I hope you burn for eternity but I love you and will be praying for you.

I have long sworn to myself that it is a fruitless waste of time to read the long psychotic arguments that, without fail, fall out in the comments from the great vast field of camp followers who stalk postings on evolution. This is far less an issue here where I have a nominal number of readers...

My anger freely flows from reading about the upcoming movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." Why I am angry about this is really beyond me. Should you get angry at mice for stealing your cheese? You might, but it really doesn't do much good. It is just what they do. In the same sort of rational, I ought to expect that people who are selling a movie predicated on the notion that evil (Evil?) Academia is crushing the valiant efforts of a few rag tag fugitive scientists to out the truth about ID (no no! Not the id, rather Intelligent Design).

So here we go again - the same sorry arguments that we see dragged out again and again. No data. No rational framework. No literature. No Science. No there there. The same nasty little blob of argument dipped in freedom of expression sauce and sold by the box full to a hungry America.

Who cares? I do because these pissy little cowards want journalists to sign a non-disclosure agreement before they can watch a pre-screening of the movie which is supposed to be there for reviewing and publicity. They also have to sign the same sort of non-disclosure for a 'press conference' where pre-screened questions are answered by the films makers.

From Dan Whipple at the Colorado Confidential:

Now if Expelled can be said to have a theme, it is that all sorts of ideas should be batted around the ballfield of science and theology, that there should be freedom of expression. I was jazzed. I'd get to ask my questions. It would be American intellectual combat at its most naked. As producer Walt Ruloff put it:

"What we're really asking for is freedom of speech, and allowing science, and students, people in applied or theoretical research to have the freedom to go where they need to go and as the questions."

This makes it ironic, at least, that they expected the Orlando Sentinel to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Another reviewer had similar viewpoints, part of which I snip out here:

He uses "straw man" tactics to attack, mainly The Origin of the Species, as Darwin wrote it in 1859. That's like a music critic reviewing "the latest" by only referring to Edison's wax cylinders. He sets up false theses that "the other side" must hold (classic Limbaugh) and knocks those straw men down. Citing scientific research as recent as 1953, he can't understand why no peer-reviewed scientist thinks his "fairytale" version of the emergence of life is worth his or her time. No, not having a definitive answer about the moment life began...YET...is damning enough for Ben.

This is just chickenshit. I need to get going, but the thing that set me over the edge was this nice (sadly representative) post by a good Mr Larry Fafarman:

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | February 04, 2008 at 01:58 PM

To all you crazy 'Darwinists':

I refer you to the excellent Thomas Fagan post (Feb 2) where he suggests some new and intriguing ideas along with some compelling evidence.
He even references some notable scientists such as Behe, Demski and Wells – which should convince you further.

For even more irrefutable evidence you should check out these additional scientists:
Kirk Cameron – his fascinating ‘crocoduck’ argument
Ray Comfort – the spellbinding ‘designed banana’ lecture

Come on folks – get with it. Time to do your homework!
Check out Mr. Cameron in “Left Behind: World War III” for a swift kick on your atheist butt if you need inspiration.
You ‘evolutionist world view’ people crack me up.
I hope you burn for eternity but I love you and will be praying for you.

Perhaps I just don't get it. Perhaps this is just a joke? Perhaps this is just a new type of irony.