NationStates Jolt Archive

Creation Propaganda steps up a notch. Anyone else seen the trailers for "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

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

Yes, that's right - Creationists have made a movie that sets them up as the victimised minority, being oppressed by a megalithic establishment resistant to change.

Do Creationists actully (really) believe that? The fact that the majority of Americans (60% at last poll, I believe) actually favour a religious creation story suggests that the film-makers, at the very least - know they aren't a minority.

Genius? Or sick?

Creation Propaganda steps up a notch. Anyone else seen the trailers for "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

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

Yes, that's right - Creationists have made a movie that sets them up as the victimised minority, being oppressed by a megalithic establishment resistant to change.

Do Creationists actully (really) believe that? The fact that the majority of Americans (60% at last poll, I believe) actually favour a religious creation story suggests that the film-makers, at the very least - know they aren't a minority.

Genius? Or sick?

It's a little bit of both. Genius and sick.:D

You call the movie 'creationist' for a reason? I'm not seeing that word anywhere on the link you provided. Are we to believe Ben Stein is a creationist now because you label him as such?

Interesting that you attack his movie in the exact same way he says 'you' would. (when I say you, I don't mean GnI).

Interesting that you attack his movie in the exact same way he says 'you' would. (when I say you, I don't mean GnI).

And who do you mean by that, pray tell?

You call the movie 'creationist' for a reason? I'm not seeing that word anywhere on the linke you provided. Are we to believe Ben Stein is a creationist now because you label him as such?

Interesting that you attack his movie in the exact same way he says 'you' would. (when I say you, I don't mean GnI).

The movie is about creationism (actually ID, which is a new form of creationism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled_%28movie%29#Promotion_of_intelligent_design_as_an_alternative_to_evolution)

I love how they have the title. "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

Yea, like it takes Intelligence to say that god created everything in six days. :rolleyes:

Creation Propaganda steps up a notch. Anyone else seen the trailers for "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

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

Yes, that's right - Creationists have made a movie that sets them up as the victimised minority, being oppressed by a megalithic establishment resistant to change.

Do Creationists actully (really) believe that? The fact that the majority of Americans (60% at last poll, I believe) actually favour a religious creation story suggests that the film-makers, at the very least - know they aren't a minority.

Genius? Or sick?

Given the tactics they've employed in putting this movie together (quote-mining scientists from interviews taken under false pretenses, barring prominent atheists who APPEAR IN THE MOVIE from attending the screening, etc.) I'd say it's quite unequivocally sick.

The movie is about creationism (actually ID, which is a new form of creationism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled_%28movie%29#Promotion_of_intelligent_design_as_an_alternative_to_evolution)

I assure you that just because someone outside of the group labels something the same doesn't make it the same. Creationist do not believe in ID, they beleive God created creatures fully formed, IDer's do not believe what Creationists do.

I love how they have the title. "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

Yea, like it takes Intelligence to say that god created everything in six days. :rolleyes:

I bet nowhere in the movie that Ben Stein will be found supporting a six day creation proposition.

Are we to believe Ben Stein is a creationist now because you label him as such?

No, you're supposed to believe it because various other sites say it, the main one I checked being Wikipedia.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein)

A review from Richard Dawkins, who attended the screening: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

Creation Propaganda steps up a notch. Anyone else seen the trailers for "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
It's being shown in trailers now? As a part of a road show, I presume?
Seriously, after the mighty shoeing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552550&highlight=expelled) it received here I wonder that people have the courage to stand up and defend it. Pity they use it so.

Why should we bother debating this when this article does it so much better:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

From which...

It is a terrific strategy, but with one caveat: that airy skirmish of opinions must never, ever touch the ground of solid evidence. Because if it does, if viewers are ever allowed to notice that evolution is supported by mountains of tangible, peer-reviewed evidence gathered by generations of scientists, whereas ID has little more than a smattering of vanity-press pamphlets from a handful of cranks... the bubble pops.

No, you're supposed to believe it because various other sites say it, the main one I checked being Wikipedia.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein)

Actually, your own link has Creationist and Intelligent design movement as two different links. They are not one and the same.

Why should we bother debating this when this article does it so much better:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

From which...

The movie trailer makes it clear that Ben Stein isn't attacking evolution, evolution doesn't have a proposition for how life was first started, how it began from non-life, so the 'mountain of evidence' for evolution is a moot point and different topic.

I assure you that just because someone outside of the group labels something the same doesn't make it the same. Creationist do not believe in ID, they beleive God created creatures fully formed, IDer's do not believe what Creationists do.

ID was specifically invented by creationists as a way to get creationist bullshit into schools following their crushing defeat in the supreme court in 1987

The movie trailer makes it clear that Ben Stein isn't attacking evolution

if the trailer makes that clear, then the trailer is lying

Actually, your own link has Creationist and Intelligent design movement as two different links. They are not one and the same.

They are about as different as saying that earth is flat and floats in the ether is different from saying that earth is flat and is supported by four elephants standing on a turtle.

The movie trailer makes it clear that Ben Stein isn't attacking evolution, evolution doesn't have a proposition for how life was first started, how it began from non-life, so the 'mountain of evidence' for evolution is a moot point and different topic.

Yes, if all it did was defend the idea that we don't know how life started and that, perhaps, God could be considered a possible answer then fine.

Yet it specifically attacks evolution.

But in one respect, Expelled does go farther than any other popular ID offensive to date: in how relentlessly, tastelessly and repulsively it links Darwin's theory of evolution to the Holocaust. Here the filmmakers take their previously displayed knack for lying through selective reporting and misdirection and show that they are up to the challenge of shifting blame for the Nazis' genocide, however slightly, away from Hitler. Bravo, Ben Stein. Bravo.

Aside from the distortions that would make Michael Moore a proud man.

Read the article rather than base your conclusions on a trailer.

Also, ID has it's own theories and more, it's not some simple statement about the origin of life.

I assure you that just because someone outside of the group labels something the same doesn't make it the same. Creationist do not believe in ID, they beleive God created creatures fully formed, IDer's do not believe what Creationists do.

There are different forms of creationism, young earth, old earth creationism (~literal bible) and intelligen design (evolution is guided by a designer (God in this instance)).
There are different forms of evolution too, Darwinism (and it's modern incarnation which incorporates genetics etc), Lamarckism etc. Darwinists don't believe what Lamarckists do, but Lamarckism is a form of evolution.
ID and Y/OEC isn't the same, but ID is creationism.

Besides, who cares, even if ID isn't creationism, it's still wrong.

Yes, if all it did was defend the idea that we don't know how life started and that, perhaps, God could be considered a possible answer then fine.

Yet it specifically attacks evolution.



Aside from the distortions that would make Michael Moore a proud man.

Read the article rather than base your conclusions on a trailer.

Also, ID has it's own theories and more, it's not some simple statement about the origin of life.

Your link is from an opinion article about Ben Steins movie, if you want damning quotes against the movie, I found an even better one on the expelled movie site itself...

"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant –– which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.

I bet nowhere in the movie that Ben Stein will be found supporting a six day creation proposition.

Of course he won't be supporting that. He'll be supporting the so called "theory" (read: unfalsifiable hypothesis) of Intelligent Design, one of the most mis-named unfalsifiable hypothesis...'s...es...s...damn it, how is that word plural?

Anyway, point is, it's still creationism, just hidden.

Your link is from an opinion article about Ben Steins movie, if you want damning quotes against the movie, I found an even better one on the expelled movie site itself...

"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant –– which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.

Yes, the article I linked also questioned why they were invited to a private screening. Why was Richard Dawkin's invited?

Is it because they specifically wanted this kind of reaction to help publicise the movie itself?

Is it?

Say it ain't so.

Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.

Haha, because he was expelled from the screenings. I guess they were serious with "no intelligence allowed".

Anyway, even fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html)* (which can hardly be called a liberal source or something) gave it negative reviews.

*You'll have to scroll down to see it, it's under M. Carey.

Creation Propaganda steps up a notch. Anyone else seen the trailers for "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

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

Yes, that's right - Creationists have made a movie that sets them up as the victimised minority, being oppressed by a megalithic establishment resistant to change.

Do Creationists actully (really) believe that? The fact that the majority of Americans (60% at last poll, I believe) actually favour a religious creation story suggests that the film-makers, at the very least - know they aren't a minority.

Genius? Or sick?

They're learning from Michael Moore, and taking everything he has ever done one step further: Instead of a disgusting fat slob, they're using a man who has absolutely no inflection in his voice.

Oh, I must ask, why are all the "celebrities" I've ever met on the streets of Washington DC total fucking morons?

Your link is from an opinion article about Ben Steins movie, if you want damning quotes against the movie, I found an even better one on the expelled movie site itself...

"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant –– which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.

Well, they barred him from seeing the movie, even though they knew he was coming for quite awhile beforehand and they had the means to contact him.

Also, his wife saw the movie, as did Richard Dawkins and quite a number of other people. It's quite easy to figure out what's in a movie when enough people have seen it that you can piece together a transcript.

Yes, the article I linked also questioned why they were invited to a private screening. Why was Richard Dawkin's invited?

Is it because they specifically wanted this kind of reaction to help publicise the movie itself?

Is it?

Say it ain't so.

They weren't invited. They signed up. Well, Myers signed up and added guests, including Dawkins.

It's simple intellectual dishonesty, trading on ignorance to make money.

Gosh, sounds like the entire history of a certain social phenomenon.

How rich is the Vatican?

The Church of England?

Televangelists?

One could certainly argue that all films and/or documentaries are intellectual dishonesty but, for some reason, this truly irritates me because it's so accepted by so many people to such disastrous effect to people's lives.

If this was a film showing the abolition of slavery was wrong, and pointed to inner city crime and drug use as 'evidence', it would be roundly criticised, possibly even banned although, ironically, it would find many of the same sympathisers as this film will.

Certainly not saying the majority of religious people are bigoted in one way or another but it sure is a surprising correlation.

Yes, the article I linked also questioned why they were invited to a private screening. Why was Richard Dawkin's invited?


Well, there were some rumors that PZ was being "rowdy" or some BS...


Oh, and an interesting quote from Ben Stein himself:
How did the laws of physics get created? How come the planets don’t fall on top of each other? Where did gravity come from? Where did thermodynamics come from? Where did any of the basic governing principles of the universe come from? And Darwinism says nothing about those things...
From http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/coral-ridge-ministries-interviews-ben-stein/

Well, stupid me, thinking a biological theory to be true when it can't explain the laws of physics.

They weren't invited. They signed up. Well, Myers signed up and added guests, including Dawkins.

No one could have been more surprised than I when the producers called, unbidden, offering Scientific American's editors a private screening.

Doesn't seem that way, I suppose they could be as dishonest in what they say as the film seems to be.

Doesn't seem that way, I suppose they could be as dishonest in what they say as the film seems to be.

talking about different things.

pz signed up to go to a screening and signed up to bring guests, one of which was dawkins. the guy from sciam was apparently invited to a screening. presumably a different screening altogether.

Well, there were some rumors that PZ was being "rowdy" or some BS...


Oh, and an interesting quote from Ben Stein himself:

From http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/coral-ridge-ministries-interviews-ben-stein/

Well, stupid me, thinking a biological theory to be true when it can't explain the laws of physics.

If everyone will please excuse the delicious irony, I must use a very common phrase in American English to express my feelings towards Ben Stein's statement:

Oh my fucking GOD! :headbang:

the majority of Americans (60% at last poll, I believe) actually favour a religious creation story

:eek: I mean I died a little on the inside when I caught America's got talent audience booing a harp player but seriously whats going on?

talking about different things.

pz signed up to go to a screening and signed up to bring guests, one of which was dawkins. the guy from sciam was apparently invited to a screening. presumably a different screening altogether.

Ah, I thought when Dem wrote Myers, that was the article author.

Cheers.

You call the movie 'creationist' for a reason? I'm not seeing that word anywhere on the link you provided. Are we to believe Ben Stein is a creationist now because you label him as such?

Interesting that you attack his movie in the exact same way he says 'you' would. (when I say you, I don't mean GnI).

I actually called it 'new creationism'.

The content is the same, even if the packaging is different.

However - it leads me to a flaw in the ID-is-not-creationism argument - the central 'text' of the ID debate has (for some time) been "Of Pandas and People" - it's the text that the Dover trial centred around.

In it's original form, the text (that would become "Of Pandas and People") claimed to be about biblical creationism. In it's final form, the word creationism is replaced (without amendment to the gist of the text around it) to "Intelligent Design".

(In the interim, the term 'creation design' was temporarily used).

It is no coincidence (I assume) that the creators of the book are tax-free as a religious insitution, and that part of the basis for their exemption was their affirmed intent to produce a book that showed 'the scientific evidence for creationism'. That book, it turns out, was "Of Pandas and People".

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7781_36_thomas_1990_the_founda_11_23_2004.asp


There is no difference between creationism and intelligent design, except that christian creationists (openly) claim to know the name of the intelligent designer.

If everyone will please excuse the delicious irony, I must use a very common phrase in American English to express my feelings towards Ben Stein's statement:

Oh my fucking GOD! :headbang:

It's not even the worse:

Jerry: Why did you personally agree to participate in the film?

Ben: Because I had always had very serious anger about Darwinism, because I think Darwinism led to the Holocaust. I think this belief that there are superior and inferior races, and that the superior races had a moral duty to eliminate the inferior races was one of the main building blocks of Nazism and the Holocaust, and I never thought that had gotten out enough.

It's not even the worse:

To be fair, though, he might actually have a vague point there. It's very true that the original Darwin hypothesis was used as the foundation for social Darwinism and the general idea of eugenics that developed into the Nazi Germany version.

What Ben Stein misses, of course, is that the evolutionary hypothesis itself had nothing to do with it and what other people USED it for was something completely out of control of the scientists who were only studying the data they had and suggesting possible explanations for said data, much like nuclear weaponry was out of the hands of the scientists who first discovered the potential power of splitting the atom.

(In the interim, the term 'creation design' was temporarily used).

i like the punk-eek transitional form, 'cdesign proponentsists'

It's not even the worse:

Ben Stein's quote.
:eek:
I never thought of that. But isn't it a bit extreme"? I figured that Drawinism was basically referring to inferior species of non rational animals. Could Hitler and Nazism have taken ideas from Darwinism as building blocks of anti-semitism? I always thought the causes of the Holocaust went deeper than mere science.

To be fair, though, he might actually have a vague point there. It's very true that the original Darwin hypothesis was used as the foundation for social Darwinism and the general idea of eugenics that developed into the Nazi Germany version.

What Ben Stein misses, of course, is that the evolutionary hypothesis itself had nothing to do with it and what other people USED it for was something completely out of control of the scientists who were only studying the data they had and suggesting possible explanations for said data, much like nuclear weaponry was out of the hands of the scientists who first discovered the potential power of splitting the atom.

It's the universal problem with science - yes, you can discover something, and even achieve the means of manipulating something (say, atomic power, genetics, etc.) but there's nothing - nothing at all - in science that tells you what you should and shouldn't do with that ability.

Morality is not the purview of science, and it's not fair to assume that science should fill that role.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean that it's a good thing to go out and do it.

To be fair, though, he might actually have a vague point there. It's very true that the original Darwin hypothesis was used as the foundation for social Darwinism and the general idea of eugenics that developed into the Nazi Germany version.

What Ben Stein misses, of course, is that the evolutionary hypothesis itself had nothing to do with it and what other people USED it for was something completely out of control of the scientists who were only studying the data they had and suggesting possible explanations for said data, much like nuclear weaponry was out of the hands of the scientists who first discovered the potential power of splitting the atom.

But whats the most irritating is its apperantly totally cool to blame Darwinism for the Nazi's perversion of it, but hey guys, dont blame Christianity for the Inquisition, blame the people who perverted it.


Double standard much?

"Darwin's theory of evolution as having been responsible for the Holocaust"


"In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#Claims_that_acceptance_of_evolution_leads_to_Nazism

Can I get an lmao? :headbang:

But whats the most irritating is its apperantly totally cool to blame Darwinism for the Nazi's perversion of it, but hey guys, dont blame Christianity for the Inquisition, blame the people who perverted it.

Double standard much?

Everyone knows Christians make the best perverts...

It's the universal problem with science - yes, you can discover something, and even achieve the means of manipulating something (say, atomic power, genetics, etc.) but there's nothing - nothing at all - in science that tells you what you should and shouldn't do with that ability.

Morality is not the purview of science, and it's not fair to assume that science should fill that role.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean that it's a good thing to go out and do it.
Exactly. Unfortunately, far too many people, for one reason or another, either refuse to acknowledge this or are simply never made aware of it.

But whats the most irritating is its apperantly totally cool to blame Darwinism for the Nazi's perversion of it, but hey guys, dont blame Christianity for the Inquisition, blame the people who perverted it.


Double standard much?
Of course, but that's par for the course for humanity as a whole.

But whats the most irritating is its apperantly totally cool to blame Darwinism for the Nazi's perversion of it, but hey guys, dont blame Christianity for the Inquisition, blame the people who perverted it.


Double standard much?

Well the other way around is true - it's not fair to blame religion for wars to some extent, it's a great justification but war would still occur without it.

One might blame humans for taking the worst out of things rather than the best, for using them to influence, suppress and profit from either fact or belief.

EDIT: Kyronea is far quicker on these points.

To be fair, though, he might actually have a vague point there. It's very true that the original Darwin hypothesis was used as the foundation for social Darwinism and the general idea of eugenics that developed into the Nazi Germany version.

Personally I find it one of the worst 'arguments' against Darwinism. It's like using the crusades as an example to show how creationism is wrong. It shows that this is nothing more than a propaganda film (like that was necessary).
The most scientific thing in it will probably be the bit they stole from "the inner life of a cell".

It's not even the worse:

The link between Darwin's theories and the holocaust is not so tenuous as that, although it's not the direct causal relationship that Stein probably wants us to view it as. Even in University level Anthropology classes, I participated in a discussion of the consequences of how people interpret Darwin's theories, there was a video, a reading from a real* scientific ethics specialist and an in class discussion on what the application of the theories to human society resulted in. Social Darwinism, in the forms of "Wild West Capitalism", Nazism and Soviet Communism were all explored, discussed and debunked. It remained, though, that all involved admitted that these ideologies derived an awful lot from the theories Darwin posited, and that we must be responsible with all knowledge, how we interpret it, and how we teach it to others.

*read: Not an ID'er or anything, rather someone who is a proponent of science and Darwin's theories, but who is concerned with the responsible representation thereof.

Personally I find it one of the worst 'arguments' against Darwinism. It's like using the crusades as an example to show how creationism is wrong. It shows that this is nothing more than a propaganda film (like that was necessary).
The most scientific thing in it will probably be the bit they stole from "the inner life of a cell".

It's a lesson, more than anything. It's an admonition to be responsible with what we believe, and to help other people be equally responsible.

Personally I find it one of the worst 'arguments' against Darwinism. It's like using the crusades as an example to show how creationism is wrong. It shows that this is nothing more than a propaganda film (like that was necessary).
The most scientific thing in it will probably be the bit they stole from "the inner life of a cell".
It is, since what he's angry at is social Darwinism, not the actual theory of evolution--which is of course far beyond the original Darwin hypothesis, but for some reason those who are against evolution almost as a whole never acknowledge this(perhaps because they usually base their objections on their religion and their religion has not truly ever updated itself since it came into being?)--but I'm just pointing out that, in that context, he does have a point.

The link between Darwin's theories and the holocaust is not so tenuous as that. Even in University level Anthropology classes, I participated in a discussion of the consequences of how people interpret Darwin's theories, there was a video, a reading from a real* scientific ethics specialist and an in class discussion on what the application of the theories to human society resulted in. Social Darwinism, in the forms of "Wild West Capitalism", Nazism and Soviet Communism were all explored, discussed and debunked. It remained, though, that all involved admitted that these ideologies derived an awful lot from the theories Darwin posited, and that we must be responsible with all knowledge, how we interpret it, and how we teach it to others.

*read: Not an ID'er or anything, rather someone who is a proponent of science and Darwin's theories, but who is concerned with the responsible representation thereof.

There are films the Nazis made (Dasein Ohne Leben is one) that cover the whole idea of Dawinism applied to a sociopolitical situation.

That film, for example, talked about breeding, and killing off the weak and mentally retarded. After all, it was only natural to do so!

It's hardly a tenuous connection, when they immortalize the connection and argument in film.

It remained, though, that all involved admitted that these ideologies derived an awful lot from the theories Darwin posited, and that we must be responsible with all knowledge, how we interpret it, and how we teach it to others.

I agree, but the fact that some people misinterpreted early Darwinism and used it as a foundation for their racism etc is a stupid motive to make a film against modern Darwinism. (it's actually his first response to the question why he agreed to make that movie).
If he really made it primarily for that purpose he would have better made a movie explaining how Darwinism doesn't support Social Darwinism and why the last theory is bad.

I actually called it 'new creationism'.

The content is the same, even if the packaging is different.

However - it leads me to a flaw in the ID-is-not-creationism argument - the central 'text' of the ID debate has (for some time) been "Of Pandas and People" - it's the text that the Dover trial centred around.

In it's original form, the text (that would become "Of Pandas and People") claimed to be about biblical creationism. In it's final form, the word creationism is replaced (without amendment to the gist of the text around it) to "Intelligent Design".

(In the interim, the term 'creation design' was temporarily used).

It is no coincidence (I assume) that the creators of the book are tax-free as a religious institution, and that part of the basis for their exemption was their affirmed intent to produce a book that showed 'the scientific evidence for creationism'. That book, it turns out, was "Of Pandas and People".

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7781_36_thomas_1990_the_founda_11_23_2004.asp


There is no difference between creationism and intelligent design, except that christian creationists (openly) claim to know the name of the intelligent designer.

As if that wasn't ironic enough, a 'missing link (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html)' has been discovered linking the two versions:

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

They can't even lie competently. :p

Also, to illustrate Grave's point, here's a graph (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/forrest_chart2.png) showing the use of the words 'Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design':

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/forrest_chart2.png

It's also worth noting that they admit (http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2007/08/03/missing-links/) to being Creationists in private or when speaking to a sympathetic audience:

Why is Intelligent Design the big tent? Because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of Intelligent Design.

I agree, but the fact that some people misinterpreted early Darwinism and used it as a foundation for their racism etc is a stupid motive to make a film against modern Darwinism. (it's actually his first response to the question why he agreed to make that movie).
If he really made it primarily for that purpose he would have better made a movie explaining how Darwinism doesn't support Social Darwinism and why the last theory is bad.

Quite true, quite true.

Let's hit the 'Darwin led to Hitler' stuff on the head while we have the chance:

1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).
2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.
3. Pacifist literature.
4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).
5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
7. Books that advocate "art" which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn).

Darwin's works were banned from public libraries (http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines) by the Nazis (so were anti-Christian books for what it's worth), draw your own conclusions...

It's hard for Hitler to have been inspired by the ToE when he was a Young Earth Creationist.

Let's hit the 'Darwin led to Hitler' stuff on the head while we have the chance:



Darwin's works were banned from public libraries (http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines) by the Nazis (so were anti-Christian books for what it's worth), draw your own conclusions...

That would mean that HItler's government didn't want the common citizen to corelate Darwins's work with Nazism and make connections? That's what is sounds like. Unless Nazism's building blocks were never intended to have similiraties with Darwinism.

This is just intriguing. I always thought Hitler's claim to the extermination of the Jews was more of a vendetta of his or for economical reasons. Or about his theories and fantasies of an Aryan Europe. Of course, his intentions have never been clarified. I want to see more!

Oh, what about the so called 'religion of the Third Reich'? Can anyone comment on that? Could that idea had connections to Darwinism on a basic level? Oh gods, the implications! I'm psyched!!:D

*rushes away to Google*

That would mean that HItler's government didn't want the common citizen to corelate Darwins's work with Nazism and make connections? That's what is sounds like. Unless Nazism's building blocks were never intended to have similiraties with Darwinism.

How is that the natural conclusion? 'Darwinism' appears on a list of things that the Nazis hated (Pacifism, Jewish authors, Marxism, Liberalism etc.), the obvious conclusion is that they opposed 'Darwinism' as well. Nazism drew far more from the German tradition of Christian anti-Semitism than it did from Darwin.

"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant –– which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.

I think Myers' estimate is a bit cynical. I wouldn't expect it to draw in more than 82%.

... the German tradition of Christian anti-Semitism ...the what ??

the what ??

Never heard of Martin Luther's The Jews and Their Lies?

EDIT: Yeah, I should have made it clearer that the problem wasn't restricted to Germany, but it certainly had a stronghold there what with all the Lutheran churches.

Never heard of Martin Luther's The Jews and Their Lies?One text by Luther does not constitute a German tradition.

What about the history of blood libel, expulsions, forced conversions against the Jewish people and massacres in Germany?

How is that the natural conclusion? 'Darwinism' appears on a list of things that the Nazis hated (Pacifism, Jewish authors, Marxism, Liberalism etc.), the obvious conclusion is that they opposed 'Darwinism' as well. Nazism drew far more from the German tradition of Christian anti-Semitism than it did from Darwin.

I never came into any conclusions. I was speculating.

How did the laws of physics get created? How come the planets don’t fall on top of each other? Where did gravity come from? Where did thermodynamics come from? Where did any of the basic governing principles of the universe come from? And Darwinism says nothing about those things...

*twitches*

*spasms*

*sighs and takes a deep breath* Perhaps the reason why Darwinism doesn't explain the laws of physics is because penguins don't generate GRAVITY!!!!


...at least not very much. :p

It's hard for Hitler to have been inspired by the ToE when he was a Young Earth Creationist.

Shoo! Away, facts! Away!

;)

One text by Luther does not constitute a German tradition.

No, it was given as an example. I've already agreed that Christian anti-Semtism wasn't limited to Germany.

Sigh. I am so tired of these people and their brainless, self-serving bullshit.

1) No question about the film at all -- it's propaganda, pure and simple.

2) ID and Creationism are the same thing. Period. Those titles themselves are nothing but propaganda labels, and their connection is obvious in the religious right's own publications. Anyone who says otherwise has either been completely misled by the propaganda or is lying.

3) As to the question of Darwin's theory versus Social Darwinism, I wish people would recognize that the reference to Darwin in "Social Darwinism" has about as much to do with his theory as "Intelligent Design" has to do with intelligence. From the moment the general gist of Darwin's work got gossiped around academic circles -- even before publication of Origin of Species -- various racists, elitists, and other upper class twits got themselves all in an uproar against it, worried that anything that might suggest that people (read: rich white people who spoke English) were not popped fresh out of the Eden box in God's own image to be his one and only beloved children would undermine their self-proclaimed right to oppress and exploit everyone else in the world. They reached this conclusion about his work without ever actually reading his work.

And when it became obvious that his theory was not going to go away, more enterprising racists, elitists and upper class twits decided to co-opt it to their own uses. To them "survival of the fittest" meant that if you're not rich, it means you're not good enough to be. If you don't hold sociopolitical power, it's because nature didn't evolve you to be a dominant life form. In other words, they were just attempting to give some kind of science-y sounding polish to the already existing class system, together with some kind of science-as-predestination authorization to enforce the system from the top down and nip any efforts to change it, with violence if need be -- because you know, kill or be killed is in the natural order of things.

Again, these ideas were formulated using Darwin's name and words but completely off the track of Darwin's actual theory, in which, for instance, "survival of the fittest" (not Darwin's words) is a concept entirely different from what it is in Social Darwinism.

The claims that Darwin's theory was an inspiration to the Nazis are crap. What inspired the Nazis was the existing class-based power structure and how it could be used further consolidate power in the hands of a ruling elite. Since the Nazis specifically claimed a biological foundation to their BS, it is no surprise that they would latch onto a social theory that allowed them to claim their "superiority" as "natural." And being the supreme propaganda masters that they were, it is also no surprise that they would ban Darwin's books from public libraries. It was far more in their interest for them to tell people what Darwin was about, rather than let them get it from Darwin himself. Otherwise people might realize that the Nazis didn't understand Darwin any better than his Victorian critics did.

4) EDIT: Oh, and another thing about the Nazis and Darwin, and about the IDers and Darwin, too:

The Nazis had only one objective and that was to raise themselves to absolute power. They did adhere to a pre-existing racial theory of Aryan superiority, but their use of it was really little more than as a tool in their power-grabbing schemes. It was just the premier tool in their rather extensive toolkit of racial myths, conspiracy theories, distortions of science, and extreme religious and political ideologies that they freely mixed and matched in any way they needed at any time to keep their "US = GOOD/THEM = BAD/ARE YOU REALLY ONE OF US?/PROVE IT" message going.

Any part of Darwin that might suggest there was any genetic connection between "Aryans" and "lesser races" that was not about the inherent "betterness" of Aryans was to be eliminated at all costs. But any part of Darwin that could be used to mock-up "evidence" of their pet theory's notion that "Aryans" were pure descendants of "Atlantians" via the Himalayas and that "proof" of this could be found by measuring the heads and noses of Tibetans for Aryan traits (yes, ye gods, they were that crazy) -- THAT kind of distortion and misuse of Darwin's ideas was good for the Reich.

EDIT: Just like the IDers of today, they flat-out lied about what Darwin's theories were in order to use them to further their own political/social agendas. And why pick on poor Darwin? Name recognition, pure and simple. You want to sell your boring, bullshit brand that no one has any use for? Piggyback it onto an existing bestseller.

*twitches*

*spasms*

*sighs and takes a deep breath* Perhaps the reason why Darwinism doesn't explain the laws of physics is because penguins don't generate GRAVITY!!!!


...at least not very much. :p

I propose that 'dark matter' is composed entirely of penguins (whether it's a large number of normal sized penguins or a small number of huge penguins is something I hope to address in my later research). They're invisible to telescopes because they've got their backs turned to us so they look like empty space.

Besides, if penguins don't generate gravity, explain why the Earth sticks to them! Come on Mister Physicist, explain that!

*wanders off to make a film about the persecution of Penguinists by the reality-based community*

Besides, if penguins don't generate gravity, explain why the Earth sticks to them! Come on Mister Physicist, explain that!


Last time I checked Earth didn't stick to penguins, they can defy gravity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4).

back to creationalists

some american states want creationalism to be taught in science lessons
,the mind boggles

Creationalists say that evolution is just a theory like creationalism
but evolution theory is substantially backed up by fact and evidence

If someone said to me that i was foolish because i believed in father christmas is an omnipotent bearded man who created the entire universe any more believable

and any way where the hell did god come from firstly how did he get to earth second how did he gain the knowledge and ability to build a planet an species anyway.

Last time I checked Earth didn't stick to penguins, they can defy gravity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4).

I can see two possible Penguin Theory explanations for this:

1. Those can't have been True PenguinsTM (it's a technical term)
Yes, I am aware that it's an April Fools :-p
2. They 'landed' eventually didn't they? That was the Earth eventually being sucked up to meet them.

What about the history of blood libel, expulsions, forced conversions against the Jewish people and massacres in Germany?What about it?
And aren't you confusing this with Spain?

What about it?
And aren't you confusing this with Spain?

Both Spain and Portugal had the same policies with Jews, ver stringent by the way. It was: Convert or leave everything behind. Portugal stepped up a notch, convert and become a slave of the country or leave (the leave translated as die).

http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/judeophobia4.htm
http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/judeophobia5.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus
http://jewishwebindex.com/spain.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8636/History.html

I propose that 'dark matter' is composed entirely of penguins (whether it's a large number of normal sized penguins or a small number of huge penguins is something I hope to address in my later research). They're invisible to telescopes because they've got their backs turned to us so they look like empty space.

Besides, if penguins don't generate gravity, explain why the Earth sticks to them! Come on Mister Physicist, explain that!

*wanders off to make a film about the persecution of Penguinists by the reality-based community*

*readies the penguin gun*

Both Spain and Portugal had the same policies with Jews, ver stringent by the way. It was: Convert or leave everything behind. Portugal stepped up a notch, convert and become a slave of the country or leave (the leave translated as die).

http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/judeophobia4.htm
http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/judeophobia5.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus
http://jewishwebindex.com/spain.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8636/History.html

Wait, wait, wait...your sources are Zionism-Israel.com and a Geocities website? Don't you think they might be just a wee bit biased? It's not that I necessarily don't believe the information--I'm reasonably convinced that it's true--but I would think that it would be best to get unbiased sources for information, regardless of what the information is, just in case.

This, mind, is not a pick at what your saying so much as your choice of sources, and giving you a bit of friendly advice for the future. :)

What about it?
And aren't you confusing this with Spain?

No, no, no. There were several particularly nasty ones, such as the Pogrom of 1096 of France and Germany, the Plague Massacres of 1348 in Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, Dresden, Strasburg and Mainz, Luther's detestable tract and its results, and other such events clearly indicate that the degree of violent antisemitism in Germany was significant. Oh, and the culminating event, it was called the "Endloesung", if I recall correctly. Happened in the thirties and forties, you might have seen this movie about part of it, it had Liam Neeson in a starring role.

I know you want to villainize the Jews as much as possible, and make them seem to be some sort of globe-controlling evil mastermind, defended by the Hebrew Hammer, amongst others, but in this case, there's a long German history of this sort of shit.

And let's not forget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKxnaMeOK20

All people who say Hitler's eugenetics are based on Darwinism haven't read Mein Kampf. Read it, and then find out if Hitler based it on anything, it was his strict Catholic history. Yes indeed folks, he thought he was doing what God wanted. But ofcourse, we're not blaiming christianity for that like Ben is doing with Darwinism. And even IF it happend, it's nothing more then the abuse of science.
Really, Expelled is nothing more then a blatant and retarted piece of propaganda. Ben Stein is a friggin' actor/comedian, and acts like a wise whistle-blower uncovering the horrors of science.
http://blog.darwincentral.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/rebel-without-a-clue.jpg
(for some reason this post wouldn't pop up at first, I have no idea why)

*twitches*

*spasms*

*sighs and takes a deep breath* Perhaps the reason why Darwinism doesn't explain the laws of physics is because penguins don't generate GRAVITY!!!!


...at least not very much. :p

Indeed - they defy gravity...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrxmpihCjqw

Actually, your own link has Creationist and Intelligent design movement as two different links. They are not one and the same.

You're talking about Young Earth Creatinists. There are more kinds than that. Fortunately, YEC's don't pretend their theory is scientific. Intelligent Design pretends it's scientific and hopes people are too ignorant to realize the truth.

I just saw a preview for this movie. During a commercial for The Daily Show no less.


I felt slightly sick.

...
Really, Expelled is nothing more then a blatant and retarted piece of propaganda. Ben Stein is a friggin' actor/comedian, and acts like a wise whistle-blower uncovering the horrors of science. ...


Wow, just wow. Personal attacks are at their worst when they are unfounded and misleading...

He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1970 as valedictorian of his class by election of his classmates. He also studied in the graduate school of economics at Yale. He has worked as an economist at The Department of Commerce, a poverty lawyer in New Haven and Washington, D.C., a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., a university adjunct at American University in Washington, D.C., at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. At American U. He taught about the political and social content of mass culture. He taught the same subject at UCSC, as well as about political and civil rights under the Constitution. At Pepperdine, he has taught about libel law and about securities law and ethical issues since 1986.

A bit more resume than just actor/comedian. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, it doesn't even mean his view point has any more validity or weight to it now than it had before, but it does mean that pejorative dismissals of his education and career choices are nothing but school yard bullying and you should learn to look up easily obtainable information before you attack someone personally for ideological disagreements you have with them.

Wow, just wow. Personal attacks are at their worst when they are unfounded and misleading...

He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1970 as valedictorian of his class by election of his classmates. He also studied in the graduate school of economics at Yale. He has worked as an economist at The Department of Commerce, a poverty lawyer in New Haven and Washington, D.C., a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., a university adjunct at American University in Washington, D.C., at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. At American U. He taught about the political and social content of mass culture. He taught the same subject at UCSC, as well as about political and civil rights under the Constitution. At Pepperdine, he has taught about libel law and about securities law and ethical issues since 1986.

A bit more resume than just actor/comedian. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, it doesn't even mean his view point has any more validity or weight to it now than it had before, but it does mean that pejorative dismissals of his education and career choices are nothing but school yard bullying and you should learn to look up easily obtainable information before you attack someone personally for ideological disagreements you have with them.

Hear, hear, Baldy

Wow, just wow. Personal attacks are at their worst when they are unfounded and misleading...

He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1970 as valedictorian of his class by election of his classmates. He also studied in the graduate school of economics at Yale. He has worked as an economist at The Department of Commerce, a poverty lawyer in New Haven and Washington, D.C., a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., a university adjunct at American University in Washington, D.C., at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. At American U. He taught about the political and social content of mass culture. He taught the same subject at UCSC, as well as about political and civil rights under the Constitution. At Pepperdine, he has taught about libel law and about securities law and ethical issues since 1986.

A bit more resume than just actor/comedian. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, it doesn't even mean his view point has any more validity or weight to it now than it had before, but it does mean that pejorative dismissals of his education and career choices are nothing but school yard bullying and you should learn to look up easily obtainable information before you attack someone personally for ideological disagreements you have with them.


Wow, he's practically a biologist. Wait...

Actually, given the fact that he engages in several fallacies in the movie and that he doesn't know the basic requirements for a scientific theory, I'm going to have to giggle at his "credentials". Espectially when he admits his motivation is that Darwinism is responsible for Hitler. Seriously, that evades logic like Pigpen avoided baths.

I just saw a preview for this movie. During a commercial for The Daily Show no less.


I felt slightly sick.

My favorite bit is SMART, NEW ideas, while the ideas are thousands of years old and they're require people not to be smart enough to see it.

Wow, he's practically a biologist. Wait...

Actually, given the fact that he engages in several fallacies in the movie and that he doesn't know the basic requirements for a scientific theory, I'm going to have to giggle at his "credentials". Espectially when he admits his motivation is that Darwinism is responsible for Hitler. Seriously, that evades logic like Pigpen avoided baths.

Baldy was making the point that Ben Stein is not just an actor/comedian, he is quite well-educated, if not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

Wow, he's practically a biologist. Wait...

Actually, given the fact that he engages in several fallacies in the movie and that he doesn't know the basic requirements for a scientific theory, I'm going to have to giggle at his "credentials". Espectially when he admits his motivation is that Darwinism is responsible for Hitler. Seriously, that evades logic like Pigpen avoided baths.

Jocabia, I am so fucking sick of your satanic apologetics and weak, tepid "Christianity".

Seriously, the fact that you use your religion as nothing more than an excuse to care about others, govern your own life with the virtues of your faith, and respectfully coexist with other belief systems makes you the sorriest excuse for a Soldier of Christ since that guy who refused to help me beat up that Muslim. Or maybe he was a Hindu, doesn't matter.

Darwinism IS responsible for Hitler. An organism developing over time through natural selection is EXACTLY the same as murderous eugenics and vicious, hate filled antisemitism.

Asshole.

Jocabia, I am so fucking sick of your satanic apologetics and weak, tepid "Christianity".

Seriously, the fact that you use your religion as nothing more than an excuse to care about others, govern your own life with the virtues of your faith, and respectfully coexist with other belief systems makes you the sorriest excuse for a Soldier of Christ since that guy who refused to help me beat up that Muslim. Or maybe he was a Hindu, doesn't matter.

Darwinism IS responsible for Hitler. An organism developing over time through natural selection is EXACTLY the same as murderous eugenics and vicious, hate filled antisemitism.

Asshole.

Um... I don't know what to say. Sorry?

*By the by, I tend to try to read posts without looking at who wrote them until I'm done. I was into the second sentence and was like, "what the heck?"

Baldy was making the point that Ben Stein is not just an actor/comedian, he is quite well-educated, if not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

The man had a show on Comedy Central.

I will not sit here an listen to you people withhold rightful credibility from a man who was greenlit by the same guys that bought Stella and the Sarah Silverman Show.

Um... I don't know what to say. Sorry?

Well you fucking should be.

I know an evolutionary biologist doing his post-doc in biophysics, works in protein unfolding imagery or some other imaginary atheist bullshit.

Hope his contributions to treatment of various diseases makes him feel better when he's screaming in hell.

The man had a show on Comedy Central.

I will not sit here an listen to you people withhold rightful credibility from a man who was greenlit by the same guys that bought Stella and the Sarah Silverman Show.

Okay, now I'm pissed. How dare you forget Kenny vs. Spenny?

Okay, now I'm pissed. How dare you forget Kenny vs. Spenny?

Haven't caught it yet, is it really wretched?

Let me add something on-topic:

Ben Stein is a Jew. He defends Creationism because Jews feel guilty for killing Jesus.

Haven't caught it yet, is it really wretched?

Let me add something on-topic:

Ben Stein is a Jew. He defends Creationism because Jews feel guilty for killing Jesus.

It's totally wretched. And compelling. Like a train wreck.

It's totally wretched. And compelling. Like a train wreck.

You see the bit next door on why God doesn't exist because He won't heal amputees? Kind of the same schtick, yeah?

You see the bit next door on why God doesn't exist because He won't heal amputees? Kind of the same schtick, yeah?

I'm seeing words. And there are sentences. I know it's English. Not the first clue what you're talking about though.

I'm seeing words. And there are sentences. I know it's English. Not the first clue what you're talking about though.

points >>> next door (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554316)

I'm seeing words. And there are sentences. I know it's English. Not the first clue what you're talking about though.

I know, man. Wow. I seriously have to wonder if the OP over there is actually some kind of religious guy purposely peddling a specious argument. Just, wow.

I know, man. Wow. I seriously have to wonder if the OP over there is actually some kind of religious guy purposely peddling a specious argument. Just, wow.

I meant you. I saw the thread now. I get it. But at first I really I had no idea what you were saying.

I found this lil' independant film help clear away alot of the haze and confussion.
http://www.flockofdodos.com/

I meant you. I saw the thread now. I get it. But at first I really I had no idea what you were saying.

Sorry, must be like when I refer to $100 as a "yard". The young people don't know what I'm saying.

Seriously, Jo, deal with it. Your God doesn't exist because He won't heal amputees.

God damn it, Ben Stein, you're ruining it for Banana Slugs everywhere! And we have such a kick-ass marine bio department. How embarrassing. :(

Sorry to keep piling on, but I ran across this video interveiw too. Aparently a real scientist was kicked out of the screening after being invited.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY

sickI'm pretty sure there's not a lot of argument on this part. :)

the Sarah Silverman ShowHey, ya shouldn't knock a girl who can make such a slick OCD joke about sexual frequency.

Hey, ya shouldn't knock a girl who can make such a slick OCD joke about sexual frequency.

I've respected the privacy of your marriage, don't tell me about your infidelities.

Just saw the trailer.

Ben Stein is in a classroom. Some weird, einstein-rip off with the frizzy hair is talking. Stein raises his hand.

Teach: Yes?

Stein: But teacher, where did life begin?

(Stein is sitting outside the Principal's office with some student)

Student: So... what're you here for?

Stein: I made a movie.

(Screen goes black. EXPELLED appears on the screen with some crazy shit happening to the X. Couple of shots flash by as the narrator speaks. One of some frazzled and dumbfounded scientist, and a guy in a rubber mask handing out flyers)

Narrator: The most controversial film of the year

(screen cuts back to Stein and the student)

Student: Must have been some movie.

I've respected the privacy of your marriage, don't tell me about your infidelities.So, if i'm doing Sarah Silverman while yelling your name, are you going to feign non-participation? She told me that imagination was helping both of us through the ordeal, so i should go for gusto. *shrug*

So, if i'm doing Sarah Silverman while yelling your name, are you going to feign non-participation? She told me that imagination was helping both of us through the ordeal, so i should go for gusto. *shrug*

Unlikely, she's fucking Matt Damon

So, if i'm doing Sarah Silverman while yelling your name, are you going to feign non-participation? She told me that imagination was helping both of us through the ordeal, so i should go for gusto. *shrug*

You can do better, Straughn. Tina Fey is out there, and she will fuck you stupid, boy.

Unlikely, she's fucking Matt Damon

By strapping on Affleck?

Wow, just wow. Personal attacks are at their worst when they are unfounded and misleading...

He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1970 as valedictorian of his class by election of his classmates. He also studied in the graduate school of economics at Yale. He has worked as an economist at The Department of Commerce, a poverty lawyer in New Haven and Washington, D.C., a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., a university adjunct at American University in Washington, D.C., at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. At American U. He taught about the political and social content of mass culture. He taught the same subject at UCSC, as well as about political and civil rights under the Constitution. At Pepperdine, he has taught about libel law and about securities law and ethical issues since 1986.

A bit more resume than just actor/comedian. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, it doesn't even mean his view point has any more validity or weight to it now than it had before, but it does mean that pejorative dismissals of his education and career choices are nothing but school yard bullying and you should learn to look up easily obtainable information before you attack someone personally for ideological disagreements you have with them.

So... not a biologist then? Or even a scientist?

Yet he can make a movie about how 'Big Science' is excluding him?

By the same token, all those churches I don't attend are excluding me, yes?

i assume people have pointed out Abiogenesis to this man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

i assume people have pointed out Abiogenesis to this man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I don't think so, in the trailer he clearly states that according to science life totally started by lightning hitting mud by pure chance, which instantly created life.

It's funny when people refuse to acknowledge their ignorance.

Wait, wait, wait...your sources are Zionism-Israel.com and a Geocities website? Don't you think they might be just a wee bit biased? It's not that I necessarily don't believe the information--I'm reasonably convinced that it's true--but I would think that it would be best to get unbiased sources for information, regardless of what the information is, just in case.

This, mind, is not a pick at what your saying so much as your choice of sources, and giving you a bit of friendly advice for the future. :)

Noted. I was trying to get an article from Oxford Press but, although I have an acount on the website, it wouldn't let me link it.

It's funny when people refuse to acknowledge their ignorance.

Funny 'Ha-ha'? Or Funny 'this milk smells funny'?

Funny 'Ha-ha'? Or Funny 'this milk smells funny'?

Little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

So, if i'm doing Sarah Silverman while yelling your name, are you going to feign non-participation? She told me that imagination was helping both of us through the ordeal, so i should go for gusto. *shrug*
Unlikely, she's fucking Matt Damon
Hahaha! Straughn, even Sarah Silverman is out of your league now. Man, you are really falling behind. :p

So... not a biologist then? Or even a scientist?

Yet he can make a movie about how 'Big Science' is excluding him?

By the same token, all those churches I don't attend are excluding me, yes?
Yes. Call your attorney and a producer. Today.

<Really doesn't matter what you say -M>
:fluffle:

Expelled...really, nothing more then a piece of crap. Linking Darwinism to Hitler's eugenetics...yawn. Ben Stein is an actor/comedian, not even close to a scientist let alone an evolutionary biologist. This pretty picture sums it up pretty good:
http://blog.darwincentral.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/rebel-without-a-clue.jpg

Yes. Call your attorney and a producer. Today.


Awesome. I have a pretty good case, actually - local churches won't let me preach, either (despite the fact that I'm a legally ordained minister - albeit non-denominational), simply because I don't believe in that 'god' thing.

So, you see - I'm also being unfairly discriminated at in the job market, because of my religious beliefs.

So... not a biologist then? Or even a scientist?

Yet he can make a movie about how 'Big Science' is excluding him?

By the same token, all those churches I don't attend are excluding me, yes?

LOL

The really sad thing is that, with all that education, he somehow still can't understand the facts that (a) "Darwinism" is not a scientific theory, (b) The theory of evolution does not deal with where the laws of physics "come from", and the fact that it does not do so is not a condemnation of the theory, and (c) misrepresenting what people say is dishonest.

You all have to remember that Ben Stein thinks he's all that and a bag of potato crisps. He considers himself a great intellectual and therefore, above the opinion of others, including well established scientific facts. That's how overblown is the ego of this man.

Baldy was making the point that Ben Stein is not just an actor/comedian, he is quite well-educated, if not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

The fact that he's supposed to be well-educated just makes the whole thing more depressing. How did he get through all that education without even a high school understanding of science?

LOL

The really sad thing is that, with all that education, he somehow still can't understand the facts that (a) "Darwinism" is not a scientific theory, (b) The theory of evolution does not deal with where the laws of physics "come from", and the fact that it does not do so is not a condemnation of the theory, and (c) misrepresenting what people say is dishonest.

All three elements are dishonest, actually... what worries me is what impact a film like this might have. I like to think most people will be able to make an informed decision based on the facts - but... intercutting interviews with Nazi footage? It appears there is no attempt to even pretend to offer an objective piece...

I appreciate there can be a fine line between documentary and propaganda.... but I think this is an unrepentent exercise in the latter.

It makes me worry for the schools of tomorrow. Hell - for the schools of today. :(

All people who say Hitler's eugenetics are based on Darwinism haven't read Mein Kampf. Read it, and then find out if Hitler based it on anything, it was his strict Catholic history. Yes indeed folks, he thought he was doing what God wanted. But ofcourse, we're not blaiming christianity for that like Ben is doing with Darwinism. And even IF it happend, it's nothing more then the abuse of science.
Really, Expelled is nothing more then a blatant and retarted piece of propaganda. Ben Stein is a friggin' actor/comedian, and acts like a wise whistle-blower uncovering the horrors of science.
http://blog.darwincentral.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/rebel-without-a-clue.jpg
(for some reason this post wouldn't pop up at first, I have no idea why)

Wait a second...that's Ben Stein? I thought he was an actor of some sort that was in bad movies...

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else with a similar name...

Awesome. I have a pretty good case, actually - local churches won't let me preach, either (despite the fact that I'm a legally ordained minister - albeit non-denominational), simply because I don't believe in that 'god' thing.

So, you see - I'm also being unfairly discriminated at in the job market, because of my religious beliefs.

You should definitely contact the ACLU.
:D

You all have to remember that Ben Stein thinks he's all that and a bag of potato crisps. He considers himself a great intellectual and therefore, above the opinion of others, including well established scientific facts. That's how overblown is the ego of this man.

Yeah, he considers himself to be one of, if not the, smartest people on the planet.

Wait a second...that's Ben Stein? I thought he was an actor of some sort that was in bad movies...

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else with a similar name...

It's funny that Ben Stein considers himself extremelly intelligent considering he became famous from appearing in Visine commercials and "Ferris Buler".

The fact that he's supposed to be well-educated just makes the whole thing more depressing.

Yes, yes it does.

How did he get through all that education without even a high school understanding of science?

Force of will?

Wait a second...that's Ben Stein? I thought he was an actor of some sort that was in bad movies...

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else with a similar name...

You're probably thinking of Ben Stiller... :(

http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/d2/unsecured/media/307918698/307918698_595116594_c6194e5be27b0428c51f8f7280e677857895b9c1.jpg

It's funny that Ben Stein considers himself extremelly intelligent considering he became famous from appearing in Visine commercials and "Ferris Buler".

Oh, I was thinking of Ben Stiller. You know...the guy that was in that Dodgeball movie and maybe a few others...the Dodgeball one is the only one coming to mind(and only because those commercials were painful to see.)

Or maybe I was thinking of Adam Sandler.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

In any case, Ben Stein is definitely an idiot.

Oh, I was thinking of Ben Stiller. You know...the guy that was in that Dodgeball movie and maybe a few others...the Dodgeball one is the only one coming to mind(and only because those commercials were painful to see.)

Or maybe I was thinking of Adam Sandler.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

In any case, Ben Stein is definitely an idiot.

To err is human.;)
It's ironic but all these actors are Jewish. (don't kick my ass, NSG Jewish community!:eek:)

To err is human.;)
It's ironic but all these actors are Jewish. (don't kick my ass, NSG Jewish community!:eek:)

Proof of the Jewish conspiracy!!
:p

You all have to remember that Ben Stein thinks he's all that and a bag of potato crisps. He considers himself a great intellectual and therefore, above the opinion of others, including well established scientific facts. That's how overblown is the ego of this man.

Do you know what his nickname was, when he was a speechwriter in the Nixon White House?

The "resident fascist".

Do you know what his nickname was, when he was a speechwriter in the Nixon White House?

The "resident fascist".

Really? LOL!:p

Do you know what his nickname was, when he was a speechwriter in the Nixon White House?

The "resident fascist".

...

Ben Stein was a speechwriter?

the trick to winning ben stein's money? questions about science in the final round.

...

Ben Stein was a speechwriter?

Explains why Nixon was as witty and entertaining as he was, eh?

the trick to winning ben stein's money? questions about science in the final round.

"What are the requirements to make a theory scientific?" D'oh.
"Is ID a scientific theory?" Dammit, you won my money!!

What a horrible droning voice.

I'm tempted to try and see (in such a way as to not finance it), but I fear the voice alone will stop me.