Thanks to ScepticStream for this, occasionally balanced documentary about the ban on religiously compatible theorizing in public school. The "Wedge Strategy" document mentioned in the film is embedded below. - It´s a good read

The highly anticipated, comic and controversial feature documentary, "Flock of Dodos: the evolution-intelligent design circus," is the first feature film to take an even-handed look at the intelligent design vs. evolution clash that appeared on the covers of Time and Newsweek in 2005. Filmmaker, scientist, surfer and evolutionary biologist Dr. Randy Olson explores the controversy over the teaching of evolution and the recently developed alternative, intelligent design. Olson, a native of Kansas, visits his home state and the community of Dover, Pennsylvania, which attempted to introduce intelligent design in science classes. Olson draws on basic aspects of evolution as metaphors, including the extinct dodo, which he suggests symbolizes what happens to those unable to change with their environment.

Featured are seven top advocates for intelligent design, including Dr. Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box," fourteen evolution Ph.D.'s, a poker game among eight evolutionists, a rabbit eating its own poop, and a flock of animated dodos playing poker, dancing, and helping the audience answer the question, "who really is the 'flock of dodos?'"

The Discovery Institute's Wedge Document

Embedding is disabled in parts of the playlist, click to watch


Documentary about the use of evolutionary biology as a tool for persecution of christians.
I remember following the "creationism vs. evolution" debacle back in the 90s when it was hot. However it quickly became obvious to me that this was simply a disguised political issue, with little if anything to do with science. There is absolutely nothing keeping one from being an evolutionist when it comes to the development of the different species, while maintaining a creationist view of genetics and "the beginning of life". Even the most fundamental concept within genetic research, that of "genetic information" seems to entail "intelligence" at some level or other. Needless to say, Galileo Galileo, Newton and Maxwell were all creationists along with countless other great scientists, dwarfing anything the atheist crowd can muster. This leaves little doubt that holding the view of intelligent design in no way obstructs the mathematization of nature.

Anyway, not being a christian, I found it hard to see the relevance of the debate back then, except for an uncanny feeling of not understanding what all the fuzz was about.
Today I have little doubt that all the fuzz was about the left feeling entitled to indoctrination of christian children, in order to make sure they wouldn´t become evil republicans and pro-lifers when they grow up. Having successfully enforced public schooling on all citizens, the left of course wanted to ensure that the gullible children stick with the program, and continue the obligatory course "Christians-are-crazy", which had worked so well for decades - along with all the other classes in "Treason" "Sex-before-Marriage" "Cultural self-hate" "Hate Whitey" etc...

Ben Stein does a brilliant job at interviewing both evolutionists and creationists, and makes it obvious just how nifty the expulsion of accomplished scientists and curious journalists works out in the real world. "Fire one - educate 50" seems to be the strategy. And as we have seen with regard to another socialist science scheme - The great Global Warming Racket - boy does it work!

Highly recommended!



(Note: This film is part of the series on Christian Persecution - Click to view the materials in this series)

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

The views expressed in above lecture was obviously so horrifying to the progressive  new-age/atheist establishment, that they had to release a statement rejecting any and all sympathy with Behe´s research.

Keeping in mind the many crack-pot theories hailed by physics departments as "groundbreaking", such as "multi-verse-theory" or Darwin-inspired theories about "universes evolving through natural selection" etc. One cannot help but wonder: What is so dangerous about Behe´s assertions? The answer is disturbingly simple. Behe´s views are not anti-christian. Now, Intelligent Design does not support the details found in Genesis, nor attribute any moral preferences or personal attributes to an intelligent designer. Their only crime is not to explicitly deny the existence of the God of the Bible. But of course this more than suffices to discard the research as utterly unscientific.
Never mind the fact, that many of the evolutionist accounts of the origin of first life, such as the claim that certain chemical properties are simply "predestined for life" has clear pantheistic implications(see second article below). - That's all "fascinating and brilliant" as long as the anti-christian paradigm remains intact.

A similar case occurred after the publication of the first peer-reviewed article in support of Intelligent Design. Quickly after the publication of The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington(117(2):213-239. 2004) - After realising that they had commited the ultimate sin, and actually published a paper which did not deny Christ, they of course panicked and released the below statement of apology.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

To view a presentation of Stephen Meyers latest book The Signature in the Cell go here

The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories
DNA and the Origin of Life

Lastly and interesting clip with Andrew Flew, a famous and very serious atheist analytical philosopher and philosopher of religion, who after reviewing the above facts, changed his mind regarding the presence of an intelligent creator of life and universe.