In one case some mean-meaning people clearly appropriated Darwinism to ‘dilute’ inferior races. In another case some so-called scientists made brutal experiences on people in the name of science, Nazi Germany being a quite clear example.
If the first chapter of ‘The Shock Doctrine’ you can read about experiments being made by psychologists on brain washing. Though later disavowed by the scientific community, initially at least it was all considered mainstream.

My point here is that there is a huge difference between what Science is and what some people make of it, or in its name. *Exactly* the same thing happens with religion: religion is one thing, and another is what some mad quacks make of it.

If the argument that religion is stupid *because* some people use it for the wrong ends (terrorism, despotism, people control, etc.), so you must argue that Science is also stupid because of somewhat similar misuses.

(Note that I’m an atheist. Religion, Creationism, etc. *are* stupid. But they are stupid in its essence and not at all because of their unintended results).

A few days ago, Dawkins, perhaps secretly relishing his traditional Hollywood role as a British cinematic villain, did get to see the film, in a rollicking night that mixed farce with irony. He went along to a public screening in Minneapolis with a friend, Professor Paul Myers of the University of Minnesota Morris, who not only appears in the film, albeit briefly, but is also thanked in the credits.

A producer of the film, however, spotted the American biology prof in the queue and got security guards to escort him from the cinema because he was “not welcome”.

Dawkins, meanwhile, strolled in and, when the “shoddy and boring” film ended, stirred up the absurdity of the expulsion at Expelled’s question-and-answer session with the producers.

It was, said one blogger, as if Beelzebub himself had arisen in a puff of smoke in the temple. People left the film crossing themselves. “And that was a lot more fun than the film itself.”

Many atrocities have been commited in the name of Christianity, only to prove that those committing them were not followers of Christ at all, for He taught clearly - “Love your enemies!”

I haven’t seen the move but just from the reviews it seems as if this movie will ultimately hurt the intellectual design movement due to the holes in their argument.

Mr. Berry is obviously unfamiliar with Michael Dentons’ current thinking on the subject of the theory of evolution. Based on an interview he gave to the Un. of California Extension Service in 2002, Prof. Denton has backed away from almost all the claims made in the book cited by Mr. Berry. He currently accepts virtually all of the neo-Darwinian theory, with the proviso that he does not think that natural selection provides a complete mechanism for driving evolution, although he admits that he has nothing better to offer and that it is at least a partial mechanism.

Re RMcCreight

Mr. McCreights’ version of academic freedom would allow instructors to advocate a flat earch, a geocentric solar system, deny the bacterial theory of disease causation, deny the link between HIV and AIDS, etc. Not freedom, chaos.