EXPELLED: with Ben Stein

[ASM915]

"If people think God is intersting,

the onus is on them to show that there is anything to talk about.

Otherwise they should just sut up about it."

 

Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist, Oxford Universty.

 

Pacsaddle, you should like that one.

 

Anyway, there''s a mew movie coming out in Feb. 2008,"EXPELLED" with Ben Stein, http//www.expelledthemovie.com/video/php that should cause some real intersting conversations here.

 

So everyone has 4-5 months to get their debate material together and their arguements formulated. More Ed and Merlyn fodder.

[Ohio_Scouter]

ASM915,

 

I can''t wait!

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, picture me as Mr. Burns from "The Simpsons". I''m sitting in my big leather easy chair in my paneled office, relaxing in my slippers as I view the trailer (here''s a better link) and rubbing my hands together. I say to myself in that wonderfully sneaky voice, "Exxxxcelleeeenntt!"

 

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

 

Why wait for a few months, let''s get started now. I say, "Go Ben!" I fully support his defence of free speech everywhere. Even in BSA!

Heh, heh, heh.

[firstpusk]

The entire "Expelled" project misrepresents the creation/evolution debate by framing those pushing religion as science as victims. I think that this NY Times article is somewhat enlightening on Ben Stein''s creationist movie project.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=1&em&ex=1191211200&en=2d7df8cdb5e2a971&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

 

There is no scientific case to be made for Intelligent Design Creationism. It is merely the latest legal dodge to try to teach religion in public school science classrooms. I think this paragraph from the article puts it nicely.

 

"There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature. As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are ''not within the scope or abilities of science.''"

 

I know someone who was interviewed for the movie. He felt that the intentions of the producers were misrepresented. He was paid, and is interested to see how they try to twist his words to forward the case of creationism. It is most ironic that the producers felt it necessary to lie to scientists they interviewed to make a false case for ''fairness'' for Intelligent Design Creationism. The truth of the matter is there is no scientific research being done on intelligent design, even by the the ID scientists.

 

If you want to know the status of this ''theory'', take a bit of time to read the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover written by a consevative Republican, Federal Judge John E. Jones who was appointed by President GW Bush in 2002. The dishonesty of those promoting this ''theory'' as science comes through loud and clear.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/decision.htm

[packsaddle]

Thanks for that link. Here it is in a slightly more workable format:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=2&em&ex=1191211200&en=2d7df8cdb5e2a971&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I was not aware of the deception aspect of this film. But when you study the events leading up to the Kitzmiller decision, the deception is perfectly in character for the creationists. That said, it doesn't really matter much because science will weather this attack quite nicely. The reason I am not bothered much by this film is because it has obviously been constructed primarily to make money off of whatever sense of outrage people feel about creationism. It is, at its base, merely entertainment. Aside from the fact that these people are liars, it doesn't bother me that much.

Moreover, the actual issue that Stein and the film are trying to raise is not some argument between religion and science. They are attempting to USE such an argument in order to make the claim that free speech is being somehow trampled in academia and other places.

If they are correct in their assertion (and I'm waiting to see some evidence of this, there sure isn't any here) then I support their promotion of free speech.

THAT said, their assertion regarding denial of freedom of thought is absurd. The only way anyone can know what someone else is thinking is for the other person to express it in speech. We always have freedom of thought. No one can take that away, short of execution.

Speech is another matter. And their assertion that speech is not being protected is, in my mind, subject to doubt given their lie regarding the interviews. So rail on Ben, and good luck. But you shot your credibility when you lied. I'll probably wait until I can see it for $1 at the local student theatre. The lowest denomination of the land.

 

Edited part: Drat those double quotes!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[firstpusk]

"Speech is another matter. And their assertion that speech is not being protected is, in my mind, subject to doubt given their lie regarding the interviews. So rail on Ben, and good luck. But you shot your credibility when you lied. I''ll probably wait until I can see it for $1 at the local student theatre. The lowest denomination of the land."

 

Did you just call me a liar? Is this some kind of mean-spirited joke?

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, nope. That is, unless I messed up and your name is Ben. I was addressing Ben Stein in that sentence and maybe I didn''t make that clear enough. Sorry.

If what the linked article says is true, Ben Stein lied.

I am actually in agreement with you, Firstpusk.

[firstpusk]

Sorry. "Ben" went to the far right and off the screen on my PC. How appropriate.

 

A slight shift and I see where you are coming from.

 

There is no case for IDC, so Ben and Co. are going to try for the sympathy vote. It does seem to undermine their case for fairness when they start out by lying.

[packsaddle]

AKA, no intelligence allowed

 

Well...the film has been released for a week or so now and because I was named in the original post on this thread, I might as well restart it to see if anyone has seen the film and find out what anyone thinks.

Here's what Scientific American had on their web site:

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled&sc=expelled_nws

 

 

"...you wouldnt expect the producers of said filmin this case, Ben Steins Expelled: No Intelligence Allowedto offer the editors of said magazine a private screening.

 

Associate producer Mark Mathis showed up at our offices with a preview of Expelled in hand. That's right, the unexpected screening happened."

 

So Scientific American got a sneak preview, courtesy of the filmmakers...what were they thinking?

The results were interesting. One of the reviewers had been a student at Pepperdine and he was surprised to see the setting for the film. He had entered college with a firm creationist background and belief. And after examining the evidence for evolution he had changed his mind:

 

"It was with some irony for me, then, that I saw Ben Stein's antievolution documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens with the actor, game show host and speechwriter for Richard Nixon addressing a packed audience of adoring students at Pepperdine University, apparently falling for the same trap I did.

 

Actually they didn't. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein's screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, associate provost for research and chair of natural science at Pepperdine, "the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus" but that "the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and a staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.

 

 

So...anyone see it yet?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Looks like the producers fell for one of the classic entertainment blunders -- the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a legal fight with DIsney lawyers," but only slightly less well known is this: "Never depend on 'fair use' when a Beatle copyright is on the line!"

[Trevorum]

Inconcievable!

[PatBB]

What if Intelligent Design proves someday that creating the Universe required a minimum HUNDREDS of gods/ creators working MILLIONS of years? Thereby disproving BOTH the Atheistic faction of Evolutionism & 'Yahweh alone in 6 days as described in Genesis.'

[GernBlansten]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

[SSScout]

Just because two dozen guys and gals with pnuemohammers and 2x4s and bags of concrete and asphalt shingles and pvc and copper pipe and sheetrock and BX and ROMEX cable trying to follow white on blue paper plans that were drawn up by another half dozen guys and gals build my house doesn't mean I can't say I just built my house.

 

Evolution is more about how it got dun not what or who dun it. Seperate issue.

 

"The giraffe is a horse designed by a committee".

[Beavah]

Yah, I just want to know who da unintelligent nitwit is who designed the black fly.