Yes, I went to see the movie this weekend. The atheists/evolutionists shrieked and howled to keep people from going, but that only made me want to see it more.
And it was worth the price. The whole purpose of the film was to start tearing down the wall of bias, so to speak. Just as the Berlin Wall’s fall was begun with individuals with hammers and ropes, so also the wall of academic bias will only come down if the people take matters into their own hands and oppose the elitists. Yet the critics hate the idea of academic freedom with such deep religious fervor that they could only burn numerous straw men in frustration. They made up other motives for Stein and other topics for the film because the real motives and purpose were just too revealing.
Many critics, of course before they even saw the film, blasted it as dangerous, stupid, religious, and a hundred other things. The atheists in the film whine that they were misrepresented, even though nobody ever denied the purpose of the interviews was to address academic bias in science. They proved this bias exists; they just didn’t want anyone to find out. They even screamed that the audience in the film’s lecture scenes wasn’t really just college students but included actors-- as if a film can’t have actors in it! Stein never tried to portray the auditorium as an actual speaking engagement to students.
I especially enjoyed the way Stein’s simple question, “Where did that come from?”, made Dawkins eventually concede that life on earth couldn’t have begun by accident. Of course, he still insisted that it began “in a Darwinian fashion” someplace, anyplace, because there just can’t be a God. In other words, science knows life could not have arisen by chance here, so they simply invent different laws of physics for different parts of the universe, then want us to believe that The Answer is “out there” and we just haven’t discovered it yet. (Which sounds eerily like Darwin’s faith in the eventual discovery of transitional fossils.) They have absolute faith in Out There, as long as it doesn’t involve an intelligent being-- unless of course the being is also evolved and just smarter than us. Which makes us repeat the question, “Where did that come from?” Atheism cannot answer even the most basic, fundamental question of existence. And their god Evo the Magical wants the right to ignore whatever it can’t deal with (origins).
Yet even given primordial soup (and the whole kitchen for that matter), evo still can’t even show the Origin of Species. It can’t explain how the alleged protocell ever turned into anything else, much less how any creature turned into any other creature. But they want us to believe, and not to question them, that magical things happen all the time, like fish growing legs and becoming reptiles and dinos turning into chickens. They don’t want us to know that in spite of millions of generations of mutated fruit flies, they still wound up with fruit flies. They want us to believe that the canyon that formed from the aftermath of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in no way throws doubt on how long it took for the Grand Canyon to form, in spite of the fact that the only difference between the two is size. Both have many layers of rock, yet the new canyon was formed in hours, days, and months.
The film showed clearly that there is much bias, and little to no freedom, in academia. Leading atheists and scientists are exposed as making a mockery of the scientific method, which is to put observation and testing before interpretation. They begin with religious faith in Evo the Magical and ex-communicate any heretics. They even go so far as to fire anyone who merely mentions Intelligent Design in a lecture, even if they’re not promoting it! That is pure fear, not science. Fear and hatred. Actual science has nothing to fear or hide, yet the controllers of our scientific community will use courts and Gestapo tactics to silence all who would apply the scientific method to their theories.
So the film did achieve at least one purpose. It exposed the stifling of academic freedom in science. But only time will tell whether it achieved its bigger goal of prompting the public to demand that the “wall” preventing science to be only that and not a religious platform for atheism must come down. We must not let these pseudo-scientific religious freaks keep holding back real scientific progress. Only those with something to hide fear examination, and it isn’t the ID or Creationist movements that try to silence opposition.