ChiefsPlanet - Ben Steins Movie

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- - Ben Steins Movie - EXPELLED (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=181568)

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Kings

To me, you can either believe that all creatures evolved from a non-living matter, (a rock)

what the ****

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 4631232)

Yes, I do have a citation. Pitt should rethink their current curriculum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-b2...eature=related

Ok, so, ostensibly, people who think evolution is crap believe that evolution consists of reerun fish and squirrels mating? Is that the point of your post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultra Peanut (Post 4631233)

what the ****

It's not an uncommon line of though, which is why I tried to address it.

From the title, I was hoping this was gonna be like a Ferris Bueller sequel or something.

:shrug:

The reason these people are being shunned isn't because they are believers, and it isn't because they are questioning Darwin's Theory. They are being shunned because they are involved with The Discovery Institute. Period. It's like wearing a swastika in Isreal.

What people need to get over is the fact that Darwinism does not prove there is no God. They can go hand in hand. God could have used evolution to create everything. Like most issues in America the conversation needs to move more towards the center. Those who take too literal a view of the bible by trying to state that gravity is the hand of God keeping us connected to the earth are just as guilty as those who believe that science has disproven God.

I once asked my 8th grade science teacher if the study of science had made it more difficult to believe in a higher being. He stated that it actually reinforced his beliefs. While I don't believe that things like intelligent design should be taught in schools, there should at least be a disclaimer that Darwinism and the Big Bang Theory do not disprove the presence of a higher being. If you want to take that a step farther then teach those things at home and church. Schools are not the place to present a rigid religious doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock (Post 4630675)

The problem is the ID movement is attempting to redefine the terms of the debate, and that doesn't wash.

Science is the search for "natural" answers, not supernatural.

ID theory is based on an unprovable, untestable assumption known as "Irreducible Complexity". As such a concept is untestable and unprovable, it places itself outside the scientific method.

ID proponents can cry "wahhh! You guys won't change the rules/method to let our theory in the door". However, the Scientific method simply does not work that way.

I'm all for Science debate, conducted within the bounds of the Scientific method.

As for this film, like the offerings of Mr. Moore, I'll pass.

Or Lysenko genetics, phlogiston theory, etc. If we are going to ignore the basic tenets of the Scientific Method to allow for "Irreducible Complexity", might as well start teaching Phrenology, Crystal Healing, Astrology, and all the other psuedo-sciences.

Sure, and then in a generation or two see where we stack up in Science and Math with the rest of the world. :shake:

I have no problem with teaching Creationism/ID in a religion or philosophy course. It simply doesn't belong in a Science class for the reasons discussed above.

Why shouldn't both be taught in a Science class? For the same reason we don't teach Phys. Ed in a Physics class. Both may have something to do with energy, motion, etc., but they are not even close to being the same thing.

QFT

A+ young padawan!

Dave

and Rep!

I have some information to pass along again:

Quote:

There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I'm a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?

#

Follow up:

Quote:

People are asking me to tell them more about the movie, Expelled. I can't! I was thrown out!
Let me clarify a few things. This was a private screening with no admission charge, and you had to reserve seats ahead of time; you also had to sign a promise that you wouldn't record the movie while you were there, and they were checking ID. Everyone in my family reserved seats under our own names, myself included. There was no attempt to "sneak in", although apparently the producer, Mark Mathis, accused me of doing so in the Q&A afterwards (Mathis, of course, is a contemptible liar). We followed the procedures they set up, every step of the way, and were completely above board in all our dealings.
Mark Mathis was there at the screening, and apparently spotted me and gave instructions to the guard to throw me out. I asked the guard why I was being evicted, and he explained directly that the producer had given him that instruction.
They were well within their rights to exclude anyone. When I was told I would not be allowed in and threatened with arrest, I told the security guard that I would not cause any trouble. I stopped to talk with my family when they came over with a theater manager to evict me; again, I left peacefully. Apparently, the guards were talking about carrying out further measures when they saw me standing outside the theater, and speculated that I was going to harass other attendees. This was not true; I'd just had to leave my friends and family behind, and all I really wanted to do was tell them where I'd be. The last thing I wanted to do was spend two hours hanging around a movie theater.
This account is a complete fabrication. I was not disturbing anyone, was not trying to make a scene, and was only standing quietly in line. When I was taken aside by the guard, it was a complete surprise.
I was the only person evicted. The people I was with, which included my wife, my daughter Skatje, her boyfriend Collin, Richard Dawkins, and the entire staff of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, were overlooked. I was the lucky one.
Afterwards, we went out to eat and have a beer or two, which is why I didn't give you all a more complete summary right away. We laughed over the movie, which I hear is not only boring and poorly made, but is ludicrous in its dishonesty. Apparently, a standard tactic is to do lots of fast cuts between biologists like me or Dawkins or Eugenie Scott and shots of Nazi atrocities. It's all very ham-handed. The audience apparently ate it up, though. Figures. Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty.
There are plans afoot for rebuttals. It's hard to come up with much motivation to do so after discovering how bad this movie is, but yeah, both NCSE and the RDF will be doing something. Dawkins is going to mention it at least briefly in his talk tomorrow. He may write up a review, too, although I don't think he considers it a high priority (did I mention what a piece of dreck this movie is?).
Kristine was there. You can read her summary.
The RDF crew are a fine bunch of people and we had a good time after the crappy movie. Which I have not seen. Apparently, I've been given a fair amount of time in the movie, too.
This outcome so far has been absolutely perfect, as far as I'm concerned. The hypocrisy of the Expelled makers has been exposed by their expulsion of one of the people they filmed (final lovely irony: I'm also thanked for my contributions in the credits), they've revealed their incompetence by throwing me out when Richard Dawkins was right next to me, and I didn't have to waste two hours on a bad movie.
I've also got a story to tell: when the creationists saw me and Dawkins in a lineup, I am the one that had them so frightened that they had to call for the guards. I feel mighty.

#

His story is backed up here.

Everyone should be forced to go to Catholic school. (j/k)

I was taught RELIGION in religion class... and I mean religion as a concept.. not just Catholicism.. and I was taught EVOLUTION in science class... with NO DISCLAIMER...

It seems to me that these people must just assume that their children are dirt stupid... if they want THEIR children exposed to both ideas... then shouldn't THEY do just that... or is it that they want ALL children exposed to their beliefs? Seems mighty heavy handed to me.

F*** 'em... I will most likely send my children to Catholic school.. but I'll be damned if I try to force that on everyone elses kids. How many of these folks would be ok with adding a bit of the "science" of Dianetics to the classroom as well?

irishjayhawk

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I had not reached your post yet, but I have compiled almost the exact same list of quotes to respond to. I applaud you.

I would like to note a few things as well. I am a philosophy and religion major; No that is not one major, it is two separate majors. I already have my minor in psychology, and have one year left. I choose to study religion later in my academic career once this ID ridiculousness began to get a lot of press; roughly 1.5 years ago or something. Part of the problem with the whole ID conundrum is that scientists, philosophers, religion studies ... etc. do not want to even bother debating them. It just gives them more press, and seemingly more credibility if you take them on in public discourse... which inevitably leads nowhere (for reasons mentioned before: such as IDer wanting scientific method amended so it will allow their ideas).

As for holes in evolution, wow, yes it does have holes. What is the problem with that? It is a continuing theory of science that attempts to understand the beginning of life possibly as far back as 3 billion years ago up to the present. That doesn't seem like a very easy task to tackle in a few generations.

Another way to think about this is to ask: Are we are on Earth now? Not floating about in space, or above the Earth by any measure?
Gravity, after all is just a theory, which has enormous holes in it.
Yes we seem to understand gravity and the nature of it on Earth, but it still has holes in it on Earth (and massive unexplainable phenomena on the quantum and massive scales).
To really throw the IDer's off, it never once is mentioned in the bible, not once. God did not see fit to create one (or any) of the most fundamental forces in nature in Genesis. God at least explained how animals got here; from earthen materials while trying to create a companion for Adam (interesting side note: in Hebrew (adam) actually means human and (eve) actually means life...slight mistranslation somewhere along the lines I suppose).

America is also the only place this 'debate' is being forced to take place. Europe doesn't even think twice about it. Maybe that is because they are far better educated? I do not know.

Okay, I have to go before finishing this, a friend is having some troubles.

Please understand that I do not want to hurt anyones feelings, but I may do so with my attitude. I cannot help that I am dick.

Another little update:

1)

Quote:

<sup>*</sup>By the way, another interesting thing is on the DVD. They've got excerpts from the Inner Life video. Creationists are certainly drawn to stealing that work, aren't they?

#

2) NY Times picked up on the issue.

3) Salon picked up as well.

4) SocraticGadFly has a summary of the lies Mark Mathis, Expelled's Producer, has to offer.

Quote:

Apparently, a standard tactic is to do lots of fast cuts between biologists like me or Dawkins or Eugenie Scott and shots of Nazi atrocities.

Putting this on my Netflix queue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowener (Post 4643891)

I cannot help that I am dick.

and a bowener at that! lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowener (Post 4643891)

Gravity, after all is just a theory, which has enormous holes in it.

interesting. so its not considered the "law" of gravity?

politics/religion really sucks. i wish they'd both disappear.

one thing i've learned from this thread that irish pointed out, is that evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life. i don't think it even infers that humans evolved from apes, right? or that life started in one place rather than 20, for example? people just love to have conflict

Quote:

Originally Posted by elvomito (Post 4644069)

and a bowener at that! lol

interesting. so its not considered the "law" of gravity?

politics/religion really sucks. i wish they'd both disappear.

one thing i've learned from this thread that irish pointed out, is that evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life. i don't think it even infers that humans evolved from apes, right? or that life started in one place rather than 20, for example? people just love to have conflict

No, Gravity is a theory and cannot really be a law (I lied there, it can), but currently we do not have a good enough understanding of why and how it works exactly, except that mass plays a large role. In string theory (M-Theory) though they are now arguing in favor of Gravitons (not to be confused with 'the gravitron', a spinning auto-puke machine at cheap fairs).

Physics never tries to prove anything beyond the Big Bang either. Why try? That is not in the realm of science (so far as we know). What they want to prove is why everything is how it is now through testable repeatable sets of data. Evolution is the same way, once life began, however it got started, it was most likely in the form of a single celled organism. If you are curious, all the necessary components for life exist in nature, and definately would have existed in 'the primordial ooze' of ancient Earth. Something just had to give it a 'spark'. Could have been radiation from the Sun since Earth would have had a weak ozone, could have been an organic mishap or mistake... but they are pretty close to being able to do this now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7041353.stm also http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1...ngLifeina.html

Fascinating stuff. But yeah, physics/biology, [science], does not have a preconceived notion of the world, [science] uncovers, through the data given, what the world really is. That is something everybody should keep in mind. X-ian creationists have a preset notion of the world, namely God created it, and they are setting out to try and prove that notion. This in turn means they discard data that does not fit. Science accepts the data that does not fit and tries to get it again, if it occurs again, then science needs to discover why it appeared and then include the new data.

Int. Designers use the argument of 'irreducible complexity', which is actually a rehash of an older argument known as the 'watchmaker analogy'. They are interesting arguments, but flawed. A short response to Behe's Ir.Com. that I just read from a Christopher Hitchens book was, (that the 'miraculous designs' we see in the human eye that are so perfect and complex that they could not possibly come about from random chance or mutations prove that God/Designer exists) [keep in mind it is a response not refutation], if God designed us, then why give us horribly designed eyes? First off they see everything upside down, which the brain must correct, our rods and cones are not well balanced, and are easily damaged. We are born with a natural myopia of the eyes, and we have pretty weak ones at that; compared to the 'lesser' beings of the God designed world, especially birds. We can also trace the development of the eye through fossils and through living organisms today. Same can be said for the human brain. We are not well wired. We are still Apes (though many people seem to forget that we are) and our brain is not as highly evolved as we would like to think it is. Our lobes are too small and our adrenal glands are too big for our own good. We are just smart enough to understand how dumb this can cause (the majority) to be. I just thought that those were good questions/points.

What I have learned of biology is that as an ape we share a link with the others. It doesnt mean we necessarily came directly from a chimp, but it means we shared a past ancestor with them (think of the letter Y as the branch with us on the right, chimps on the left and cousin 'It' at the bottom). Genetics has really allowed this argument to leap forward: here is a cool site for this http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/DNA/ and another one: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html and: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1113180219.htm

Now, Bed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk (Post 4630363)

I'm lashing out at a third rate movie that's got nothing but bad press. You still have done nothing to provide anybody with good press or point out where I'm wrong or the people I linked are wrong.

Why do you think that critics might lash out at this movie? How many of the critics claim Christianity? How many of them disclaim it?

I haven't read much about the movie so I don't have any bias for or against it. I saw enough of the cuts from Moron Moores film to know that he manipulated truth to fit his agenda. I did not see his entire film although I had opportunity to do so. I also did not see the rebutal to the film and had plenty of opportunity to see that one as well.

I'll probably not choose to watch this film either.

My only commentary to date has to do with those that have agnostic and or atheistic beliefs seem to be flocking out against this movie just as the evangicals did against MM's film of incorrect or manipulated data.

My only question regarding the film and those groups standing out against it: Why the fear?