Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[followerofchrist]

(Red_Letters88;46681)
Must not have been paying attention huh Follower? Didnt you watch the part about WW2/Nazis/Jewish killings? Stein makes it clear several times that he is Jewish.....I mean come on man his last name is Stein

Like Radd said, I wasn't sure if he was a messianic jew. Some of the things he said made me realize he wasn't christian.

 

[HammerStone]

Well Radd, science comes from the Latin scientia which specifically means knowledge. Evolution as an origin is not knowledge; we don't know for a fact it happened. It's pure speculation based on conjecture that has never been witnessed. In fact, it's based on the very idea that the "laws of Nature" (I prefer God) were reversed during this process...the whole closed system and entropy bit.The great irony in all of this is that science came out of religion. It's just like an animal turning on its master, but God told us the ways of the world would be like this. It's great to study and to learn as much as we can about His creation, but let's stick to what we can study and what we can know.Yeshua is the Aramaic name of Jesus and would be his "real" name. YHVH, YHWH, and Yahweh are God's "real" names as well.

 

[David161099]

(RaddSpencer;46454)
Here is another interesting article on the movie (it talks about Stein talking to Richard Dawkins --- otherwise known as "Darwin's Rottweiler").http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshD...richard_dawkins So Darwinists know that spontaneous generation did not create life on earth -- it must have been introduced by either aliens or a meteriod that contained bacteria/viruses which crashed to the earth. Look at this quote (from the article)."In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labyrinthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code."So, saying that the original cell just "happened" by chance is like saying that the entire internet (with all the computers, switches, routers, core routers, etc) just came together and started working --- with no intelligent input (hardware manufacturing, setup, coding, etc....) at all.
This is an awesome explanation!!! ray3:

 

[David161099]

(followerofchrist;46662)
It was very interesting. But I walked in their assuming that Ben Stein was a christian, and after the movie I wasn't sure. Does anyone know what his beliefs are?
LOL, it's promoted so much on Christian sites, so you can forgiven for mistaking him as a Christian.'Stein' is a Jewish name. He is a professed Jew.

 

[Lunar]

I have to say I was pretty disappointed with Ben Stein on the production of this film, and not just because it wasn't particularly entertaining or tactful. It was also just plain dishonest, and that's what I think is really tragic about all this. If Stein actually believes what he does, why couldn't he have presented it with honest evidence, rather than the deception and sophistry he resorts to? If he thinks his case is well-founded, there should be no need for this sort of intellectual thuggery.To start, Ben Stein never properly defines intelligent design or evolution in the film. This is pretty ridiculous for a documentary that's supposed to be discussing the two, and it doesn't allow the viewer to engage it on his own terms. The best distinction that he makes is a horribly fallacious false dichotomy when he asks "Were we designed, or are we just the end product of a puddle of mud that was struck by lightning?" The latter option is a disingenuously uncharitable depiction of abiogenesis, which a separate theory from evolution.Ben Stein also frequently misquotes Darwin with an obvious agenda at hand. Consider this one example. This is the quote as Stein presented it in the movie:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
This is the quote in its original context, without having been butchered by Stein:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
It is, frankly, insulting to my intelligence that he would do something so deceptive. On top of that, it is ridiculous to judge evolution by Darwin's original writings alone when so much progress has been made since then. Pointing out holes in Darwin's On the Origin of Species and making conclusions about contemporary theories in evolution is like claiming to be a music critic and then criticizing only gramophone records from the early 1900s. Stein even claims in an interview at one point that no substantial progress or discoveries pertaining to evolution have been made since Darwin. He seems to have forgotten the discovery of DNA, for one, a discovery which was not only consistent with but which lent further credibility to evolutionary theory.Additionally, many of the experts who were interviewed for this film, including PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Eugenie Scott, were lied to about the film that they were being interviewed for. They were told that they were being interviewed for a film called Crossroads which was about the "intersection of religion and science." Why would Stein and his associates feel the need to lie to this people? What sort of image does that set for people that believe in intelligent design, and, more relevantly, for the credibility of his own movie?Perhaps most distasteful is the movie's constant references to Nazi Germany. If it weren't for how horrific the Nazi's actions were I would have laughed out loud at the ludicrousness of the constant cuts between Dawkins and Nazi atrocities. There's not even any attempt to be subtle with this obvious propaganda, and the worst part is that it's all baseless. Even if the Nazis had been motivated by social Darwinism (which is not to say that they were), that does not discredit evolution, because social Darwinism is not the same as the theory of evolution. Of course any unbalanced person can warp any theory into something perverse - it doesn't take much imagination to think of Christians or Jews doing this as well; is Stein implying that we should do away with those ideas too because they can be dangerous when misinterpreted? It's a blatant appeal to emotion, and it stinks.Even the marketing surrounding this film is tacky and disingenuous. The "Expelled Challenge" basically pays schools to go see the movie. It even recommends a "school-wide mandatory field trip" as "the best way to maximize your school's earning potential." What on earth?I'm thoroughly disgusted with Ben Stein at the moment, and disappointed by the number of people that have bought into his propaganda.

 

[HammerStone]

With all due respect, Intelligent Design as a term seems pretty much self explanatory.

 

[RaddSpencer]

(Lunar;47204)
I'm thoroughly disgusted with Ben Stein at the moment, and disappointed by the number of people that have bought into his propaganda.
I think you just summarized every complaint from digg.com and slashdot.org in your one post. You must be CmdrTaco himself XD.And its also weird how angry liberals are about this movie. Its a movie for goodness sake -- its not like children are hauled in the movie theater, chained down, and water tortured during this movie. If Al Gore and Michael Moore can do it, why can't Stein? :naughty:

 

[Lunar]

(RaddSpencer;47241)
I think you just summarized every complaint from digg.com and slashdot.org in your one post. You must be CmdrTaco himself XD.
I don't read digg or slashdot, but these claims are true regardless of what website they get posted on.(RaddSpencer)
And its also weird how angry liberals are about this movie. Its a movie for goodness sake -- its not like children are hauled in the movie theater
Actually, some children are, as part of the school-sponsored field trips to see the movie that Ben Stein is paying schools to participate in.(RaddSpencer)
If Al Gore and Michael Moore can do it, why can't Stein? :naughty:
I disapprove of dishonesty regardless of who it's coming from. I'm no fan of Michael Moore either, he's a sensationalist, polarizing jerk as far as I'm concerned. But while some of the facts he uses are questionable or in a few instances outright wrong, that doesn't make what Ben Stein did any better (nor do the inaccuracies of Moore's documentaries even compare to Stein's. Moore never compared Bush to Hitler, though outrageous as that comparison may be it's still more accurate than the Nazi comparisons in Expelled).To give you an idea of how out of whack Stein's presentation of the supposed scientific controversy is with reality: There are more scientists named Steve that support evolutionary theory than there are scientists total who support intelligent design.

 

[RaddSpencer]

(Lunar;47243)
To give you an idea of how out of whack Stein's presentation of the supposed scientific controversy is with reality: There are more scientists named Steve that support evolutionary theory than there are scientists total who support intelligent design.
Well, I haven't seen this movie yet. So you probably know more about it than I do. I've only read stuff about it on the internet (for and against), but I haven't actually seen it.As for the above quote. More people use Windows rather than Linux. Does that make Linux inferior? Not necessarily --- people tend to be conformists --- they don't want to upset the status quo. I think it is fair that he is criticizing Darwinism. Its not like it is holy beyond reproach. Heck, anything in academia can be challenged and questioned, and it happens all the time, without any problems.http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/22mar_telomeres.htmI mean, why weren't people outraged over NASA criticizing Einstein's theory of relativity?

 

[Lunar]

(RaddSpencer;47294)
I think it is fair that he is criticizing Darwinism. Its not like it is holy beyond reproach. Heck, anything in academia can be challenged and questioned, and it happens all the time, without any problems.
Darwinism is a misnomer; the theory started with Darwin but it has been refined and improved and acquired so much evidence since then. No one calls any of Einstein's theories Einsteinism.Anyways, it would be fair if he questioned evolutionary theory, if he did so on some of the grounds that are actually academically noteworthy - like on what level selection occurs, for example - but I'd like him to first at least be honest and stop filling his documentaries with bold-faced lies like that Richard Steinberg was ever an employee at the Smithsonian or that he was fired from it.Whether intelligent design even merits discussion is a different question entirely; my problem with Ben Stein is not so much that he made a documentary about ID, it is that he was fundamentally dishonest in almost every aspect of it.

 

[RaddSpencer]

(Lunar;47304)
Whether intelligent design even merits discussion is a different question entirely; my problem with Ben Stein is not so much that he made a documentary about ID, it is that he was fundamentally dishonest in almost every aspect of it.
I'll have to go and see what all this hubbub is about. The problem about this movie is that there is so much emotionally charged rhetoric surrounding it, that its difficult to determine what is true and what is not by reading articles on the internet.Like this guy for instance (known as DeepFriedFetus):"Did Ben Stein actually think he was going to make money off of this? I mean, he's defending "intelligent" design, the de facto delusion for Christ-crazy rednecks who aren't exactly the movie-going demographic (they'll stick to their good ol' Nascar, thank you very much), while alienating and outraging anyone with an IQ over 100 and a shred of common sense. Who's going to see this movie?"[url="http://digg.com/movies/Box_office_flop_Ben_Stein_shows_he_s_no_Michael_Moore]http://digg.com/movies/Box_office_flop_Ben...o_Michael_Moore[/url]The problem with this debate is that, well, lets just say its a "peeing match". No one seems to be interested in considering the other point of view. Its an "Us vs Them" approach. And I think this attitude in the scientific community is rather immature.I don't know if Ben Stein did wrong or not (I want to see the movie first), but I do know this -- he sure hit a very VERY sensitive nerve in the ivory tower. There are so many emotionally charged (in a negative sense of course) websites about this movie, that it makes me think that maybe he is indeed onto something here. All of this wide-spread outrage has actually peeked my interest.If his movie had no truth in it, the scientific community would have laughed it off and probably ignored it. If Ben Stein had made a movie about how the Law of Gravity or Ohm's Law is a myth propagated by "big science" -- the scientific community would have laughed him right out of the box office.

 

[Lunar]

(RaddSpencer;47399)
Like this guy for instance (known as DeepFriedFetus):
I don't know why you keep trying equate my position with some random person on Digg. Digg and Slashdot are not interesting or intellectual communities and I don't visit them. It's a complete straw man - if we're going to discuss this, let's discuss what each other has said, not what random Digg poster X has said.(RaddSpencer)
I don't know if Ben Stein did wrong or not (I want to see the movie first), but I do know this -- he sure hit a very VERY sensitive nerve in the ivory tower. There are so many emotionally charged (in a negative sense of course) websites about this movie, that it makes me think that maybe he is indeed onto something here. All of this wide-spread outrage has actually peeked my interest.
The outrage is because he's being dishonest. The factual inaccuracies, misinformation and general sleaziness surrounding this movie is well-documented. You don't have to go to an extremely liberal site like Digg to find information about it.(RaddSpencer)
If his movie had no truth in it, the scientific community would have laughed it off and probably ignored it. If Ben Stein had made a movie about how the Law of Gravity or Ohm's Law is a myth propagated by "big science" -- the scientific community would have laughed him right out of the box office.
That's exactly what they did, though. He couldn't even get scientific experts to appear in his movie without lying to them and telling them it was about something else.

 

[jburic09032]

It's kind of funny what people think.

 

[RaddSpencer]

Most of the stuff on digg.com is interesting (its like slashdot -- geared around technology). I just hate it when they get off of technology and go on atheistic tirades.Anyway, I still haven't seen this movie yet. Therefore my opinion is hilariously irrelevant XD. Maybe I can see it next week or something.

 

[hgomez2]

Did anyone see the review from the NYPost on this movie?

 

[Alistein]

(jburic09032;47859)
It's kind of funny what people think.

How true.

 

[myqlcb]

I watched it, and it's brilliant.I went to see it, mainly because I read an excellent review review in RELEVANT magazine online.It's amazing how these atheists are so bigoted toward anything but their own world view. I was also amazed to find out that Ben Stein was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon and Geral Ford and writes for the wall street journal and other big newspapers.I don't know if he's saved, but he certainly belives in a creator, and is willing to fight for our freedoms and rights to have various points of views.-Myql

 

[Dragon]

Let me just say this: I am not biased towards liberalism or conservatism, I am not for or against either. I have things I'm cobservative on, and things I'm liberal on. I'd describe myself as mabe 70% concervative and 30% liberal.What I don't like, is seeing foundationless biased towrads one or the other in a situation where you're untruthfully presenting your view as unbiased. There are many situations where you're MEAN'T to be biased, such as, documentaries, for example, and that' I'm fine with. I would not go and see the documentary "religulous" my bill maher and expect to see an unbiased worldview from atheism, and I would not see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein and expect to see an unbiased view from creationism. Both are SUPPOSED to be biased, they're documentaries showing a viewpoint on certain subjects.However, one thing that really urks me, is the fact that people don't understand that when you only paint one side of a picture first, you then have to paint the other half exclusevely in order to catch up, so the different biased's are from different context's.There has been an overabundance of left liberal biased all over the internet and it makes me sick. It solves nothing. There's alot of conservative biased on the internet, which solves nothing either, but now that conservative biased has been put into a position of actually being right just because there isn't an overabundance of it, and now they're just playing catch-up. For example, if there's anyone out there who feels that wikipedia isn't biased towrds liberalism, you're drinking your own juice. Now we have Conservapedia, which, yes indeed, as you may have figured out by the name alone, is biased towards conservatism. the thing is, is that most people will hopelessly bash conservapedia for being biased towards conservatism, as if it isn't supposed to be, but other people will point oit that yes, it's biased, mabe more so than wiki, because it's supposed to be in order to attempt to fix the damage done by wiki, so that info finding can be fair once again. It's stuff like this that people don't understand.Anyway, many people out there (mostly leftist liberals, but also conservatives), completely miss the point about Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed docu. I hear all of these arguments made by leftist liberals about how ID may be incorrect, or how it's biased about ID, or how it's lacking info on eveolution. I also hear right wing conservatives saying how, yes, ID is correct, and that evolution is wrong ect..neither of them understand the point that Ben Is making.The point is, is that ID could be wrong like the left liberals are saying, mabe the ID'ers are wrong, so what? It isn't even about that. The point is about fair treatment, which there is none, which is why It's called Expelled. There is no stronger biased in the world then when something comes to the forefront and is then done away with just because it isn't perfect, meanwhile the status quo remains even when it isn't perfect. ID is expected to be 100% accurate with all the answers in order to be taught, and as soon as you find one possible hole out of 10 non-negotiable point's, It's "see you later".The point is, is that if you have a scientific theory that has 85% possibilities of being correct, and you don't have any other explanations for those questions, then why can't it be taught in the meantime untill you prove it wrong, which you can't right now, and yet at the same time, other explanations can be taught at free will as it's known today, even though it will be changed in the future because of a lack of total answers? You have a theory that you PERCIEVE to be 85% correct, and it's OK to teach, then why is it not OK to teach another theory that you PERCIEVE to be 85% correct? ID has the burden of notbeing able to use the notion of "PERCIEVE". No, if you have one theory that you PERCIEVE to be 85% correct, then why is it that the other theory cabn only be tauht, not only with "no absolute doubt" (not percieve), but also 100% accuracy (not 85%)?So because of this, Ben Stein is showing how evolution might be 85%, and "percieve", not that it's absolutely wrong (although, if you were to somehoe show that it were absolutely wrong, that would still atleast suppoort your "percieve" and "85%"). The reason why he's showing this, is because he's showing that there is exactly the same amount of science/faith ratio in evolution that there is in ID. That's all he's saying. He's not saying that "I'm right, you're wrong, and therefor, critics shouldn't be saying "I'm right, you're wrong". All he's saying is that the curcumstances allowed to reach evolution are the same that should go for teaching ID. Yet, one is allowed to teach and the other isn't.It IS NOT about weather or not Ben Stein is rightm if it were, then that would defeat the purpose, yet, I see literally hundreds of people all around me that do not understand this simple point. ben Stein even said on a talk show "Hey look, mabey I'm wrong, mabe I am stupid, but I I have a theory that can explain with sciebce so far, what other forms of science cvan't explain yet, shouldn't I not be persecuted?"He has a point, and a big one.I read one critic say that Ben is as biased towards his cause as the atheist scientists are at ruthlessly damning all people of faith and ID. Um........hello........It dosen't matter how biased Ben is, if the scientists are ruthlessy damning all ID proponents, then he has more than proven his point. And if he has more than proven his point, the that means that he's right. Wouldn't you be biased if you were right, I wouldn't be biased towards wrong. Remeber, one is down and one is up, one side of a picture has been painted already and the other left blank, it dosen't matter how fast you paint the other side, as long as you reach the end of that side aswell.I'm not saying that Ben is right about ID (which I am an ID proponent), I'm saying that Ben is right about ID being percecuted. That's the whole point of the docu, it's about ID having the credentials, by the standards to which evolution is allowed to be taaught, to be taught, and not doing so because of blind persecution. it's not about weather or not the viewer even understands what ID is (another foundationless accusation by another critic) because that's assuming that knowing what it is is a determining factor of weather or not it meats qualifications to teack (by evolutionary standards). People try to break down ID's accuracy because that, again, is assuming the notion that you have to be 100% correct to teach it. Fine, if so, then why do you only teach "what you know" as far as other sources of science is concerened, and say "to be continued" for all the rest of the stuff? Shouldn't IDer's just say "well, we don't have all the answers, but this is what we know" and just be able to teach it? If they can't then that's like saying that you can't teach about anything in the solar system because you havent found all of the planets. It's rediculous. We found about 3 more planets sinse 1995, meanwhile, untill then we were tauth that there were exactly 9 planets. It this proof that we should never have taught about all of the planets because the 9 planets were only a perception and that they were only 85% right? OPfcourse not, and ID works the sme way. Critics need to stop pretending that something needs to be 100% fool proof to teach in science, because that isn't true.Ben Stein isn't saying that he's right, he's saying that he's right enough based off of the standards of which everything else in science is being taught, for ID to be taugt aswell along with evolution, not in lace of it.