Religious organizations are starting to weigh in on Expelled, and here are a couple of choice entries.
First up, the Baptist Press headline declares, “Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in ‘Expelled.’” Michael Foust reports:
In the film, Stein travels the globe, interviewing scientists, philosophers and doctors who believe in evolution and those who believe in Intelligent Design. In case after case, Stein recounts the story of ID supporters who lost their jobs or couldn’t get tenure because of their supposed controversial beliefs.
The documentary, rated PG for thematic material and very brief language, ends in a climactic scene with Stein interviewing one of the world’s leading backers of evolution, atheist and author Richard Dawkins.
It’s unclear to me from the article whether Foust has actually seen the film (though I rather suspect the headline writer, at least, hasn’t). As is usually the case in favorable coverage of the film, Foust initially oversimplifies (and even misrepresents) the cases of those alleging intimidation, though he later goes more accurately into depth about the three major cases presented in the film; and the film doesn’t end with the Dawkins segment.
In any event, Foust goes on to say, “Christian conservative leaders are on board, supporting it. The film was shown at the recent National Religious Broadcasters meeting. It’s also scheduled to be the topic of an upcoming Focus on the Family broadcast.” And he’s right, I think, in this assessment: “Although the Nazi element might get the media’s spotlight, the majority of the documentary focuses on the ongoing fight for academic freedom by supporters of Intelligent Design.”
Foust actually does a pretty decent job of sticking to facts and quotes, though only the Expelled crew, and none of the film’s detractors, are quoted in the article. The primary quote source appears to be the March 28 telecon that Myers crashed.
It’s too bad that the Concerned Women of America choose to go whole hog on the partisan approach, though. Here’s a sampling of J. Matt Barber’s assessment:
- This is not your father’s documentary. Expelled rocks the house both literally and figuratively. It’s gripping, music-packed, comically wry and always entertaining. But its entertainment value is yet surpassed by its educational merit.
- Stein boldly shines a light of honest inquiry, revealing time and again that Evolution’s Emperor has no clothes. In his trademark deadpan fashion, he skillfully debunks the dogmatic neo-Darwinist programming we’ve all had relentlessly rammed down our throats ever since “Big Science” went bananas over that cute little Scopes Monkey.
- Unlike Michael Moore’s anti-Bush propaganda flick, Fahrenheit 911 — which sold us a lemon with deceptive editing techniques and staged confrontations — Expelled is intellectually honest, cerebrally stimulating and delectably provocative.
- Through tears of wild laughter, audience members watch as Dawkins — apparently grasping the dizzying nature of his own circular argument — turns three shades of red and becomes purply tight-lipped.
- As the movie masterfully illustrates, we live in a cultural climate where secular elitists in academia, the media and the courts chew up and spit out anyone who dares to question the gospel according to Charles Darwin. They’re absolutely terrified to follow the scientific evidence wherever it may lead.
- It’s no wonder that Expelled has Darwin’s disciples scurrying for the shadows. Those secular humanist one-trick-ponies in the media, throughout academia, on the blogosphere and elsewhere are in full damage control. They’re doing everything possible to discredit the film before it even opens. It’s even been reported that two major networks are refusing to cover the movie. (Gotta love that journalistic objectivity.)
- So, if you happen to be one of those evolutionary fundamentalists who were “randomly selected” to evolve with a built-in blindfold and earplugs, and you’re comfy with your very limited worldview, be afraid of this film — be very afraid. However, if you’re willing to have your eyes opened and are interested in looking at all the evidence, then suck it up, wipe away that Darwinian Kool-Aid mustache and hang out with Ben Stein for a night.
- Expelled is a must see. If you’re already a person of faith, prepare to have your faith strengthened.
- So hold on to your hat. Expelled is nothing short of earthshaking.
Good thing Barber drew our attention to journalistic objectivity. Whew!
All of that, really, is just frothy hyperbole, though. It’s clearly subjective, biased opinion, and it’s hard to imagine anyone reading it as anything but.
However, Barber is just flat wrong in asserting that “the general consensus among the evolutionary scientists interviewed was that all life, including human life, likely began when lightening struck a mud puddle.” That’s actually an idea put forward by a grade-school educational film on the origins of life. The “evolutionary scientists interviewed” were quite straightforward about admitting that there is no accepted theory for how life actually began, and that evolution only purports to account for subsequent changes.
So, speaking of “Kool-Aid,” I’d really advise readers not to swallow hyperbole like Barber’s. Find more trustworthy and objective sources for your entertainment news.
UPDATE: How could I forget? We also have a review in from Answers in Genesis. It’s obviously slanted in the Creationist direction, but is remarkably restrained and free of mischaracterizations. Ham’s summary [ed: oops! that’s “Looy’s” summary; Ham authored the sidebar]:
The film is not about trying to push ID on society, much less argue that ID should be mandated in schools (which AiG would not support). Also, the film makes it clear that the ID movement is not a Christian one (although many evangelicals are part of it). More than anything, the documentary seeks to expose the ruthlessness of radical atheists and evolutionists.
I think I’d have to agree with that assessment, though I place little stock in AiG’s general approach to things. It’s nice to see Ham distinguish between “radical” and non-radical atheists and evolutionists.
AND THIS JUST IN: Josh McDowell’s latest newsletter also endorses Expelled, calling it “very well done. The solid evidence and strong arguments provide a good starting point for fruitful discussions. In addition, it tackles this critical issue in a religion neutral way.” He offers a pretty sane and succinct assessment (one which I wish I could link to somewhere, since I won’t be reprinting the whole thing), and is targeted at promoting his own “Redeeming Darwin material.”
April 9th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Wow, some of these reviews really do overdose on hyperbole. I don’t have to see the film to know that it’s a threat at all to the validity of evolutionary theory. After all, that’s not decided by what goes on in the popular media or the big screen. It’s a shame when people like J. Matt Barber perpetuate this myth of Darwinism as a “worldview”. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a biological theory, not a worldview. Plate Tectonics and Heliocentrism aren’t worldviews either. It’s also a shame if someone needs propaganda films to strenghten one’s faith. Faith should not clash with observations of the natural world; if that’s the case, then one needs to seriously re-evaluate both one’s theology and scientific literacy. Unfortunately, much of controversy with evolution stems from the dogma of biblical inerrancy and other theological dogmas, rather than the science itself. Intelligent Design not only cultivates poor theology, but it espouses bad science as well. Expelled suggests that faith and science can be reconciled by making appeals to academic freedom. I believe the problem lies not in the classroom, but in the chapel. A true reconciliation of faith and science requires the influence of the pulpit. As long as there are church leaders who preach unwavering scriptural interpretations, America’s scientific literacy will continue to suffer.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:27 am
“Faith should not clash with observations of the natural world…” Isn’t that, in one sense, the definition of “faith”? Darwinian Evolution is NOT “observation of the natural world.” It is ONE INTERPRETATION of those observations.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:31 am
“As long as there are church leaders who preach unwavering scriptural interpretations, America’s scientific literacy will continue to suffer.” So, these church leaders should not preach what they believe? How is that “intellectual honesty”?
April 9th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Whew! Glad someone else besides me can recognize hyperbole when they see it!
The dogma of inerrancy, I must say, doesn’t at all lead to conflict in the classroom. Jehovah’s witnesses, for instance, are about as literalist as you get in their approach to Scripture; but they’d never dream of putting faith issues in the science curriculum in any way, shape, or form.
There are other factor involved besides inerrancy, such as the beliefs that the Bible is not only inerrant, but intended by God as literal history and a sufficient guide to understanding all there is to know, including science.
And you don’t get to those beliefs via inerrancy, because the Bible itself does not make those claims.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
What I was trying to say this morning in a rush (the long version):
What is your solution, NP? How do you make these “church leaders who preach unwavering scriptural interpretations” be quiet? You sound dangerously close to the censorship the movie claims is happening. Isn’t it just possible that these zealots have something to contribute, too?
Greg, it is true that the Bible does not make a specific claim of inerrancy, but it does claim to be the Word of God. Whatever that means, however “legendary” we are to regard its history, it still is God’s message to us, and it is still relevant for today. Certainly God does not give us specific scientific details about how life came to be what it is today. I assume Moses and Israel wouldn’t have understood it at all! But, if Genesis Chapter 1 means anything at all, it has to mean that He was involved, and He didn’t just create matter and walk off to let everything happen by itself.
On the one extreme, biblical literalists start from the view that Genesis Chapter 1 means that God literally and directly created all the life required to generate all we have today. This is their starting point. “Observations of the natural world” are interpreted in light of their faith. The results of scientific research are adjusted to faith; not faith to science. They believe there was no “jump” from one kind of life to another. Fish did not become amphibians, and amphibians mammals, etc. However, they do not say that there was no development within what the Bible terms “kinds.” For example, dogs, wolfs, foxes, etc could have all come from the first canine pair.
On the other extreme, those who do not believe in God (or do not believe that He was involved beyond creating matter), interpret the “observations of the natural world” in the light of atheism or deism. The results of scientific research are adjusted to evolutionary theory; not evolutionary theory to the results of scientific research. Canines are not a separate tree in the animal kingdom, but part of branch that leads back to one original that generated all animals (whether the “missing links” are ever found or not).
Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. But we will not get to the truth by excluding groups, or interpretations, with which we do not agree. Progress in science comes from listening to all sides–from learning from all sides, not just the leading theory of the moment.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Greg wrote:
“However, Barber is just flat wrong in asserting that “the general consensus among the evolutionary scientists interviewed was that all life, including human life, likely began when lightening struck a mud puddle.” That’s actually an idea put forward by a grade-school educational film on the origins of life. The “evolutionary scientists interviewed” were quite straightforward about admitting that there is no accepted theory for how life actually began, and that evolution only purports to account for subsequent changes.”
Excellent ID of a straw man fallacy, Greg. You’ve even put your objection in a scientific frame. I’d only add that we while we don’t have an accepted theory for the origin of life, we do have multiple hypotheses with considerable empirical support.
Anonymous wrote:
“How do you make these “church leaders who preach unwavering scriptural interpretations” be quiet?”
I don’t see where NP was proposing anything of the sort. In fact, I’d say that NP was calling for ethical behavior consistent with Biblical teachings.
“You sound dangerously close to the censorship the movie claims is happening.”
Where does NP sound like that?
“Isn’t it just possible that these zealots have something to contribute, too?”
Scientifically? No, nothing, as long as they continue to refuse to put their own hypotheses to the test.
“On the one extreme, biblical literalists start from the view that Genesis Chapter 1 means that God literally and directly created all the life required to generate all we have today. This is their starting point.”
Which Genesis story, please? There are two of them that do not agree in the details. What about all of the parables in the Bible? Do any of these alleged Biblical literalists take Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 literally?
““Observations of the natural world” are interpreted in light of their faith.”
You’re conflating faith with a toxic combination of politics and ignorance.
“They believe there was no “jump” from one kind of life to another.”
Darwin didn’t hypothesize any “jumps” either, so what’s your point?
“Fish did not become amphibians, and amphibians mammals, etc.”
You clearly have no coherent concept of Darwinian or modern evolutionary theory. How can you criticize on the basis of hearsay? What does the Bible say about using hearsay?
“However, they do not say that there was no development within what the Bible terms “kinds.” For example, dogs, wolfs, foxes, etc could have all come from the first canine pair.”
“Development” is about what happens to single organisms between fertilization and adulthood. You’re talking about evolution. Why can’t you write the word?
“Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.”
No. ID is not science and it is bad theology. It turns God into a miserly tinkerer, not a great creator.
“But we will not get to the truth by excluding groups, or interpretations, with which we do not agree.”
We are excluding people who claim to be doing science when they aren’t bothering to do science.
“Progress in science comes from listening to all sides–from learning from all sides, not just the leading theory of the moment.”
This is completely absurd. Progress in science comes from testing the predictions of hypotheses, something that NO ONE in the ID movement has sufficient faith to do. Science is not mere rhetoric and beard-stroking.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
John,
I have seen your comments in the Steinwatch section of Hollywood Jesus, and was *expecting* your reply. I don’t understand your need to reply to just about every comment every one makes. It seems a bit narcissistic to me, but I’m sure you are just trying to be helpful. You come here saying you are a “working scientist” and have all kinds of first-hand evidence, yet you do not say who you are or give sources so we can check out the evidence for ourselves! I can understand not wanting people to know who you are. I would rather they did not know who I am, either. But could you at least give us some references to check?
There is no need to criticize my description of Creationists. I do not say they are right. So criticizing me for describing them accurately seems a little silly. By the way, I did not use the word “jump” as a technical term. I did not mean to imply “punctuated equilibrium” or anything like that. I just couldn’t think of the right word to use–perhaps “progression” would have fit the sentence better. Or maybe you have a suggestion?
What I think Creationists have to contribute is not science, as I think you would term it, but perspective. Is all evidence empirical? (I’m probably using this term wrong; please forgive.) Or is it possible that metaphysical (Perhaps there is a better term to use here, too.) evidence should be considered, too? Why should a certain interpretation of the Bible be censored from the argument? Because YOU say their interpretation is wrong? Couldn’t there be the remotest possibility that the account(s) of creation in the Bible has/have some purpose in helping us discover how life started? Creationists would say their interpretation of Genesis is correct because God told them so–not audibly, but they know it to be true in their soul. Is that completely impossible?
Again, I am not saying they are right; but it seems to me that even the poorest ideas have a element of truth in them somewhere. Could there possibly be a slight inkling of truth in what they believe?
It still sounds to me that if NP had his way, these Fundamentalists would be censored so there would be no controversy. Here’s what NP said: “As long as there are church leaders who preach unwavering scriptural interpretations, America’s scientific literacy will continue to suffer.” Again, I ask, What is the solution? How do you make these church leaders be quiet? Should they be quiet? Are you afraid of controversy? Great ideas come from controversy; it helps you examine your ideas and filter out bad logic. (Yes, I know, I have a long way to go.)
Finally, you seem to be stuck on the concept of hearsay. Since I am not a “working scientist” myself, what else do I have? The Bible does not prohibit hearsay; if it did, we would not be able to say anything beyond our own scope of experience. It prohibits using hearsay as evidence in court. If I could not use hearsay, I could not say, “Hawaii is in the Pacific Ocean,” because I have never been there. I have to rely on what others have told me. Now, would I then be disqualified to enter a discussion about how many states there are because I have not been to every one of them? If not being a “working scientist” disqualifies me from discussing the subject at hand, why bother even talking to us? We have nothing to add, and your wisdom and knowledge would only become hearsay the moment it appeared on the page, so it would do us no good in informing others!
April 10th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Anonymous wrote:
“You come here saying you are a “working scientist” and have all kinds of first-hand evidence, yet you do not say who you are or give sources so we can check out the evidence for ourselves!”
What sort of evidence would you like? The sequence evidence, which is far more extensive than the fossil evidence, is freely available through the Web, as are the computational tools to analyze it.
“I can understand not wanting people to know who you are. I would rather they did not know who I am, either. But could you at least give us some references to check?”
Sure, but tell me what level of detail you’d like.
“Is all evidence empirical? (I’m probably using this term wrong; please forgive.)”
Sort of, by definition. The problem is that an empirical approach necessarily requires evidence, but it’s more than that.
“Or is it possible that metaphysical (Perhaps there is a better term to use here, too.) evidence should be considered, too?”
How about “interpretation”?
“Why should a certain interpretation of the Bible be censored from the argument?”
The idea that anyone on the scientific side is advocating censorship is only from your imagination. I think selective literalism should be belittled as hypocrisy. Jesus Christ had some strong opinions about hypocrisy, didn’t He?
“Because YOU say their interpretation is wrong?”
No, because THEIR actions say that they don’t believe in literalism. Tell me when you see some fundies picketing the local Red Lobster and harassing the customers, OK?
“Couldn’t there be the remotest possibility that the account(s) of creation in the Bible has/have some purpose in helping us discover how life started?”
Possibly, but they are allegorical, as is a lot of the Bible.
“Creationists would say their interpretation of Genesis is correct because God told them so–not audibly, but they know it to be true in their soul. Is that completely impossible?”
If that was the case, they wouldn’t be lying about doing science, now, would they? This is about politics, not religion.
“Again, I am not saying they are right; but it seems to me that even the poorest ideas have a element of truth in them somewhere.”
No, the poorest ideas tend to be motivated by a desire to view one’s self as superior to others.
“Could there possibly be a slight inkling of truth in what they believe?”
No scientific one. Judging by their unwillingness to lift a finger to test their hypotheses, they agree. Where are the creationist or ID biotech companies?
“It still sounds to me that if NP had his way, these Fundamentalists would be censored so there would be no controversy.”
You’re imagining it.
“Here’s what NP said: “As long as there are church leaders who preach unwavering scriptural interpretations, America’s scientific literacy will continue to suffer.”
I agree. And from where do you extract a desire on NP’s part to censor anyone?
“Again, I ask, What is the solution?”
NOMA. Google it.
“How do you make these church leaders be quiet?”
Who’s proposing making them do anything?
“Should they be quiet?”
They should be honest and consistent. If they take the Bible literally, they should be more offended by people eating at Red Lobster than by abortion clinics. After all, the Bible describes causing the death of a fetus as a mere property crime.
“Are you afraid of controversy?”
Not at all! I thrive on it!
“Great ideas come from controversy; it helps you examine your ideas and filter out bad logic.”
You’re missing the point. We scientists produce new evidence to filter out bad ideas, including our own. Science is not lit crit.
“Finally, you seem to be stuck on the concept of hearsay. Since I am not a “working scientist” myself, what else do I have?”
The evidence, of course.
“The Bible does not prohibit hearsay; if it did, we would not be able to say anything beyond our own scope of experience. It prohibits using hearsay as evidence in court.”
And why is that?
“I have to rely on what others have told me.”
No, you can examine actual evidence for yourself and take it far more seriously than what people tell you. This even works for fossils. Have you ever compared and contrasted two fossils using photos of them?
“Now, would I then be disqualified to enter a discussion about how many states there are because I have not been to every one of them?”
No. Why would we need to have a discussion about how many states there are? Is it controversial?
“If not being a “working scientist” disqualifies me from discussing the subject at hand, why bother even talking to us?”
Why do you think that I’m suggesting that not being a working scientist disqualifies you from discussing anything? Why would you need to be a working scientist to examine evidence for yourself, and to notice that ID proponents and creationists don’t bother to produce new evidence?
If you were a juror for a murder trial, and another juror refused to look at the evidence, only considered testimony, and voted differently from you, would you take that juror seriously?
“We have nothing to add,…”
Straw man.
“… and your wisdom and knowledge would only become hearsay the moment it appeared on the page, so it would do us no good in informing others!”
What about the evidence I and others have produced and the ID movement ignores? What’s preventing you from analyzing sequence evidence and examining fossils, Anonymous?
April 10th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
John,
Let me try to explain what most Fundamentalists mean when they talk about “literal interpretation.” I happen to be an expert on that subject since I used to be a Fundamentalist, and studied their theology. They do NOT mean that you take the obvious figures of speech and interpret them literally. A common catch-phrase they use is “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” They believe that God literally making the universe in 6 days is the plain sense of Genesis 1. Ridiculous? Maybe. But not inconsistent.
Your scripture examples about Kosher dietary laws are not an example of inconsistency in literal interpretation. Fundamentalists DO believe that these laws were literally given to Israel to follow. But they do not apply to Christians today because God literally changed His edicts about this in the New Testament. (The Theology behind this is far beyond where I want to go in this comment.)
I see my little “Hawaii” thing about “hearsay” fell flat. You are missing my whole point, In think, and/or I am perhaps not understanding what you mean by “hearsay.” Oh, well. I will answer your last question, since that is what I mostly wanted anyway.
“What about the evidence I and others have produced and the ID movement ignores? What’s preventing you from analyzing sequence evidence… Anonymous?”
What is preventing me, as I have said, is that you have not given any sources. Where can I find “The sequence evidence… [and] the computational tools to analyze it”? Keep in mind that I am not a scientist. The source would need to be accessible to the “average Joe.” Thanks.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
John, Would you consider this a good reference? talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc
April 10th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“You are missing my whole point, In think…” in comment 9 should read “You are missing my whole point, I think…” Sorry.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Anonymous asked:
“John, Would you consider this a good reference? talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc”
For fossils, start with the page about transitional forms. Ignore the text and look at the ape skulls (real evidence). Do you see any “jumps” in that evidence? Then, read the part about whales (the drawing isn’t evidence). If that hypothesis is correct, what structures are predicted to be found in more recent fossil finds in the time since that was written (it’s very dated)?
As for sequences, read the phylogenetic primer page (you don’t have to believe it), and answer the question, “**IF** this is correct, would we see the same nested hierarchies when we mathematically analyze differences between sequences of proteins?”
That site is too old to give a good introduction to what can be done with the current sequence evidence. I’ll look for an introduction and then point you to the sequences. I’m not being coy, I’m just trying to get you asking questions first…
April 10th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
John, This site is very interesting, but aren’t the “confirmations” of the predictions the same as Creationists would predict? For example (from Part 1:The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree):
“The structures that all known organisms use to perform these four basic processes are all quite similar, in spite of the odds. All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions.”
“all known life uses the same polymer, polynucleotide (DNA or RNA), for storing species specific information. All known organisms base replication on the duplication of this molecule.”
“In all known organisms, enzymatic catalysis is based on the abilities provided by protein molecules…”
These confirmations are given in support of the theory of common descent: “modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past.” But, these “confirmations” are also what you would expect if one single intelligence designed all life. Creations would argue this all points to the One Creator.
Am I missing something?
April 10th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
“Creations” should be “Creationists” Sorry.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Anonymous,
I’m not talking about the predictions and conformations on the page. I’m asking you to think for yourself and move beyond them (assume they are correct) to make predictions about whether the mathematical relationships between sequences MUST fall into one, and ONLY one, nested hierarchy. If you don’t understand the strict definition of a nested (aka containment) hierarchy, we can’t proceed further unless you do.
What constraint is there on a single intelligence, particularly that of an omnipotent God, to design all of His creatures so that they use the same polymers?
Do all cars use the same polymers?
Do all fabrics use the same polymers?
Do all computers use the same polymers?
April 11th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Of course there is no constraint on God–either way! If what you are driving at is that a non-DNA lifeform (for example) was found, it would point to a Creator, I follow that logic. But, if God had made proteins in plants with a different polymer than proteins in animals, how would animals get nutrition from plants? God was smart enough to make it simple so life could sustain itself on life of another kind.
Look, we could go on like this for months, but it was not my intent to continue in a protracted conversation about this, as valuable as your input might be. My original intent in commenting here was to express my opinion that Creationists should be heard. If my attempt was feeble or counterproductive to that end, so be it.
When you entered the conversation, I decided to also ask you for a reference where I could study sequence evidence, etc., further. You confirmed I had found a suitable site, and I am grateful. I think I am smart enough to figure out the implications of what the web site is saying, but I do thank you for your help. Best wishes to you.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Anonymous wrote:
“Of course there is no constraint on God–either way!”
So why, if God designed these systems, is God acting as though He is under severe constraints?
“If what you are driving at is that a non-DNA lifeform (for example) was found, it would point to a Creator, I follow that logic.”
Please reread what I wrote. I asked you to read the page and make predictions about what must be observed, and you did nothing of the sort. What are you afraid of?
“But, if God had made proteins in plants with a different polymer than proteins in animals, how would animals get nutrition from plants?”
Very easily–animals would synthesize the subunits. Do you even realize that humans synthesize most of the 20 amino acids anyway?
“God was smart enough to make it simple so life could sustain itself on life of another kind.”
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
“Look, we could go on like this for months,…”
Not really, if you had bothered to follow instructions.
“… but it was not my intent to continue in a protracted conversation about this, as valuable as your input might be. My original intent in commenting here was to express my opinion that Creationists should be heard.”
I hear them and I laugh at them, because they are afraid to test their hypotheses. That makes the creationist and ID movements jokes as far as science goes.
“When you entered the conversation, I decided to also ask you for a reference where I could study sequence evidence, etc., further. You confirmed I had found a suitable site, and I am grateful.”
No, I did not do that. I confirmed that that site is a good beginning, but it doesn’t get to the meat of grappling with the actual evidence.