A review in the New Orlando Sentinel asks the question, “Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?”
In the cruelest slam of creationism yet, it is accompanied by this photo:
That’s just mean.
Anyway, read the whole thing. It’s a review of Expelled, and … no, sir, he didn’t like it.
He uses "straw man" tactics to attack, mainly The Origin of the Species, as Darwin wrote it in 1859. He sets up false theses that "the other side" must hold (classic Limbaugh) and knocks those straw men down. Citing scientific research as recent as 1953, he can’t understand why no peer-reviewed scientist thinks this "fairytale" version of the emergence of life is worth his or her time.
Most despicably, Stein, a Jew, invokes the Holocaust, making the Hitler-was-a-Darwinist argument, this AFTER he’s used the Holocaust denier’s favorite trick, "math," to show how remote the chances are that life was created by natural, not supernatural processes. It reminded me of the phony slump Michael Moore showed walking away from ambushing crusty old Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine.
Animation, similar to that used in Columbine, makes its mock points about how science comes to conclusions and how the culture is structured to accept them. Snippets of The Wizard of Oz, Inherit the Wind and other films (if this film is indeed "unfinished," it may be from unresolved rights-clearance issues) to make his points funny. Not really. The Stalin and Soviet and Nazi clips are used in a not-quite-subliminal seduction way to demonize the people who might hold a contrary view.
Could it be that movie reviewers are less credulous than regular reporters?
Ben Stein appears to have the Dick Cheney sneer.
Seems more likely that normal reporters feel pressure to present whatever group they’re covering straight, without injecting any judgment. Movie critics are expected to be, well, critical.
Hopefully all the reviews will be like this one. Though I doubt most of the film press will even bother dealing with this one. Stein will be ruined. And no, I won’t shed any tears for him. Not for liars and anti-science bigots. And his use of the holocaust… I struggle to find words.
Oh, and keeping your movie from the public because you’re afraid of ridicule is just gutless. Put it out there, let people have time to chew on your arguments
I must have missed a news report somewhere…. is this thing coming to theaters or not?
Stein will be ruined.
Sort of like Mel Gibson was? Not going to happen. Not in our media-driven culture. He’s a
“personality” and it matters not how insane.
I love the way the reviewer compared Stein’s focus on the shortcomings in Darwin’s 1859 book with a contemporary music critic reviewing the sound quality of music inscribed on Edison’s wax cylinders. Nice!
I’d buy that reviewer a beer.
That does it. Let’s make a rebuttal documentary of William Paley’s Natural Theology.
Prediction: the ID crowd will treat bad reviews from the “MSM” as badges of honor.
I hate to support anything like this, but in the same vein as a movie so bad that it’s funny, I feel like going. It would be more like Rocky Horror maybe throw squid at the screen.
Anyone with thoughts on this? I hate to see any monetary gain by these fools, but if people will bring this junk up as proof of the “controversy” would it be advantageous to see in order to beat down IDers?
A moral dilemma, any input would be appreciated.
That’s silly…and impossible. A bit like looking at a mangled wreck in a junkyard and saying, That car will be ruined.
Stein is a bottom feeder and no matter how deep the water and muck, he will be at very bottom.
This is just a propaganda film. In the old Soviet style. Christofascists are just like all other Fascists. Speaking of Soviets, it is particularly outrageous that they try to pin the USSR on Darwin. Stalin was a Lysenkoist and being a Dawinist could and did get scientists killed.
This review is just another example of how the insidious tentacles of the Darwinist conspiracy fondle even the once-noble movie reviewer. A good, nay, a Godly reviewer would have seen the truth in it and accepted it. This heathen man, however, saw the truth and then tried to shut it down with the help of that other, most diabolical Darwinist conspirator, Reality.
But we know the truth, Ben and me! We see through you! The truth is clear! CLEAR EYES!
It doesn’t happen as often as I’d like, but every once and a while a Floridian does says/writes/does something that makes me proud to be one :-)
I wouldn’t bother. Plenty of people will watch it and report on it. The information content will be so low that a 2 minute summary will explain it all.
It will also end up being shown for free everywhere. This is crude propaganda and they don’t care if it makes money, wasn’t the original purpose. Fundie churches, Xian home school “academies”, and the overabundance of Xian fundie TV stations will show it over and over. Just like from Darwin to Hitler gets shown over and over. The cults only have a few stock lies and they repeat them often.
I refuse to support the Christofascists in any way, won’t even visit their horrible websites. My connection always comes up with a Microsoft blue screen, “Your computer is under attack by the Dark Forces, press any key to continue.”
“Citing scientific research as recent as 1953…”
Between this and PZ’s trouncing of Simmons as some sort of expert on the fossil record, we need to really push the point across that the cdesign proponentsists are thoroughly ignorant of the latest scientific research. We need to be willing to demonstrate just how ignorant they are and be unafraid of calling them on it (like ERV is so willing to do and so good at it). The comments from the disappeared UD thread about the debate show that when the ignorant come up against the informed, even the believers will notice the difference, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them.
Serious question here, have the discovery institute given up pretending its about science? Seeing the clips and interviews about ‘Expelled’ it becomes clear that they are not being careful in hiding the religious aspect of ID any more. Their podcasts are becoming more and more shrill on the matter – their current one attacking Richard Dawkins is hilarious, it even manages to bash Alistair McGrath and Francis Collins for stating that evolution and christianity can be compatible and calls evolution an explicitly atheistic worldview. http://www.discovery.org/a/3472
OT: Panda’s Thumb and Dispatches from the culture wars creator has started a petition for the Florida school board here.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/flascience/index.html
Lets make sure we stop them anywhere and everywhere we can.
Ben, the Miami Herald may have the best batch of columnists around. Leonard Pitts and Carl Hiaasen are two of the best columnists in the nation. Dave Barry is the best adolescent columnist in the world. Still, it is good to see that there are others in that state who have a clue.
Uh-oh… This could be a sign that people are starting to think for themselves and figure things out on their own again.
It’s good to see a review such as this.
Well, what you definitely shouldn’t do is wait until someone puts it up on a BitTorrent tracker.
Because that would be wrong.
The Orlando Sentinel now has two of its columnists denouncing either id being taught in schools or the expelled movie. Yay for the OS.
I watched the trailer at the linked site. If that’s the best Mr Stein has I’ll pass. Or maybe, as he suggests, I’m just not brave enough to watch any more. In my defense, I do sometimes have a weak stomach when it comes to slasher movies, and it seems that’s what this is: a movie where the scientists’ statements are slashed up for quote mining. Or perhaps Dr. Dawkins really is simply hostile to all ideas other than his own and fails to follow normal English inflection rules when ending a sentence. Yup, that’s probably it. I guess I’ll just have to stay an ignorant mud person, Mr. Stein. Good thing labeling people that isn’t racist, you know, like the Darwinists(tm).
This stuff just makes me tired. I’m closing down and picking back up my copy of “The Ancestor’s Tale” by Richard Dawkins. I’m about halfway through and thoroughly enjoying it.
Ahh…the warm embrace of reality I find in its pages. It’s so comforting to read something so grounded in reality. In comparison the creotards just seems so…what?…insubstantial. Look, there’s just nothing to dispute. (“Multiple lines of evidence” says it too weakly.) That ship sailed, um, about a hundred years ago (or more).
Chris
Raven,
After mulling it over and reading your points on the subject, I’m with you. I didn’t think about the Xians who will play on their propoganda networks. I think any money towards their cause is not well spent. The train wreck effect had a hold of me for a bit.
Hate to say it, but that review was incredibly poorly written. Confusing run on sentences all over the place. Is this really a professional journalist? Looked like a high school student.
Glad to see someone slamming this movie, but really. They need to get an editor or something.
By the way, PZ, I’ve lost track. Did footage of you make it into the movie? If so, congratulations on your official induction into the ranks of
Will there be a ceremony? With beer? Squid?
The problem is that doing so would still be relevant. Paley’s watchmaker argument shows up in slightly more than half the discussions I have or hear with Christians and IDiots as if it’s a new and cutting-edge rebuttal to evolution. Hell, we could make a rebuttal documentary to Pascal’s Wager, and it’d still be completely and utterly up-to-date.
That’s one more way that science and religion differ: science discards arguments and theories as they become outdated and contradicted by evidence; religion never throws anything away, uses the outdated arguments alongside the newest ones, and never realizes when something has turned to rubbish.
@ #5, I believe he is referring to the fact that the Expelled producers are apparently trying to limit their screenings to reviewers and audiences that will be more inclined to accept the movie’s message at face value (i.e. church-folk).
Tom,
All too true, sadly. As Churchill said, “A fanatic is one who won’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
October Mermaid wrote:
(Deadpan voice). Clear eyes. Woowwwwww.
Signed. And posted to an anticreationism Facebook group.
Is Stein going to whine when people begin associating him with “gullible phlegmatic putz”?
Is Stein going to whine when people begin associating him with “gullible phlegmatic putz”?
I’m beginning to think we should refer to him as a mucus-plugged orifice
Is Stein going to whine when people begin associating him with “gullible phlegmatic putz”?
BenStein=mucus-plugged orifice
Ok, something fucked up because…well it wasn’t supposed to post twice and shit.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could some how prove that the Universe was created because God sneezed? Did he look down and go Oh Shit!
Just curious…….other than the trailers, has anyone actually seen the movie?
MaJeff: Sort of like Mel Gibson was? Not going to happen. Not in our media-driven culture. He’s a “personality” and it matters not how insane.
The difference, Jeff, is that Ben Stein is not responsible for much of the finest on-screen violence Hollywood has to offer. Also, Ben Stein didn’t bite Patrick Stewart’s nose off.
The difference, Jeff, is that Ben Stein is not responsible for much of the finest on-screen violence Hollywood has to offer. Also, Ben Stein didn’t bite Patrick Stewart’s nose off.
Nope, but “Buehler? Anyone?” is probably a bigger part of the lexicon than anything Gibson has ever uttered.
I think it’s about time we took Mary Walsh’s infamous line about former Canadian PM Joe Clark and apply it to Stein. The line was from a sketch on This Hour has 22 Minutes (CBC, a few years back) where one of her characters was informed that the pretty young woman on TV was Clark’s daughter. She cried out: “That sweet beautiful angel, sprung from the loins of that gormless gargoyle?”
Ben Stein, Gormless Gargoyle.
Stein is a bottom-feeder, of course, but he still desires the respect that he doesn’t have (rather less than before, I’d wager). I’ve read a little (quite little, since he more or less just rambles on) of his writings in American Spectator, and I recall the “conspiracy” he came up with to “explain” why his show “Win Ben Stein’s Money” didn’t receive a prize one year (it won awards later on, fwiw). Of course it was the Hollywood liberals, and the fact that he’s “conservative”–at least it wasn’t all about Nazis, the Gestapo, and Stalin then.
I suspect that he’s going to look like a chump to a lot of conservatives that he’d like to impress (Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, thought Huckabee was too anti-science for higher-up conservatives, and Lowry specifically mentioned Huck’s anti-evolution views regarding that). And Stein’s already complained that he’s lost opportunities over his role in Expelled.
The best part is that any self-respecting right-winger is going to look at Stein and what an idiot he’s made of himself, and think twice before doing another smear-job against science. They might have to sink to using Ann Coulter next time, if there is a next time.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I think Robert nailed it. “Expelled” will get limited press screenings, but endless church screenings. I recommend one of the worst movies ever made, “The Omega Code,” if you want to experience the model for an awful film, made by, and for, church-heads.
Good for us atheists that religious people cannot present well.
Glen D,
I’m afraid the GOP has made anti-science so much a part of their platform they can’t untangle it even if they wanted to. For instance, which of the many GOP candidates for president this year stated support for evolutionary theory?
Anti-science is important to the GOP because it invigorates their basest base and also starves criticism of corporate wrongdoing. A general anti-science stance is why, for instance, the tobacco company Philip Morris got into anti-global warming (and other anti-science) funding even though they don’t have a dog in that specific hunt. Anything that hurts science helps them market with impunity and use smoke and mirrors to obscure scientific facts against their products and actions.
QQ,
I take cold comfort in the fact of the three people who responded in the negative to the question “Do you believe in evolution?” in the GOP debates (Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback, and Rep. Tom Tancredo) and the other two who later said he should have answered “no” (Rep. Duncan Hunter) or publicly stated “I don’t accept it as a theory” (Rep. Ron Paul), only Huckabee and Paul are still in the race, and both are getting their clocks cleaned. There’s a decent chance that Huckabee will only carry Arkansas on Super Tuesday – he’s on track to finish behind Paul in Maine this weekend, and he’s lost ground in Alabama and Georgia. That doesn’t diminish my embarrassment that so many politicians would hold such anti-science views in the first place, of course.
I do not mean to sound ignorant here, but would someone please explain to me the actual BENEFITS of creationism and ID being taught in any school?
They argue – “We don’t understand, and therefore it must have been “designed”, by something, with the capabilities of “intelligent design.” This means what?
If all of the human race were to suddenly agree on ID, then what? Does this mean we should stop pursuing science? What does ID and/or creationism want?!
If all of the human race accepts ID or creationism, does this not slam the door on the future? i.e., I/we do not understand and, therefore, there’s nothing else. Finee, finto, finished, the end, there’s nothing more; because we as feeble humans cannot and can never comprehend and that’s all there is?
If all of the human race denies ID or creationism, which allows the ongoing rationale of the scientific debate, to further humanity in the understanding of life – treating/curing afflictions (bacterial, viral, genetic), finding alternative energy sources, disposing of or utilizing waste products, etc., tell me, what is the purpose of admitting to or accepting ID or creationism? What does humanity gain, ultimately?
I can attest to, personally, the loss of 2 aunts and a grandfather before the discovery of “modern day” pharmacology (specifically the flu of 1918 and a TB outbreak).
Had the creationist’s/religious version of mental illness been fully accepted, how many millions would have been subjected to their treatment of the mentally ill? Science furthered psychopharmacology and psychobiology. So the ID/creationist would want their neighbor or brother or sister or aunt or uncle or parent or grandparent or anyone to be locked up and subjected to . . . what?!
Does ID and creationism want science to say “Oh, we don’t understand this process, it must have been ‘designed’ and therefore we will never understand it”?
So are we to leave it alone? What is the purpose of accepting ANYTHING at its alleged face value? without exploring it and questioning it and demanding of ourselves to attempt to understand it?
What are “they” afraid of?
Ben’s GOP sin, however, is in looking like a schmuck in opposing science, QrazyQat.
If you’re Limbaugh, you get to change the subject whenever the argument is going against you, and at least you’re getting slightly more nuanced stuff than Darwin=Hitler, which seems to be Stein’s “main argument.” Sure, Limbaugh looks like an idiot to scientists, but he’s not as easy a mark to the public, because he knows how to handle his audience, and he’s not deliberately subjecting himself to bloggers who can shred him, like Stein is doing.
If Stein were sounding plausible, I doubt the GOP would care if he were attacking Einstein (who made some rather choice remarks against religion, of the kind that Expelled attacks) and Newton. Since he’s attacking science in the most disingenuous and implausible manner, mainly by an absurd comparison of science’s meritocratic exclusion of nonsense with Stalin and Hitler (yes, and he’s really fighting against “Darwinism” much as Stalin did (the DI’s goals are not coexistence, as both Dembski and the Wedge Document have made clear)), the GOP is not going to smile upon his making them look bad.
I should add that even Limbaugh isn’t out there bashing evolution, sometimes seeming to accept it well enough. Proving himself to be a complete flake wouldn’t be very helpful to his goal to question the science that he truly opposes (that is, where corporate interests are at stake).
Sure, Stein won’t suffer among the GOP for being anti-science, he’ll suffer among the GOP for being incompetently and unpersuasively (except to fundies and the like) against science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Me thinks the likes of Stein, were asleep in science class.
More importantly, LeeLeeOne, we’d have to continue to use MET as a heuristic device in biology, even if we were stupid enough to think that the EF works. It’s the only thing that makes taxonomy non-arbitrary, that explains why the patterns of descent differ between sexual and asexual (but conjugating) organisms, and that tells us why vertebrate wings are all made out of what were originally forelegs, and not bird wings being modeled on pterosaur wings or some such thing.
And it’s the only thing that predicted to us that bacteria would evolve resistance to antibiotics, never mind that it isn’t a huge amount of evolution (by itself, such evolution would not automatically translate to, for instance, giraffes evolving long necks).
ID only tells us that one thing that the IDiots want us to conclude–God did it. Science be damned.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I’m hoping that this filmic abomination will be shown in one of our local churches. I’ll make a commitment now to attend the showing and offer my services as a scientist to comment on its message and answer questions. Perhaps a goodly number of us PZ followers can worm our ways into “Expelled” showings, and bring forward some timely rational fact-based critique. The film review from OS makes excellent starting point notes for my rebuttal.
I decided to include one of Einstein’s “choice remarks” about religion, because it’s reminiscent of the sorts of remarks that Expelled faults when it comes from PZ or Dawkins:
Just for anyone who thinks that Expelled is properly addressing anything at all, lurkers or whoever.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Screw Ben Stein. It is amazing that a person of his intelligence (or supposed intelligence) can attempt to debate something that scientists no longer debates.
A little OT. I found a Fundy who just got published in a paper who still has his blog open for comments. Read his post and say what you can before he goes the Fundy way and closes comments on his blog:
http://lcraigharris.blogspot.com/2008/01/biggest-fairy-tale-of-all.html
Glen D,
You have made a “grown” woman cry, literally tears of joy!
You have no idea of the impact you have made upon me with your words. It’s been told that time is taking it’s toll upon me, and my ability to express this is evident. However, I beg you forgive that through this medium, there is no way I could possibly describe through these few words of sappy sentiment, on this screen.
Thank you Glen D, thank you. You understand, you teach, I learn, and therefore I understand,
and others will too,
is that not humanity’s responsibility?
LeeLee
We’ve tried creationism and ID before. In fact, for most of our history, creatinism and ID were the ruling paradigms.
We call these ages, the stone age, bronze age, and Dark Ages. Humans believed fervently for much of their history in wacko superstitions to explain the world. The demon theory of disease, the Zeus theory of weather, the flat, young earth theory of creation.
What is noteworthy so far, for a brief interval in history, some humans have tried Science. Other humans are appalled and trying to do away with it. Christofascists like Huckabee call the Dark Ages the good old days.
As an antidote to Benism, Minnesotans can enjoy next months American Atheists conference.
The 34th annual national conference of American Atheists will take place in Minneapolis, MN. and feature a blockbuster line-up of famous speakers, including Richard Dawkins — author of “The God Delusion” — and astronomer/author Lawrence Krauss (“The Physics of Star Trek”). Before the Friday morning session begins, though, check out the Thursday night (March 20, 2008) Jump Start event at the conference venue, the Minneapolis Marriott City Center Hotel.
Rock the night away starting at 7:00 PM with the “Minnesota Freethought Band.” Beginning at 8:00 PM, we’ll feature the Kings of Minneapolis Rock, “Kwang” — http://www.kwang.com . And from 9:30 PM to 11:30 PM, boogie with “The Blue Rose Rocket Band.” All are welcome, and there’s no cover charge.
http://www.atheists.org/conference/
Wow, Glen. Well done. I do believe that the struggle among commenters on this blog is to state an idea that is nominally agreed upon by the majority of us, in a way that is unique and distills the essence of the argument in the most poetic and/or straightforward manner. I think for at least one of us, (though I know many enjoy your writing) you’ve done your job.
I think it’s the most useful feature here. While shooting back and forth at times as we do, in the end, we attempt to get to the core of something.
My own thought is that, yes Stein can and will embarrassed out of the public sphere. He may never go away, but after this he will be shunned and won’t ever be as noteworthy as he currently is, even if he continues in this idiotic vein. He’s putting all his weight and credibility into this. Obviously, it counts for little now, it will count for nothing soon. And then, having expended what little clout he had, he’ll go to the local church circuit like MC Hammer. (Who has an interesting theology if I remember…)
From the article: “Most despicably, Stein, a Jew, invokes the Holocaust, making the Hitler-was-a-Darwinist argument, this AFTER he’s used the Holocaust denier’s favorite trick, “math,” to show how remote the chances are that life was created by natural, not supernatural processes.”
I really hope that Jewish scientists will be unanimously vocal in their condemnation of this tactic.
Chayanov (#16) remarks (emphasis in original):
The words the latest are spurious.
RE: Hitler was a Darwinist.
I’m pretty sure Hitler also believed in rocketry. But I don’t see anyone condemning NASA for that reason.
I’m sure Hitler also was a supporter of the internal combustion engine. While I don’t know what make of car he rode in, BMW, Volkswagen, and Mercedes Benz are still popular vehicles.
Why is it that creationists always bring up Hitler and Darwin?
It is absolutely incredible that this stein moron is
actually walking around thinking that he is a sane creature! I wouls love to meet this scum in the street and
just pour invective on him until he runs away and finally
commits himself to an insane asylum, or better yet, commits
suicide on film and tells everyone that he is doing so for
his freaking god and his own noteworthy funeral to counter
the insane funerals of the godless. Good grief, these wackos are dangerous and may incite the deranged to pull
all sorts of crazy scenes in the name of religion. It just
boggles the mind into incredulity.
Hitler was a devout Catholic who invoked god and Jesus continually. Most serious historians trace the Holocaust to German Xianity. Luther, founder of the protestant church advocated his own 7 point final solution to the Jewish problem.
Stein and his backers Godwinned themselves pretty fast in Expelled.
Stein undoubtedly knows this about the Nazis. It is on wikipedia for anyone to read. It just wouldn’t look good for Stein to be supported by fundie Xians and then start telling the truth about German Xianity and Hitler would it?
Stein should be a little careful. The fundies are always going on about Judeo-Xian this and Judeo-Xian that. When they don’t need the Jews anymore, watch out. The Judeo prefix gets dropped pretty fast. Historically the fundies haven’t been too well disposed to the Jews.
You see it in those ominous congressional resolutions passed by near unaminous votes lately. The ones that proclaim that the USA was always and is a Xian nation. Must have forgot the Judeo part there. And we have always been at war with Eastasia.
I’m not sure if Hitler can be called a ‘devout Catholic’ given the sometimes strained relationship between the Nazi party and Catholicism, although Hitler (pre-war) was seen as being at the moderate end of Nazi religious policy.
But it is certainly true that he idolised Luther, and it is difficult to see anti-Judaism in the twentieth century outside of its long historical legacy in Germany, going back to before the crusades (although it was a Europe-wide rather than specifically German legacy).
And for #57, Hitler didn’t just support cars – he was a great car enthusiast, and encouraged the construction of roads and cars throughout Germany.
Hitler was most definitely not a Darwinist, in Mein Kampf he rejected the idea of common descent. (Search for the word “fox” in the text and you can see for yourself. They are indistinguishable from the creationist view on “kinds” and micro vs. macroevolution.)
And don’t forget, Hitler was a vegetarian! EVIL EVIL EVIL!!! Give me my Big Mac with fires to go!
LeeLeeOne at #45, excellent observation and great comment. I have posted your entire comment at my blog just to help me remember it.
IDiots, want only one thing from being accepted into schools on equal time: to get for their religious view points the deference, respect and admiration that science gets, without doing any of the heavy-lifting that science had to do through research and such to EARN that respect. That’s it. They haven’t thought far enough ahead as to what that means interm of future research.
I had no idea what a douch ebag Ben Stein was. I only knew him from his game show Win Ben Stein’s Money. I regret ever having watched bits of his show because I was too lazy to change the channel sooner.
Vis a vis this subject (but sans Mr. Stein):
Intelligent Design Proves God is Dead
So experience tells us two things: if there is a watch it implies a designer, and if we don’t see someone for one hundred and thirty years then that person is dead. Anyone see where we’re headed here?
This argument doesn’t suggest a particular deity exists or existed: it merely points out that if one accepts the terms of the Watchmaker Analogy as proof of an intelligent designer/creator then it follows that one must also accept that such a designer/creator has ceased to be.
Using sloppy logic will kill a god every time.
++++
Re Hitler and Mein Kampf, just read the last pharagraph of Chapter Two, and *that does it*.
Earlier in the same Ch., he credits Dr. Karl Lueger and the social-christian movement as the source of ideology that led to antisemitism. Not a trace of “Darwin” or the slightest hint of “evolution” anywhere.
Lets please put an end to the Hitler argument.
#66
I often encounter the watchmaker analogy when browbeating the local godbots.
I usually just point out to them that nothing in nature even vaguely resembles a watch, so a better analogy would be a flower. If they come across a flower in a field do they look for a flower factory, or a plant?
Usually shuts them up for a while.
Ben Stein – Expelled: No Intelligende Displayed
I’m not surprised but I am saddened at the piling on taking place here. All of this rancor has been generated by a movie critic who is clearly without knowledge of civil discourse, or chooses not to practice it.
Has anyone seen the movie? If not how is the value of the movie determined. And, as for the personal attacks on Ben Stein: the man is entitled to his opinions, as are all, and his body of economic and entertainment work is to be lauded.
Isn’t it obvious that the crux of the criticism isn’t aimed at Stein but at anyone who disagrees with the critic’s chosen position.
Has this nation gotten to such a point that a different point of view is met with excoration instead of a reasoned response? We may in time find a viable theory of creation, as throughout the history of science has shown, what was true is now false based upon new findings.
I submit that the purpose of science is not to prove a theory true but to prove a theory false. In the current instance, both creationism and evolution are proved false but each are accept by their respective adherents, based on faith.
Wow.
Zev is an idiot.
So is Ben Stein.
They both have no idea what evolution is.
The attacks aren’t personal… they’re based on the drivel which he spouts.
Oh, pobrecito!
No. Both actually. The criticism is aimed at Stein for being a low life bottom feeder devoid of ethics or principles. It is also aimed at Stein’s position which is pseudoscientific nonsense.
Got that totally wrong. The history of mankind is knowledge accumulated banishing bogus superstition. We no longer believe that Apollo Helios drags the sun across the sky every day. Or that human sacrifices are needed at the top of pyramids to keep the rain god and sun god happy. The earth is now a sphere and circles the sun, rather than flat and in the center. Diseases are caused by microbes, not demons or bad humors. We visit doctors not sorcerers when we are sick. Witches, zombies, and vampires no longer roam the night while we huddle inside in fear.
The history of mankind is a few exceptional people lighting candles against the darkness. There are always a few idiots such as yourself who rush over and try to put them out.
Free country, feel free to exit the 21st century if the light bothers you.
Yes, isn’t it odd that we’re always opposed to individuals whose “opinions” are that we’re the equivalent of nazis and stalinists if we prefer science as a meritocracy rather than a theocracy? I mean, why aren’t we welcoming to the “opinion” that we’re oppressors who will do anything to impose godlessness upon society, never mind how many religious persons actually agree with our positions?
In the end this is what this concern trolling by egregious halfwits comes down to, that we’re supposed to be open to malicious and dishonest attacks upon honest science and honest scientists.
Sure, Ben can be as intolerant, hateful, malicious, and disingenuous as he wants to be, but the moment we call him on his lies, comes the concern troll, maligning the victims for actually having the gall to attack all of the lies thrown our way. We’re not only to be attacked, we’re wrong if we defend ourselves.
And thus the dishonesty of these IDiots is never-ending, for they only attack, never once giving any reason for their attacks or their lies.
(oh, and thanks for your kind words, leeleeone, which I’ve finally seen once the thread became active again).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Not true. Creationists are making a religious (and political) argument in the realm of science, i.e. in the natural world; they present no scientific evidence to disprove evolution, they have no peer-reviewed research. Note that scientists (I say that instead of “evolutionists” because except for a few fringe elements we all accept evolution, atomic theory, gravity, etc.) are not making an argument about anything outside of the natural world; there are both religious and non-religious scientists, and they accept things based on tested evidence, not on faith.
Glen D.
Have you heard Stein make any of the statements that the critic attributes to him. I would be surprised if Stein made such statements, though I have been surprised by peoples’ statments before.
I think the critic was practicing nothing more than gutter sniping instead of thoughtful, biting commentary or criticism.
I offer the following as an example of a newspaperman cutting to the quick.
“The average American college fails…to achieve its ostensible ends. One failure…of the colleges lies in their apparent incompetence to select and train a sufficient body of intelligent teachers. Their choice is commonly limited to second-raters, for a man who really knows a subject is seldom content to spend his lifetime teaching it: he wants to function in a more active and satisfying way, as all other living organisms want to function. There are, of course, occasional exceptions to this rule, but they are very rare, and none of them are to be found in the average college. The pedagogues there incarcerated are all inferior men–men who really know very little about the things they pretend to teach, and are too stupid or too indolent to acquire more. Being taught by them is roughly like being dosed in illness by third-year medical students.
The truth is that the average schoolmaster, on all the lower levels, is and always must be…next door to an idiot, for how can one imagine an intelligent man engaging in so puerile an avocation?
— New York Evening Mail, 23 Jan. 1918.
H.L. Mencken
Then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate 1) the evidence that has found that has falsified evolutionary biology, and 2) the evidence that has been found that demonstrates that creationism is a science.
Oh, I see, you don’t know anything about this, but you’ll lie out your ass in your blithering ignorance. Here’s a clue, learn about something before you shoot your stupid mouth off and dishonestly compound the lies made in the first place.
OK, so you’ve indicated that you don’t know, but by God, you’d be surprised, so you’ll just rip into the movie critic who actually saw the piece without knowing a damn thing about it. That’s consonant with your appallingly ignorant lie that evolution’s proved false.
I see your projector is working just fine. Here’s what a sympathetic (to Stein and his attacks) interviewer noted and quoted from Stein’s abysmally ignorant prattle:
Here’s the link to the article which I excerpted above:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080123/30947_Why_Darwinism_is_So_Dangerous.htm
Glen D
I don’t agree with your premise. The burden of proof is on the science of the issue to provide a an uninterrupted linear graph of evolution from the ooze to the present. Examples of current evolution would also be helpful.
I don’t know of anyone who maintains that creationism is a science. It’s based on faith, much the same as is evolutionary science when it postulates about trasitional elements for which scientific evidence isn’t available.
And if one of those fossils can’t ever be recovered? I suppose you also deny that humans have occupied Europe since Roman times since there is no one complete linear graph of occupation from ~300 AD until now since no completely contiguous historical record for any group is likely to be found.
You’re being willfully dense.
God you’re stupid. Are you so dumb as to suppose that we have to have all of the transitions in language evolution before we can make postulates about these transitions? There are tell-tale markers in both the “fossil evidence” (texts and the like) from language evolution, as well as from extant languages, that will never allow us to know everything about the transitions, but will allow us to know much. Indeed, we don’t need any “fossil evidence” of transitions of language to recognize that languages fit the profiles of the predictions made relatively independently about language evolution (indeed, biological evolution piggybacked somewhat off of the evidence of language evolution, while it was in the process of being accepted).
I can see why you’re supporting the lies of Ben Stein, for your own lack of intellectual honesty also needs bolstering. You may be the egregious Emmanuel Goldstein, who stupidly trolls these forums between bannings.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
God you’re stupid. Are you so dumb as to suppose that we have to have all of the transitions in language evolution before we can make postulates about these transitions? There are tell-tale markers in both the “fossil evidence” (texts and the like) from language evolution, as well as from extant languages, that will never allow us to know everything about the transitions, but will allow us to know much. Indeed, we don’t need any “fossil evidence” of transitions of language to recognize that languages fit the profiles of the predictions made relatively independently about language evolution (indeed, biological evolution piggybacked somewhat off of the evidence of language evolution, while it was in the process of being accepted).
I can see why you’re supporting the lies of Ben Stein, for your own lack of intellectual honesty also needs bolstering. You may be the egregious Emmanuel Goldstein, who stupidly trolls these forums between bannings.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
What the hell are you talking about Glen? You don’t know me from anybody, yet you assume I’m a twit. Can I assume you are an uninformed horse’s ass for assuming I’m a twit. Maybe I can assume you are a stupid bastard for assuming that Ben Stein is a favorite of mine.
I can continue in much the same vein as you and Roger Moore though I won’t.
I would suggest that you not wholly or partially base your opinion on a trailer because each of them is an example of selective editing.
I swear you could be one of the people who grabbed a pitch fork when “War of the Worlds” was produced on radio by Orson Wells. But, there I go assuming without evident facts to support my assumption, just as is being done with a one dimensional perspective of a movie.
It’s never a bad idea to question the motives and the truthfulness of a critic.
Oops, I spoke too soon. After reading some earlier posts, it’s apparent Zev can’t help being dense.
The brains of design proponents are the clearest evidence that no great intelligence designed theirs.
Hey zev,
Are you just going to whine about being attacked instead of actually addressing the substance of all the posts that responded to you?
I for one am getting pretty bored of ignorant twits who post nonsense and then whine when they are called on it.
No, shithead, you have provided much evidence that you are a twit. A lying twit at that. I know you’re too stupid, or too biased, to understand how to use evidence properly, but that’s exactly one of the problems your lying is likely to cause in others.
God you’re a dumbfuck. I provided the evidence, showed that you’re a lying bastard, and you can’t even understand the difference between that and simply lying your ass off.
It was in quotes, dimwitted moron, because I don’t know what particular set of lies you prefer to the truth.
You’re continuing with the same set of lies you began with. You’re too dumb even to know when to shut the hell up instead of making a greater fool of yourself.
Oh right, the trailer is put out to inform us about the movie, you set in with your lies without bothering even to watch it, so you turn around to make further accusations against those of us who are informed prior to opining.
More projection, from the vile lying halfwit.
Yes, you’re falling into the same dishonest pattern with which you began, assuming that those who are informed are wrong and your stupid prejudices are correct.
And questioning your truthfulness pays even greater dividends.
And by the way, jackass, I didn’t question the motives and truthfulness of the critic because I already knew much about the travesty of Expelled, as I indicated. You’re “questioning” out of sheer ignorance and prejudice.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I, for one, would be happy if zev could grasp basic rules of punctuation and grammar. He’s making my head hurt.
That’s from the earlier movie review, written by one of the very few privileged movie reviewers able to watch “Expelled.” See, an honest and intelligent person would check these things out, instead of simply attacking.
I’m out of here, at least for now (unless something is posted while I write this, and I’m interested). Zev can learn what Wikipedia is and learn from it, if he’s ever in the mood for honesty and truth. Indeed, there is no need whatsoever to believe anything written about Expelled at Wikipedia, all one needs to do is to follow the links.
And as I noted previously, an honest and intelligent person would have known better than to project his own odious intellectual habits onto others.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Examples of current evolution would also be helpful.
May we inject you with a syringefull of MDR-TB? Then you can tell us whether this evolved strain actually exists or if it’s just a matter of atheist faith that can’t be proven.
Do you think I am zev Carlie?
I do not understand why you addressed zev while correcting part of my post.
We’ve more or less got that. Ever hear of the fossil record? There is a reasonably complete fossil record going back 3.6 billion years. Ever hear of the dinosaurs? Cambrian, Cretaceous? We now know that 99% of all life that ever lived is extinct.
Current examples of evolution are everywhere. Any doc sees it every time they diagnosis drug resistant HIV, TB, Malaria, Staph, or whatever. Any citizen who eats is eating genetically evolved food plants. We also have recently evolved species, Tunisian mice, fruitfly species, transmissible tumors and so on.
You are arguing from ignorance. Your reasoning, “I’m dumb, I’m too lazy to read anything, and I’m profoundly ignorant and uneducated, therefore Goddidit”, isn’t much in the way of reasoning.
spurge – Eh? I was pulling from post #80. I didn’t think I was referring to yours at all, just piling on as well because zev really irritates me.
Thanks for the clarification Carlie.
Just a coincidence I guess.
zev is quite irritating.
“I can continue in much the same vein as you and Roger Moore though I won’t.”
I can just imagine Zev whipped up into a frenzy, screaming at the monitor, and spraying spittle all over his keyboard when he typed this.
I’m not really sure if Roger Moore is a creationist or an evolutionist, but he made a pretty good James Bond.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0000549/
Ohhh, wait, maybe he meant MICHAEL Moore
http://imdb.com/name/nm0601619/
Stupid twit
He seems to have that effect on people. He’s kind of like the orb of confusion from Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy, because there’s so much wrong there it’s almost impossible to tease it all out and deal with it.
You can show that ID is not science, but don’t you eee, that’s central to their point; people that like ID and don’t like the science of natural selection or an earth billions of years old, are happy that ID isn’t science. Yes that kind of “victory” is bound to be toxic and self-defeating in the end, but they don’t care.