Ben Steins Movie - EXPELLED

[SLAG]

Looks interesting I thought

[keg in kc]

I predict that any discussion on this will inevitably be Expelled to DC.

[irishjayhawk]

Unfortunately, it's been intellectually dishonest all the way through the entire production as well as in the screening of the film.

First, they secured interviews with certain people under false pretenses. They interviewed PZ Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris. You can read the massive coverage of Expelled the movies and it's sneaky tactics by searching the ScienceBlogs site. They secured an interview with Richard Dawkins as well.

Essentially, they told disinformation to hide their true agenda, got the interviews granted on false pretenses, changed to the true pretenses and touted the interviews.

Then, they pulled stunts on the screening of the film.


There's so much bad press for this film it's funny. Not to mention that the reviews about the credibility of the film have been not so shiny.



Has anyone found any good press from this movie?

[gta0012]

Yea well pretty much the same thing Michael fat ass Moore did with his film and people felt he was brilliant, and not a fat ass deceiving bastard child.

Take the movie as thought provoking and it could be great.

And FYI....Einstein was quoted with saying something like "the world is too perfect for there not to be a creator/god etc."

And i think Ben Stein is taking a decent view point that scientists who believe in an intelligent creator should not be shunned and making scientists who don't believe this look like close minded fools.

I don't think that is a proper categorization. I think many scientists would have no problem with a theory if they could back it up with data and factual evidence. Scientists are probably sick of hearing very religious people back up theories with "facts" that are no were near being factual enough for science. Ben feeds off this and creates this documentary.

Oh well i still think one could walk away from it learning a thing or two about both sides.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by gta0012

Yea well pretty much the same thing Michael fat ass Moore did with his film and people felt he was brilliant, and not a fat ass deceiving bastard child.

Take the movie as thought provoking and it could be great.

And FYI....Einstein was quoted with saying something like "the world is too perfect for there not to be a creator/god etc."

And i think Ben Stein is taking a decent view point that scientists who believe in an intelligent creator should not be shunned and making scientists who don't believe this look like close minded fools.

I don't think that is a proper categorization. I think many scientists would have no problem with a theory if they could back it up with data and factual evidence. Scientists are probably sick of hearing very religious people back up theories with "facts" that are no were near being factual enough for science. Ben feeds off this and creates this documentary.

Oh well i still think one could walk away from it learning a thing or two about both sides.

He he..... using Einstein as an example?

You got that quote a little wrong...

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

just sayin....

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

He he..... using Einstein as an example?

You got that quote a little wrong...








just sayin....

I don't think that contradicts his paraphrasing of the quote. He never said Einstein believed in a biblical type god, merely a creator, which your quotes back up. I myself tend to fall in this category.

Edit: perhaps creator is not the right choice of words. Maybe the Aristotelian "prime mover" or the Spinozan "Deus sive natura" are more correct.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Unfortunately, it's been intellectually dishonest all the way through the entire production as well as in the screening of the film.

First, they secured interviews with certain people under false pretenses. They interviewed PZ Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris. You can read the massive coverage of Expelled the movies and it's sneaky tactics by searching the ScienceBlogs site. They secured an interview with Richard Dawkins as well.

Essentially, they told disinformation to hide their true agenda, got the interviews granted on false pretenses, changed to the true pretenses and touted the interviews.

Then, they pulled stunts on the screening of the film.


There's so much bad press for this film it's funny. Not to mention that the reviews about the credibility of the film have been not so shiny.



Has anyone found any good press from this movie?

You are too good to be true!
I really thought you were doing a parody of a Michael Moore critic, and then I realized you were dead serious!!!

You have a fantastic career ahead of you as an "unintentional comedian"...

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

You are too good to be true!
I really thought you were doing a parody of a Michael Moore critic, and then I realized you were dead serious!!!

You have a fantastic career ahead of you as an "unintentional comedian"...

Care to point out what exactly was funny about it or what exactly I'm wrong about?

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Care to point out what exactly was funny about it or what exactly I'm wrong about?

Stop it! You're killing me!

[elvomito]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Care to point out what exactly was funny about it or what exactly I'm wrong about?

you really don't get it do you?

[Hammock Parties]

god lol

[Extra Point]

"Diabolic theocratic conspirators" trying to push their thoughts into the classroom. Dorothy, I'm still in Kansas. They haven't seen fossils in the Flint Hills.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by Extra Point

"Diabolic theocratic conspirators" trying to push their thoughts into the classroom. Dorothy, I'm still in Kansas. They haven't seen fossils in the Flint Hills.

No, no, that's all wrong. It's easy: God placed fossils on earth to test us.

[KC Kings]

Originally Posted by Extra Point

"Diabolic theocratic conspirators" trying to push their thoughts into the classroom. Dorothy, I'm still in Kansas. They haven't seen fossils in the Flint Hills.

This is exactly Ben Stein's point. People see fossils, copy and paste big words from the internet, and think that the theory is proof. It would be bad enough if it stopped there, but any other line of thinking gets you shunned in the scientific community.

The problem with this subject is that knowledge and science should be the first things we turn to, but instead most people turn to dogmatic or anti-dogmatic beliefs. This happens for several reasons. First, most people/groups that speak up for ID have no credentials except that they believe in God. This makes everybody else hear "Intelligent Design", and automatically assume that the designer has to be the God of Genesis.

To me, you can either believe that all creatures evolved from a non-living matter, (a rock), or you can believe in ID. There is a good deal of faith required for both. I don't think that most people think that ID should be taught in the science class because there isn't a lot of science behind it. However, kids shouldn't be taught that Darwinism is flawless. Micro-evolution has a lot of scientific evidence to back it up, making it uncontroversial. Macro-evolution theory has a lot of holes in it, and if you want to teach it as "science" you should expose these holes and try to use them to disprove the theory. That's what science should be about!

Darwinism starts with a single cell organism, but where did that organism come from? Either we all came from non-living matter or life has always existed in the universe, or something created/designed the organism. None of those ideas can be defended on any scientific basis.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by KC Kings

I have read this movie, and saw Ben Stein interview on CNN last week.

He talked about two things the movie was going to focus on, ID and Global Warming. Global warming is a farce, and there are plenty of scientist specializing in relevant fields that agree that global warming is not happening.

If he's purporting that global warming is not happening, it's just another lie in a long line of lies blasted from his soapbox. Global warming is happening. The question is whether man has created it, facilitated it or aided it. In essence, the questions is whether it is independent of man or influenced by man. There is no debate that global warming is happening. If he says this, the movie has more issues than I thought.

Stein's entire position is that there is a "Big Science", which is bad. It's like Hitler and only allows his views to be represented. It shuts out things like creationism and ID from the discourse. This just isn't true. If they would apply ID to the scientific method and present some evidence, they would get somewhere. However, they haven't.

Typically, creationists quote-mine other scientists, sometimes really bad. They usually mangle the word "Theory" to mean "guess", which it does not. It's hard to take people seriously when they cannot grasp basic scientific language.

From what I got from the article was not that this movie was going to argue that ID was true, but the fact that Darwinism has a lot of whole in it, and science is supposed to be trying to disprove theories to find the truth. Darwinist spend most of their time trying to prove the theory, (prolly because the people that are most anti-Darwin are using ID to back up their point).

Yep, he's going to argue that it's a flawed theory and we are missing fossils and the usual garbage. Science has moved on. Darwin's theory is the founding rock of biology at the moment. There is very little, if any, evidence against it.

Sure, there are holes in an over arching theory, but none that shake the foundations and let it lose it's credibility. The point is that they would like you to think it's so full of holes that scientists are trying to plug them. It's simply not true. There are holes and there are modifications trying to be made to the theory. Both sides are arguing back and forth within the scientific method. This is standard operating procedure within science.

There are lots of theories and scientific calculations that require a piece of the puzzle simply being there in the first place. What I got from the interview was that a lot of people in the scientific community were unable to properly do their job if their findings either disproved global warming, or agreed with ID.

And Ben Stein has what credibility in the field of science? And if he's already misrepresented his intentions to lure scientists, what exactly shoudl we gain from any credibility he does have?

It's like a political science teacher telling a nuclear physicist that he can't do his job properly.

I think ID is a wasted argument because 1. Not many atheist believe in ID, and 2. We know so little about our past, submitting to ID is kind of a cop out (less than 5% of total dinosaur species have been discovered).

Aside from the lack of evidence, I'd agree with you. But #1 is not a reason to toss ID aside.

I hope the global warming piece gets it's fair share of screen time, because Ben Stein is pretty much just saying what a lot of scientist have been saying for the past 5 years, that there is more evidence against the possibility that we are experiencing a man-made long term global warming process, than there is to support it.

Notice the distinction between this and what you opened with. I'll be interested to see which argument he sides with. And I don't think science has taken a stance on whether man has caused it. But I don't think it hurts or is inaccurate to say we aren't helping.

Originally Posted by KC Kings

This is exactly Ben Stein's point. People see fossils, copy and paste big words from the internet, and think that the theory is proof. It would be bad enough if it stopped there, but any other line of thinking gets you shunned in the scientific community.

Likewise, people like Ben Stein and other creationists come up with ludicrous statements like "God hid all the fossils here to test us". There are plenty of fossils to back up the Theory of Evolution.

You also illustrate the big problem: education. What you are saying is that there is a disconnect between what people see and what people understand. That's where education comes in. And the sad fact is that creationists are killing the education that's there by redirecting discourse to "teach the controversy". Take a look at Oklahoma, Texas and Florida for recent cases. Oklahoma tried to pass a bill that said science teachers couldn't count tests answers wrong if they were religiously grounded. In other words, I could say that the Flying Speghetti Monster created the world yesterday and planted fossils here so that people could have jobs putting puzzles together. According to law, they would have to accept this answer. Texas has tried in many districts to pass legislature that instructs teachers to teach the "controversy" even though there isn't one. Florida has the same problem. And of course, Kansas has been fighting that for years and is the laughing stock because of it.

The problem with this subject is that knowledge and science should be the first things we turn to, but instead most people turn to dogmatic or anti-dogmatic beliefs. This happens for several reasons. First, most people/groups that speak up for ID have no credentials except that they believe in God. This makes everybody else hear "Intelligent Design", and automatically assume that the designer has to be the God of Genesis.

Valid points. That's why the Flying Spagehtti Monster was created - to fight Kansas board of education people's "teach the controversy" and "equal class time" ideas.

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

Stop right there. You are complaining about what people look at and post on the internet and you have just illustrated your point. No one has argued that we evolved from non-living matter (a rock). This underscores your lack of understanding about evolution. And that's where the problem is. We are killing the education that is supposed to EDUCATE you. All in the name of political correctness and religious ideology.

There is a good deal of faith required for both. I don't think that most people think that ID should be taught in the science class because there isn't a lot of science behind it.

And yet, people don't understand this. There is no science behind it. Apply the Scientific Method to it and you don't get anywhere.

However, kids shouldn't be taught that Darwinism is flawless.

This is a wrong assumption. No one has said that evolution doesn't have holes in it. Science LOVES to exploit those holes. However, science does not like it when those holes are viewed - wrongly - to let things like ID live with credibility when placed next to it. The holes don't let ID live. They just make the case ongoing - as science always is.

Micro-evolution has a lot of scientific evidence to back it up, making it uncontroversial. Macro-evolution theory has a lot of holes in it, and if you want to teach it as "science" you should expose these holes and try to use them to disprove the theory. That's what science should be about!

Again, you illustrate your lack of understanding on the topic of evolution. The holes aren't big enough to "disprove the theory" which is what you're suggesting. If they were, you'd bet your bottom dollar scientists would be on that. There's a lot of prestige for that kind of find. Moreover, Macro-evolution is "science" however much you want to put quotes around it. In fact, it doesn't take much once you buy into micro evolution to see that changes in the cells over millions of years will form branches of things and ultimately cause a wide variety of different species. That's MACRO evolution. It's an easy bridge but one people want to deny.

Darwinism starts with a single cell organism, but where did that organism come from? Either we all came from non-living matter or life has always existed in the universe, or something created/designed the organism. None of those ideas can be defended on any scientific basis.

Thank you for lastly illustrating a common misconception. Evolution doesn't even attempt to answer where life came from. Period. End of story. It is based on a presumption of life. Life exists, is it's premise. Once it does, it evolves.

Don't confuse the Big Bang Theory and Evolution to the same thing as creationists do. These ideas can be defended on a scientific bases, just not at the present time. Just like the radio couldn't be defended by scientists in the 16th century.