known historical fact that Hitler and the Nazis used evolution to justify their atrocities. Evolution is a religion or at least a central core of the religion of secular humanism. The religious indoctrination is included in nearly every field of education. I have a B.S. in business administration and an MBA. When I attended college in the 60’s and early 70’s most of my classes included Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs which is a spin off of the concept of evolution and secular humanism. One of my greatest obstacles as a Christian was to clear up the brain washing on evolution that was throughout my education. I came to the conclusion that there is true truth. That there is a God Who has spoken in ways that we can understand and He is the basis of all of life. It was my introduction to the works of Francis Schaffer that helped me get the bigger and deeper picture. -BF

Mr. Haught says: "Unfortunately, however, evolutionary materialists and ID advocates alike are luring minds back to a prescientific stage of human consciousness when empirical study of nature had not yet been emancipated from dogma and religious preoccupation. " It must be understood, that in most American universities there is NO presumption of scientific inquiry in any evolutionary biology or anthropology course. It is approached, in my experience anyway, at UC Santa Barbara, as more of a scientific theology. In no other course of study would the rules apply as they do in evolutionary studies. For example, the skeleton of "Lucy", huge sweeping claims were made based on a small sample (not a whole skeleton as it is often shown) of bones found over several square miles (not in situ as it is often assumed). Would biological science make the same claim of a new animal species? They would never get it published, nor would a similar situation in botany, geology or any other hard science. A statistician would never accept the proposed timelines of change (there is not enough time), and any physical evidence is not statistically relevant either. You can propose a whole scientific theory of the origin of man based on bones that would fit on a dining room table? When asking simple questions in classes, like "Is there any example of a positive genetic mutation, not variation within a species, but an alteration of the genetic code" you will be met with stark silence or the professor will bounce right back to discussing intra-species variations of mosquitos or fruit flies. Or "Does evolution require mass genetic change in a species, that is positive, in conjunction with a physical environment that precisely coordinates with it, is there any evidence of this happening, past or present" again you will be met with silence or the re-hashed intra-species variations. 99% of class time is spent on describing intra-species variations, and yet it is almost inconsequential when it comes to producing actual evolutionary change. However, in light of modern micro-biology, if inter-species genetic mutations were ever discussed, most students would see it as theology and not science. I would propose that it is not just atheistic evolutionist that are dogmatic, but in academia evolution is dogma. Let's all take a reality pill, evolution was greeted with glee by all those who were, and are, looking to destroy any part western culture that is based on Christianity. It has been used as a tool to propogandize for atheism and anti-Christian thought since the beginning in the West with nonsense like "Inherit The Wind" as well as by Marxist and Nazis. -Stan O Temecula, CA

Re: What to think? My wife and I saw Expelled a few days after it opened locally. My comments are from one who is a father and grandfather. The choice is not whether it is worth seeing or not. As a ‘no-body’ I think every one, who is thinking of what is happening to our world societies and what is confronting us as Americans, would benefit from viewing Ben Stein’s production. I do believe God, a Person, hence by necessity, must be characterized as possessing Intelligence as a descriptor of His Nature, did create the Universe. I also believe God’s attributes are not limited to the boundaries of Man’s understanding. I also believe He created Man - we did not evolve. But this is beyond the subject of Expelled. Expelled is simply addressing the topic: Is there intelligence exhibited in the design of the constituents of the Universe? If this question is answered by the affirmative, common logic can not simply end. A greater question is: From where did all the mass and energy of the universe evolve? If God, with His Infinite Power did not create the Universe. from what energy did evolvement commence? If energy and mass are to remain equated, how did mass originate without The Provider of energy? From whence came the lightning bolts if there was nothing - no source of Power? - Nothing! Nothing physical. I have not heard of a ‘scientist’ who did not believe the second law of thermodynamics! But because ‘science’ can not measure the non-physical, can science state the non physical does not exist? They can observe the brain, but not the mind. Does this mean ‘minds’ do not exist? If so, how can Dawkins make up his mind that there is no Creator? Furthermore, I find the background correlation of what happened to the Jews (as well as subsequently what happened to Christians because they did not object) and the natzi-ization of Germany, a powerful parallelism of the paradigm that is now what we are facing, and is being imposed upon us, that is, the gradual erosion of our accountability to God. I find it an indication of weakness and uncertainty of those, such as Dawkins, who feel it is their responsibility to change the convictions of others. The reality is they do not see they are imposing their ‘worldview’ as imposing their religion upon others. Why would a person secure in his beliefs feel it is his responsibility to change the convictions of others? Does he not appreciate his freedom to express what he believes rests on a fundamental freedom we each may believe what we wish. The important thing is for each person to know why he believes what he does believe. If the hermeneutics of Darwinians lead them to believe their prophet Darwin, so be it. Unfortunately, there was no mentioning of Darwin himself stating in his ‘theory’ right in the middle of Chapter 6: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. If there is a complex organism, certainly the DNA along with its instructional director, the RNA, form the most complex of complexities. Scientists know the DNA and RNA must be complete if the DNA is to reproduce itself, and also if it faults from what it was previously, that is, adds or omits, it will not ‘regenerate’ itself but will ‘die’. The DNA and RNA do not evolve and can not ‘evolve’! And one can not exist with its completion without the other also existing with its completion. The Darwinists make Darwin their ‘prophet’, and his ‘theory’, omitting what they want and including only what they want, their ‘infallible scriptures’. Anyhow, I am grateful Stein produced Expelled, and hope this production leads to discussion, without ‘evangelistic persuasion’, and I am using this expression referring to the evangelists that sense no accountability to The Creator. Do away with The Creator and you do away with moral accountability. Most of us are familiar with only a few words in the title of the Darwinist’s bible. The complete title is: ‘The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life’. Getting rid of God rids us of accountability to Him, and accordingly, since we are here by chance there is no Life, and life is meaningless and purposeless. Is it possible the elite of England as well as of any other country wanted to natzi-ize the World? Prior to the 1940s many Americans supported prophet Hitler, until 1941 when their sons voluntarily enlisted in the war against his gospel. Think! The foundational question of Expelled is: If we continue as we are how soon will we be natzi-ized? And one last thing, I appreciate - Stein wore his ‘sneakers’ all the time because he was himself being himself and not trying to impress others - he did not wear ‘dress’ shoes. Let us all wear our sneakers, whatever they are, and not try to convince others we are not who we are, or they should be like us. -Dan Kazarian