Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is creating a few waves in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. He presents it as, “a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world’s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.”

It is not surprising to find Richard Dawkins interviewed in the film, as he is known for making his voice heard as an atheist who is passionately against the “brainwashing” of religion, especially when it comes to matters of science. Intense debate abounds about whether or not religious beliefs should influence even the scientists who practice their professions.

It is very interesting to note, however, that while these scientists are bent on showing that the element of faith is no match for cold hard facts, they’ve neglected to educate themselves on the official position of the Catholic Church in regards to science. Dawkins and others might do well to become acquainted with initiatives such as the STOQ Project or documents such as Fides et Ratio before they condemn believers as ignorant and unenlightened.

I almost wish that atheists could have their dream, to try and regulate science to the expulsion of religious beliefs. Only then would they discover that science could live on happily without them, and the most they’ve done is to create a condensed group of atheist scientists, which is what they are to begin with.

[Ed. note: See also, "Ben Stein's New Movie Will Clearly Shake the Academic Tree."]


  • Darron S

    “I almost wish that atheists could have their dream, to try and regulate science to the expulsion of religious beliefs.”

    We atheist scientists are fine with other scientists having their own personal religious beliefs. Some of the best and brightest of us (Ken Miller, a Christian) are religious. The point is that science is SCIENCE. Your personal beliefs can’t step in the way of the scientific method. If ID were science it could be tested, critiqued, peer reviewed, and finally accepted or rejected based on the evidence. Check out this 2:23 video of the aformentioned Ken Miller quickly talking about ID and evolution. It’s worth the watch! Cheers!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc

  • Thomas Byrne

    Only under 40% of evolutionists are atheist. There are plenty of religious biologist who believe in God or Krishna, Buddha or Allah or whatever. Take Allistar Mc Grath (Christian) author of ‘The Dawkins Delusion,’ Proffesor Robert Winston (Jew) science corespondent for the BBC… the list goes on. Scientists are against ID because it is *not* a science. You can’t do any tests to measue it. HOW CAN YOU MEASURE GOD? Any Christian should be able to see it is impossible. What yard stick could you use for comparrison? ‘Expelled,’ is incredibly biased in that it doesn’t even bother to interview any religious scientists.

  • Amanda Pawloski

    I understand that not every atheist scientist feels the need to abolish religion. (Please see the link above to Beyond Belief.) However, those who do wish to regulate science to expel religious beliefs (and they exist!), or shun those who are religious as unscientific, are extremely wrong.

    Granted, teaching evolution in the classroom is not the same as teaching that God does not exist. But failing to ground the “where we come from” question with solid metaphysical and theological concepts is, I believe, a pedagogical mistake. It is important to note that ID grew out of a legislative education issue.

    What is unscientific about teaching the principle of causality (which is included among St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 ways to know God)? The concept of God as a First Cause of everything is, after all, a very rational argument. Philosophy and theology are respectable, rigorous disciplines in their own right, and they too can boast of journals and reviews, etc.

    Metaphysics is openly abused by empiricism, scientists are attempting to make very broad claims based on some very narrow disciplines. If we want to talk about fairness in disciplines, perhaps that should be recognized as well.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    “The concept of God as a First Cause of everything is, after all, a very rational argument.”

    Except for that annoying little question of what caused God. theists have never been able to square this with their insistence that everything must have a cause. A proposition that is self-contradictory can hardly be passed off as rational.

  • http://www.evolvedself.com Shaun Johnston

    Evolutionary science may stand alone as a bastion of physicalism, hence of denial of the conscious exercise of free will. 78% of evolutionary scentists declared themselves physicalists in a survey of evolutionary scientists reported in the July-August 2007 issue of American Scientist. The next category of belief got only 10% as many votes.

    I’m a humanist atheist, in no way a creationist. But I welcome the movie “Expelled…” for focusing attention on how Darwinism is protected, though in my opinion primarily to defend physicalism, not to oppose creationism.

    I hae become a social activist. I am trying to whip up popular support for having physicalism driven out of the school science classroom. No mechanism at all should be taught in association with evolution. Last month I published a manifesto “Save Our Selves from Science Gone Wrong: Physicalism and Natural Selection.”

    I’ll test the waters here: does free will matter? I’d welcome opinions.

  • http://blog.acton.org/ Jordan

    “does free will matter?”

    In a word: Yes.

  • Joseph Kosten

    This is an interesting piece, thank you Amanda. I think it really hit home on many levels. What I see in the blog itself and in the comments is a disunity (if I may) in beliefs. Not only are ID defenders divided in their stance, but Darwinists are also divided. Thus, I find the issue confused in the debate. Are we arguing about faith or about science? Let’s stick to one topic. For this piece, its about ID vs Evolutionism. Most churches do not have a completely clear stance on this issue. For example, the Catholic Church does not outright condemn evolution theories. Rather, they simply say, do not remove God from the process. I do completely agree with Jordan, free will does matter whether you are an atheist or a die-hard God lover.

  • Amanda Pawloski

    Reginald: Contemplate this… a first cause as in NOT being caused, something who ACT is BEING and holding everything in existence. Until that is fully contemplated, that little question will not go away. But do not fear, some geniuses have already dedicated their life to working on the problem… namely Aquinas!

    Shaun: As a humanist you must believe that there is something inherent in humanity that sets it apart from animals… could that be free will?

  • http://www.evolvedself.com Shaun Johnston

    To me the difference between humans and other animals is one of degree, but great degree. I think we’re as much like any other animal as the latest Boeing airliner is like the plane Lindberg flew across the Atlantic.

    That’s a bigger gap than natural selection can account for, but less of a gap than you need a God for, I think. So what is the mechanism behind such great leaps? I wish science was more concerned with that than with defending natural selection.

  • Anonymous

    “I understand that not every atheist scientist feels the need to abolish religion. (Please see the link above to Beyond Belief.) However, those who do wish to regulate science to expel religious beliefs (and they exist!), or shun those who are religious as unscientific, are extremely wrong.”

    Science is not about “expelling religious beliefs” … it is about studying how the natural world works. Some of the greatest science in history has been done by persons of remarkable religious faith. But the issue of faith or non-faith of the scientist is really a distraction; it’s a non-issue; it’s irrelevant to the knowledge.

    “Granted, teaching evolution in the classroom is not the same as teaching that God does not exist.”

    True …

    “But failing to ground the “where we come from” question with solid metaphysical and theological concepts is, I believe, a pedagogical mistake. It is important to note that ID grew out of a legislative education issue.”

    “Where-we-come-from” in a natural-world sense is a scientific question. “Where-we-come-from” in a metaphysical sense is not. Confusing these notions certainly makes for bad science, and perhaps bad metaphysics, too.

    “What is unscientific about teaching the principle of causality (which is included among St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 ways to know God)? The concept of God as a First Cause of everything is, after all, a very rational argument.”

    Well, what’s unscientific about it in the sense you’re writing (St. Thomas/First Cause) is it’s not science, it’s philosophy. The First-Cause argument, as the history of philosophy has shown, may be rational, but it’s also fallacious. And it’s *philosophy*, not *science*.

    “Philosophy and theology are respectable, rigorous disciplines in their own right, and they too can boast of journals and reviews, etc.”

    These certainly are respectable disciplines in their own right; but they are not science. They are “philosophy” and “theology”.

  • Dan

    Natural Selection no longer seems relevant in terms of describing human development. If one trait is preferred over another, we don’t wait around for millions of years for the trait to become dominant. We get plastic surgery, make up, contact lenses, gastric bypass, home gyms, nose jobs, hair plugs, high heels, padded bras, hair dye, botox, curling irons, hair straighteners, faster cars, nicer clothes, etc. We do everything *but* wait.

    Natural selection is no match for vanity. If natural selection is legit, and it may very well be, it has evolved a being which it can no longer control. It has, in a sense, evolved a being which is able to dupe it.

    The question shouldn’t be, “where did we come from?” For we cannot change that. It ought to be, “where are we going?” We do presumably have *some* say in that.

  • http://www.evolvedself.com Shaun Johnston

    Where we choose to go must to some extent be influenced by how we think we are equipped. We will make our plans based on that.

    If we think we have been equipped by natural selection, our options will seem meagre. If we think we have been equipped by God then we will limit our options to what we think He allows us. But if we have been been equipped by an agent capable of executing everything we see around us in nature then our options expand enormously.

    I see widespread adoption of the idea of evolution as a huge change in human culture, equivalent to the ancient Greek revolution in philosophy. Culture will divide into before, and after, the discovery of evolution. We have not yet begun (because of the frustrating barrier posed to our thinking by natural selection) to equip ourselves with what we now know is available–the principles that lie behind evolution. With that equipment a new journey of unprecedented potential opens up. But, as I said, we have not yet begun, and won’t until evolutionary science abandons natural selection.

  • Bruce in Orlando

    “Dawkins and others … neglected to educate themselves on the official position of the Catholic Church in regards to science.”

    What you mean is that Dawkins should *assume* Catholicism is the *real* religion and study up on it to find out why Catholicism is correct.

    Dawkins is not from a Catholic country, why would he do that?

    Why don’t you read up on a competing religion to get *your* head straight? Oh and don’t forget to guess which one is real first.

  • Dan

    “If we think we have been equipped by natural selection, our options will seem meagre. If we think we have been equipped by God then we will limit our options to what we think He allows us. But if we have been been equipped by an agent capable of executing everything we see around us in nature then our options expand enormously.”

    I think most Christians believe that God *is* capable of executing everything we see around us in nature.

  • http://endhereditaryrelgion.blogspot.com Richard Collins

    You write:
    But failing to ground the “where we come from” question with solid metaphysical and theological concepts is, I believe, a pedagogical mistake. It is important to note that ID grew out of a legislative education issue.
    ________________
    What if the notion that there are transcendental questions one must ask in life can be lain at the feet of ancient unemployed theologians that had to somehow justify their existence and did so by dreaming up fanciful circular arguments to answer the meaningless questions they posed. That is the theory I am going with. We may indeed be curious to know how we got here and where we are going, but it is quite sufficient to say, I don’t know and I don’t care. It gains us nothing to question why we cannot divide be zero or sift through useless mind destroying answers to transcendental questions. That’s how it is and let us move on.

  • Amanda Pawloski

    Just a few simple points…

    1. The “where do we come from question” has been of vital importance throughout the entire history of academia, despite the individuals who may content themselves by not looking to answer it.

    2. Theories of human origin directly impact our identity, which directly impacts our moral understanding. There is a difference between human action and animal action, why is that?

    3. Science verifies empirical evidence. Do we deny the reality of logical constructs simply because they fall outside the realm of “verificationism”? When science deals with unverifiable questions, shouldn’t we switch to a discipline that does?

    4. The Catholic Church limits itself as an authority on faith and morals, and seeks to have the most accurate information from other authorities on their respective disciplines. I wish scientists might do the same.

    5. I mean that Dawkins should act like the academic he is and verify that his understanding of the positions of the Catholic Church on certain points is in fact the way they present it. I don’t believe that requires any act of faith, but is a basic standard of scholarship.

  • Dan

    Dawkins, by his own admission, does not approach evolution from an academic, dispassionate point of view;

    “Explaining is a difficult art. You can explain something so that your reader understands the words; and you can explain something so that the reader feels it in the marrow of his bones. To do the latter, it sometimes isn’t enough to lay the evidence before the reader in a dispassionate way. You have to become an advocate and use the tricks of the advocate’s trade. This book is *not* a dispassionate scientific treatise.”

    Richard Dawkins – Preface to “The Blind Watchmaker”. Emphasis mine.

    Dawkins comes to this debate with just as much bias, if not more, than his religious counterparts.

  • JoeU

    For those wanting a preview
    of the Ben Stein documentary …
    3 “EXPELLED” movie trailers
    and
    a Bill O’Reilly interview can be viewed
    at: http://www.ExpelledTheMovie.com/video.php

  • Markus

    I really don’t see why you want to welcome a film that is produced with lies and deceit, simply to equate scientific establishment with nazism, and to claim that without “God” science will commit yet another holocaust.

    This film is promoted entirely by crude misrepresentation of the scientific establishment, as well as with lies to the people who were interviewed in the film. The promotion of this film itself has been done very lopsidedly. As much as they want to “expose” the scientists as unapproachable, they sure are not wanting to engage the critics of this film.

  • Dan

    Evolution isn’t exactly science, either.

    One popular objection to religious explanations of human origins is that they lead to what is affectionately referred to as a “God of the gaps”; that is, God being used to explain what science cannot.

    Here’s the problem: similar objections to evolution are more than plentiful. Just remember all of the times you heard an ID proponent say something to this effect; “evolution can’t explain such and such a trait.” To which the evolutionists usually reply that the fossil record is incomplete and that if we had the entire fossil record it would no doubt show exactly how that particular trait evolved. But for some inexplicable reason, this is not referred to as *evolution* *of* *the* *gaps*. In fact, evolutionists are given a free pass on this obvious intellectual defect in their position. “Not only can evolution explain all of this, but evolution can explain what evolution cannot.” How does that make sense?

    While atheist often object that you can’t test and verify the God hypothesis. So many of their own hypotheses regarding human origins remain untested and unverified due to the overwhelming gaps in the fossil record.

    It may be legitimate science to say that based on the available evidence we hypothesize that this is how this particular trait evolved. It is not by any stretch of the imagination legitimate science to say that based on the available evidence evolution is responsible for the development of all traits. That would be evolution of the gaps.

  • JoeU

    An informative article is:
    What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
    http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

    A partial qoute includes:

    – God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning. Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

    – Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

    – Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
    . . .
    – The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things,
    the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
    (End of partial quote)
    From: http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

    Footnotes:
    Genesis 1-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31;

    Mark 10:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:6;&version=31;

  • Buzz

    Reginald Selkirk says: (#7) says, *Except for that annoying little question of what caused God. theists have never been able to square this with their insistence that everything must have a cause. A proposition that is self-contradictory can hardly be passed off as rational.*

    You must first present the argument correctly. It is not that “everything must have a cause.” Correctly stated, it is “every _effect_ must have a cause.” Theists would say that God is not an “effect” but in fact the first cause.

    This, by the way, is not a strictly theological argument. After all, the first person to formulate it was Aristotle, working on strictly rational grounds.

  • http://solhuriash.blogspot.com Sol Huriash

    May we impose upon you to please check out our new blog that promotes the book ‘Why Human Beings Do Not Need Blind Faith to Believe in Creationism’? It is the very first and only work to literally prove that the Biblical Story of creation is in sync with the teachings of modern science.

    I trust you will agree that the ramifications are myriad so if you would like further details or will permit a guest blog, please advise. Thank you.

    Sol Huriash

    solhuriash.blogspot.com

  • Al

    Sir Fred Hoyle has given the probability of cell creation being left to chance at ten to the 40000 power. An athiest came up with this.(verified and supported) The number of electrons is at ten to the 80th power. (verified and supported).
    Neither side has a proven fact but they have faith that their theory is proven. There is no difference in the hearts and minds of creationists vs ID ists… except…
    ID ists are willing to be REAL scientists and look at all the data while creationists maintain that the world is flat and will not look at any data that doesn’t support their own.
    It is this close mindedness that leaves them afraid that they will (in my opinion)have to rethink their entire thought history. That is not the case. It will open scientific door that will amaze and excite them if they only open their mind.

  • Bob

    Exactly!

    The only way it works is that there is a noneffected first cause.

    Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

    Rogers & Hammerstein got it right: “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could…” (let’s break into song ;-))

  • Bob

    So Issac Newton was not a real scientist?

    He said that what he was doing was “Thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

    Michael Faraday was not a real scientist?

    Pascal was not a real scientist?

    My friend the issue is not in the science it is in the epistemology.

  • http://none Lowell

    A radio ad for Ben Stein’s movie claims that universities are committing censorship of professors who teach “intelligent design.” Censorship can only be done by governmemt. Universities have a right to require what curriculum is taught in their schools and intelligent esign does not yet qualify as science.

    I wonder how Mr. Stein would feel if scientists mounted a drive to bully churches or other religious institutions to teach evolution as an equal theory to intelligent design, and to charge those that don’t with censorship.

    Then Mr. Stein and other intelligent design activists then call those who accept evolution as science as “Darwinsists” and come up with their definition of Darwinism in that name-calling.

  • Bob

    Lowell,

    Newton, Faraday, Pascal (the list goes on and on) would not be allow tenure because they believed in God and therefore creation.

    Darwinism is no less an “ism” than Presbyterianism. It all is tied up in one’s epistemological foundation. An evolutionist presupposes “no God” and therefore “no intelligent design”. By virtue of his presuppositions intelligent design is not an option.

    A creationist presupposes “God” and therefore “intelligent design” is an option.

    Both can study biology and the how, what when where and why. One has a First Cause and the other does not.

    This is where the evolutionist’s epistemology collapses: Ex nihilo, nihil fit. The creationist’s epistemology is logically consistent because the First Cause is assumed.

  • Jacob Caporaletti

    This documentary is missing the point. Science can make no comment on anything supernatural. That is a fundamental violation of the philosophy of science. You can still have faith, but you can’t use that as a variable or as part of your hypothesis. Once you do, you enter the realm of faith and philosophy. You can still talk about it, but just don’t call it science. That’s as simple as I can make it.

  • DBerry

    I am very disappointed in Mr. Stein, who I believed to be more well-reasoned. I have not seen this film, however, I have long considered the ID/creation/evolution debate.

    Simply put, science is the product of what we can experience with the senses (or their mechanical extension). Religion is in the realm of belief. We may never see a deity in a telescope, record an angel, etc. Those of us who are religious have faith in these things, and understand that they may be beyond the physical realm. But that is not science. Evolution is accepted as the most plausible explanation of the fossil evidence. Some scientists may accept that dogmatically, but that does not refute its logic. No better has been offered that has stood up to peer review. Creation “science” is reverse logic, that is, seeking explanations that fit a predetermined conclusion. Science as a community is sometimes slow to accept new directions; plate techtonics was not welcomed very warmly, for example. But it does accept irrefutable proof. Bring it on.

  • Bob

    Jacob says: “That is a fundamental violation of the philosophy of science.” to which I would respond, says who??

    The definition of the philosophy of science is the study of assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.

    Simply by using the words “philosophy” and “assumptions” you are into the realm of epistemology. Evolutionists have every bit as much of a preconceived set of assumptions as do creationists.

  • WBrink

    You can match the debate/discussion comparing ID/Darwinism to the global warming debate. There are many who are not buying that the recent warming is anthropogenic and members of that segment of the scientific community are being castigated for their opinions. You will notice I did not say beliefs. The Scientific Method cannot run its full course for either of these debates because there are not enough facts.

    With ID, there is a faith factor that must be considered. Just because some believe ID is the explanation as to why/how we are here does not automatically knock 50 points from their IQ just as those who are Darwinists cannot, and should not, be referred to as atheists.

  • Nick Worrell

    Nobody on this earth knows with certainty where we came from,but we came from somewhere.

  • Bob

    DBerry Says:
    “I am very disappointed in Mr. Stein, who I believed to be more well-reasoned. I have not seen this film, however, I have long considered the ID/creation/evolution debate.”

    What closed-minded arrogance. Stein merely asks questions to which Dawkins et al give pathetic answers.

    At the end of the movie Dawkins says I don’t know where we came from but it can’t be “god” of any kind… it might be aliens from another time and place but it can’t be “god”. So the implied answer is the aliens who “seeded” earth might be the intelligent designers but, they couldn’t have been intelligently designed themselves — LOL!!

  • http://www.alipac.us Brian Eargle

    JoeU, please see my reply to the post before yours.

    “The Vatican requires that evolution be taught as fact in Catholic high schools, (in the U.S., if not elsewhere).”

    Whatever Popes and The Catholic Church *teach*, this is what they *practice*.

  • http://www.alipac.us Brian Eargle

    One can certainly get censored on this blog in a hurry.

  • http://blog.acton.org/ Jordan

    It’s our policy to typically only refuse to post comments that are deemed to be excessively inflammatory (vulgar, insulting, et al.). Due to these and other concerns (spam), we usually review all comments before they are posted. The delay is not intended to be censorship.

  • http://www.alipac.us Brian Eargle

    I apologize. I did not realize that this was a Roman Catholic blog, or I might have been more diplomatic and tactful.

    Maybe. Probably not.

  • http://blog.acton.org/ Jordan

    It’s not a “Roman Catholic blog,” although the author of this post is a Roman Catholic.

  • Scott

    “The Vatican requires that evolution be taught as fact in Catholic high schools, (in the U.S., if not elsewhere).”

    Whatever Popes and The Catholic Church *teach*, this is what they *practice*.

    Brian Eargle:

    First, I searched for “[your] reply to the post before [JoeU’s]” and was unable to find it in the blog. This isn’t of any great consequence; however it confuses me as to trying to figure out what your point of argument really is.

    That being said, I shall now respond to your alleged “facts.” In search for evidence that the Vatican requires that evolution to be taught as fact in Catholic high schools, I have failed miserably to find any such thing. At first, I had thought that your statement stood upon some sort of substantive evidence, albeit misunderstood. After having done my search and it amounting to no avail, I now am almost convinced that you have simply shouted this proclamation from the roof tops as if to voice unfounded propaganda so as to advance some personal agenda, or merely to be argumentative. If I am incorrect in either case, forgive me.

    To speak specifically about your comment and quote an expert source, “it would be incorrect to say that “The Vatican requires” ANYTHING to be taught at Catholic Schools. What [you] may have intended was to say “The magisterium teaches [whatever],” and therefore Catholic schools are obliged to present it as the Church’s teaching. There are no documents from the Vatican specifying what must be taught in Catholic schools, other than in the way of general principles (for example, Vatican II, Declaration on Christian Education).”

    In a 1996 address, Pope John Paul II said evolution was “more than a hypothesis”, however, to know EXACTLY what he meant by that one might ask him…if he were still alive. What did NOT happen is then an official endorsement by the Vatican, Pope, Magisterium, et al as to the “fact” of evolution. For readers desiring a more specific and in-depth account, please visit: http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html

    In conclusion, your statement is completely unfounded. If you can actually prove otherwise (with facts) I may be inclined to engage in dialogue. However, your later posts #21, and #21.1.1 only suggest to me that you are more interested in an audience for your sophomoric experiential wrangling than in the quest for objective truth.

    Good day to you Sir.

  • http://www.alipac.us Brian Eargle

    May I apologize for the absence of my original message, which the Catholic censor or the Catholic author of the article deleted.

    In it, I mentioned that a Roman Catholic high school asked me to teach science. However, while observing a science class, I encountered a paper which documented the Vatican edict that *evolution is the Vatican’s official position for U.S. schools.* The document forbid creation to be taught as a theory, presented as an alternative to evolution, or otherwise mentioned by teachers. So much for the scientific method.

    I do not remember any mention of ID.

    The document did not specifically forbid presenting creationism as a Bible doctrine in science class, but that might be reasonably assumed from the other proscriptions.

    *Rather than fight the Vatican, I declined the offer to teach science at the Catholic high school.*

    Scott wrote:
    “In conclusion, your statement is completely unfounded. If you can actually prove otherwise (with facts) I may be inclined to engage in dialogue.”

    Scott, inasmuch as you are calling me a liar, I am not at all interested in a dialog with you. If you insist upon making further comment, it will be a monologue, as you will be speaking only to yourself. Good bye.

  • Jack

    For a very informative explanation as to why Thomists don’t go along with Intelligent Design theory please read this article. I think Ms. Pawloski in particular will appreciate it.
    http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Tkacz_AquinasvsID.html

  • Reginald Selkirk

    But do not fear, some geniuses have already dedicated their life to working on the problem… namely Aquinas!

    Excellent, maybe he’ll come up with a decent answer soon. What, he’s dead?

  • Pingback: Today’s Thin Excuses for Scientific Denialism « Submitted to a Candid World()