Did anyone else know about Ben Stein's new movie about ID? Apparently, "Big Science has
expelled smart new ideas from the classroom." Smart? New? I thought we already covered this. Your "smart new" idea is simply an antiquated
superstition that's been repackaged to promote religion in a public school. If they are really going to release this movie in theaters, then my only hope
is that it opens the same week as The Dark Knight. Expel what? Ben who? Let's go see some bats!
0 Kudo
Ben Stein Movie
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 NewsTravels |
Ben Stein Movie |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 38 02/15/08 22:34:46 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
mightymjolnir |
#1 | |||
|
Posts: 132 02/15/08 23:15:13 |
I keep seeing ads for Expelled on atheist websites. I've also seen them in my gmail account. Great targeting.
Who exactly comprises "Big Science?" Is there also a "Big Math" conglomerate that seeks to suppress the possibility that 2+2 may equal 5? m |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Skeptigator |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 181 02/16/08 09:33:21 |
not to be the lone dissenter but 2 + 2 can equal 5 for large values of 2; sorry that's that high school physics class coming through... I mean you must
obey "Big Physics" ;)
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
agnohumanist |
#3 | |||
|
Posts: 100 02/16/08 11:39:20 |
I saw the trailer for this despicable, pandering-to-the-ignorant, emotion-based, misleading-the-uneducated, cherry-picking movie. As an educator and
freethinker, it made me want to hurl! If this piece of crap succeeds in any way, it will only add credence to Mencken's quip that "No one ever went
broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
AnalogKid9 |
#4 | |||
|
Posts: 39 02/17/08 21:40:22 |
Yes I have. You will never guess the two organizations that are backing him. The Discovery Institute and Focus on The Family. Big surprise. I get mailings
from FOTF and they are batshit crazy.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Infektid666 |
#5 | |||
|
Posts: 31 02/18/08 07:52:55 |
agnohumanist wrote:
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Skeptigator |
#6 | |||
|
Posts: 181 02/18/08 09:28:27 |
Whoa there Infektid666, a bit harsh but a good point. You get an A on your point and D on your delivery, we're all friends here. Personally I'm with
agno only because these kinds of faux-umentaries are in general seriously slanted to support the biased opinion of the director. I'm thinking along the
lines of Michael Moore here. Moore makes some very excellent points in many of his movies but then drowns them in selective editing, out of context quotes,
hyperbole and over-dramatized anecdotal stories. They completely take away from the main points. I would throw Jesus Camp in the mix as a faux-umentary as well
but honestly I have first hand knowledge of those environments (of which my aunt and her family are involved and unfortunately my little sister is as well).
Last Edited By: Skeptigator 02/19/08 13:53:35.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Infektid666 |
#7 | |||
|
Posts: 31 02/18/08 09:38:22 |
I sent a PM to Ango regarding this reply. It was not meant to be a personal attack by any means.
However I do think that you may have missed my point as well... Im not saying that I agree with the movie at all... not be any means... What I am saying is that none of us know anything about it other than what the subject is. None of us have seen it. How does critisizing something that we know nothing about make us any different???.... I just do not want to see FFW turn into a bunch of biased opinions. How frustrated do you get when people try to tell you what being an atheist means or what atheists are about, when they themselves have no idea?
Last Edited By: Infektid666 02/18/08 10:46:59.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
AndysCatHouse |
#8 | |||
|
Posts: 147 02/18/08 21:23:45 |
I wrote about this on the other board. http://fortwayneatheist.yuku.com/topic/371 The short response is I liked Ben for his economic writings. I had quite a
shock when I first visited expelledthemovie.com This fits under Michael Schermer "Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things" chapter (He learned belief
for dumb reasons then his intellect has found many ways to defend his not so smart position.) We probably should see the movie. Although, I do not want to give
money for this. I vote we drink every-time Ben says there is no observed changes of species, or every-time he says Darwin gave us Nazi camps.... we do a shot.
No one would leave without throwing up!
Last Edited By: AndysCatHouse 02/18/08 22:26:38.
Edited 3 times.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
agnohumanist |
#9 | |||
|
Posts: 100 02/18/08 21:58:22 |
Actually, having seen the lengthy trailer, I feel I most certainly DO know something about the movie. The writer, Stein, narrates his own trailer, and he uses
propaganda techniques to attract attention, most notably the "straw man" technique. Here are some quotes from the trailer, out of Stein's own
mouth, in which he paints a false and misleading picture of both evolution and evolutionists. (My comments follow the asterisks.)
Some believe we are the result of "pure dumb fate and chance"..."nothing more than mud animated by lightning"..."a cosmic mistake." **Anyone with even a passing familiarity with evolution knows that natural selection is anything but "dumb fate and chance" and that no evolutionist claims we are "mud animated by lightning" or a "cosmic mistake." These are inflammatory and misleading comments intended to make those who have no understanding of the actual theory hate evolutionists and evolution. "...many scientists face similar persecution. They're losing their jobs, can't get tenure, denied publication in scientific journals..." *** Biologists who don't believe in evolution, given the overwhelming evidence in its favor from various branches of science, SHOULD be in danger of losing their jobs (especially if they fail to teach students evolutionary theory and substitute some unsubstantiated theory instead)! And shouldn't get tenure. And shouldn't get published in scientific journals--any more than a physicist who denies the theory of gravity or the heliocentric model of the solar system. Or a linguist who teaches students that the thousands of languages on earth came from the Tower of Babel story. Stein implies--in his trailer and I feel safe in assuming, therefore, in his movie--that there's some kind of repression of these people, that they are being denied tenure, etc., because they dare to question evolution. Note to Ben: Nope, it's because they're incompetent and are ignoring the evidence. "...people confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism, so that tells me Darwinists are afraid. They're hiding something." *** Oh, I get it. It's a conspiracy. All the biologists, anthropologists, biochemists, zoologists, physiologists, and so on really know that evolution is a sham, but they've built their careers on it and they're afraid the secret will get out! They're all hiding it! All the advances in modern biology and medicine that they attribute to evolutionary theory and Darwinist thinking are really illusory or the result of lots of people praying for cures. "...the media are in on it, the courts, the education system. Everyone is after them." *** Speaking of conspiracy theories..."EVERYONE IS AFTER THEM"!!! some believe that "Darwinism is not only improbable, it might actually be dangerous." ***Yeah, don't you just hate the way medical researchers keep using evolutionary thinking to come up with new cures? Seems dangerous. Finally, here are some quotes from his conclusion to the trailer, in which he pulls out all the stops: "I began to wonder why we tolerate free speech in every other area of society but not here. (***Yeah, all those folks in jail because they questioned evolution--you'd have to throw half the country in jail if that were true!) "I have to warn you, feel free to watch this movie--and I hope you do--but you've got to know that doing so could land you in a heap of trouble. Some of you are going to lose your friends; some of you may even lose your jobs." *** From watching a movie? C'mon, get real. My republican boss didn't fire me for watching "Sicko." More scare tactics. Trying to make moviegoers feel real independent and brave if they watch his movie. So, you're right, I haven't seen the movie, but I think I know propaganda when I see it. I'm not a scientist but I have read about and studied evolution a great deal, and I can tell when someone--even in a movie trailer--is misrepresenting it to make a buck. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Infektid666 |
#10 | |||
|
Posts: 31 02/19/08 07:06:30 |
Well put. ...... I'll go back to eating babies
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Skeptigator |
#11 | |||
|
Posts: 181 02/19/08 13:58:10 |
I think the moral of this thread is that when we make adjective-strewn diatribes that we should make sure we have a reason for it (as agno so amply provided).
I enjoy these forums because sometimes we need to be kept honest as infektid as done... oh and Ben Stein is a douche. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Skeptigator |
#12 | |||
|
Posts: 181 02/19/08 16:20:42 |
Here are a couple of blog entries from Bad Idea as well as links to reviews for more information.
http://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/intelligent-design-film-expelled-gets-a-positive-review/ http://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/expelled-at-the-national-review-steven-hayward-on-intelligent-design/ |
|||
|
|
||||
|
agnohumanist |
#13 | |||
|
Posts: 100 02/19/08 16:28:58 |
Thanks, infektid and skeptigator. I appreciate your comments. In retrospect, I was a bit harsh in my initial post without giving good evidence why I felt
that way. I still feel that way, but now anyone who reads my second post will know why and maybe even agree with me--or not, but that's ok, too, since at
least now they know I didn't make an off-the-cuff judgment. I really did think it through after seeing the "supertrailer" a few weeks ago. The
trailer gives opponents plenty of reason to dislike the film. As some of you have said, Stein is an intelligent guy, and that just makes me angrier; he's
smart enough to know that he is being unfair to evolution and evolutionists, but he doesn't care. He knows there's a certain segment of society that
will eat it up, and he's glad to serve it to them by the bucket and make some cash in the process. At least, that's my take on it. I suppose it's
possible that he really believes everything he said in the trailer, but it seems unlikely to me, especially the part about free speech. As a journalist, he
should know that not allowing an unsubstantiated theory like I.D. (or flat earth theory) to become part of the curriculum is not an infringement on free
speech. No one is stopping I.D. proponents from making speeches, writing books and articles, or otherwise publicizing their ideas. But no school or
scientific journal is obligated to giving equal space or time to their unscientific claims--or any mention at all, for that matter. Otherwise, they'd have
to do it for every crackpot theory out there.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
mightymjolnir |
#14 | |||
|
Posts: 132 02/19/08 17:32:11 |
I'm glad you guys were able to work this out. It bodes well for us that we're able to disagree without arguments devolving into personal attacks. I
also agree with skeptigator that, having met in person nearly everyone on this board, it takes some courage to make a challenge here - so kudos to infektid for
that. Again, I'm happy - and I hope the involved parties were too - with the result.
I did want to clarify something Infektid said in his initial post, regarding the overall attitude of the group, and how we don't want to succumb to intellectually-crippling biases. 99.9% of the time, I couldn't agree more. I often get into trouble because I believe that even the worst criminal deserves a fair trial, and I think that principal is a key component of freethought. However, I believe intelligent design falls into that exceptional 0.01% of topics to which we should not commit a fair audience. I know it's counter-intuitive, but the tactics employed by ID-proponents require such a treatment. I don't know if you've watched any evolution/ID or theist/atheist debates lately, but typically the ID/theist will use a tactic called "baffling with bullshit." They throw out so many fallacies and previously-debunked claims that their opponent is effectively tied-up in irrelevant explanation, and therefore unable to advance his/her own case. Meanwhile, onlookers see the atheist/evolution supporter tangled up in the argument and assume, incorrectly, that maybe there is a controversy after all...or else why are they even arguing? It used to drive me nuts that Richard Dawkins wouldn't debate creationists, but now I see exactly why. Thomas Jefferson put it best: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.I might add that simply ignoring unintelligible propositions also works. So, to translate this into a guideline for the board, I would recommend that if you can rationally prove that the basic premise of a text, film, etc. is flawed, it is not necessary to pay it full attention. For example, if someone said, "You should read the bible because it's the literal word of God," then reading it for that irrational premise would be an utter waste of time. (Now, if someone recommended reading the bible to better understand the hopes and fears of an ancient people, there might be some merit.) The basic premise of this film is not that the producers wish to present new evidence on intelligent design, but simply that there is a controversy, and that it should be taught in schools. This premise is not only inherently flawed - it was also rejected in a court of law by none other than a Bush appointee. We saw Jefferson's "ridicule" in living color when Michael Behe was forced at the Dover trial to admit that if intelligent design should be taught in public schools, so should astrology. Until ID proponents present unbiased, peer-reviewed evidence in a scientific journal, we simply have no reason to do anything but ignore it or ridicule it. I think that outwardly we should ignore it, but here in the friendly confines of FFW, we can ridicule it without causing harm. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Narly9999 |
here I am | #15 | ||
|
Posts: 75 02/20/08 02:30:49 |
hi, Ok now I'm gunna spew some psycology at ya. There is reason to pay homage to this video for reason that we can at least state we have seen it and
definitively it's the same old jump to conclusion crap that's been building wars and mudering babies and killing mothers for years. At least we can
say, oh that movie, saw it and these points about it are such crap. Infected666, your agnostic or just a cleaver decent fellow that wishes to apear aprochably
nice and controlled? Dunno, but of course I see your point however it also points the an air of skeptissium about the existance of a higher plain being. Dunno.
Sounds that way. Anothere thing here. If anyone should ever bring up that an atheist ever harmed anyone on a mass caultural level. I would throw in their face
cold water first. Second tell them to recall the with hunts , the homosexual killings, the enslavement of men both black and white, all the stories of murder
in the Bible old testiment that forced them to rewite a new one. Bring up the people that die everyday because stemm cell reseach is being held up by religious
ideoligy. Bring up, a heartless GOD that will burn a good decent careing loving intelligent person in hell simpley because they saw no valid proof of a higher
being. Religion is a horrible gastly thing and surely needs out lawed. All the people that have killed a family memeber simply because their mental health made
their mind create voices in their head that they felt was a higher being telling them to kill. OUCh! Bad religion.
It's not what you believe but what you believe to believe in.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
mightymjolnir |
One more thing | #16 | ||
|
Posts: 132 02/22/08 16:07:35 |
I meant to link this in my original post, regarding the shady stuff that went on while the movie was being filmed:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php I would recommend that creationists pick a softer target than PZ Myers. m |
|||
|
|
||||
|
agnohumanist |
#17 | |||
|
Posts: 100 02/23/08 08:49:35 |
Thanks for the link, mighty! Lends more credence to my impressions of the movie based on the trailer. (Though I still admit I should've given more
evidence in my original post to back up the slam.) I shudder to think of how many people will be fooled by this piece of propaganda when it comes out. Given
the state of scientific illiteracy in this country--and especially how evolution is either skipped over or given only cursory attention in many American
schools--you know that millions will watch this movie or even just read about it and be duped into thinking that there is really a controversy about the
legitimacy of evolution.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
AndysCatHouse |
#18 | |||
|
Posts: 147 03/01/08 20:28:28 |
You guys have to check out this review. This is exactly what we thought. I still say we go and take a shot every time he mentions Stalin and evolution is why
Britney Spears is crazy.... http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html
Last Edited By: AndysCatHouse 03/01/08 20:36:19.
Edited 5 times.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
agnohumanist |
#19 | |||
|
Posts: 100 03/01/08 20:54:13 |
Thanks, Andy! That review pretty much says it all. I encourage everyone to read it. I anticipate a similarly scathing review by Roger Ebert, whenever he
gets the opportunity to see it.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
AndysCatHouse |
#20 | |||
|
Posts: 147 03/06/08 02:04:51 |
I obviously have much more to say about Ben Stein. I remember having this e-mail forwarded to me around Christmas time and Ben was making Expelled the Movie
at the time. I just shook my head at the time and wanted to quickly hit the delete key, but something told me to save it. Let's get in Ben's head and
put some critical thinking to it and see if it makes any sense. We can see insights into where this fits in with why Ben is doing Expelled. You can read it
in full without my comments at here.
I will repeat it with my comments in Brackets and Bold. Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart: [OK so far.] I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. [A simple goggle search shows Jessica Simpson is singer who started on a Gospel label and her father is a Baptist preacher and her mother teaches Sunday school. I would infer Jessica is a Christmas loving Baptist from the search. I couldn't find Nick's religious background quickly and I didn't want to read any teen pages.] I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. [Never is a big word. Does Ben really do his own shopping? My guess is this is complete BS and most grocers have at least heard of Nick and Jessica if for no other reason than being near that material.] Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? [No, what is this silliness?] Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife. [A simple goggle search shows Lindsay Lohan is a Catholic actor and I found her picture with a cross featured between her heavenly bosoms. Crazy Tom Cruise is an easy target (his mention has nothing to do with Katie) but what Ben may not realize is that both atheist and religious scientists have done more fighting of Scientology than any Church. Scientology has placed a war with psychiatry and neurology. The reason Scientology descents is it claims people have past memories (or past souls) and charges consistently for members to experience and remember them. Well of course the scientific community was evil and wanted to prevent the truth of Scientology because they disagreed with that premise. Science was L Ron Hubbard's natural enemy. Does this sound familiar? Big science agenda is keeping the truth from religion. Is this not the same argument Ben is making in Expelled with evolution? Sorry, Ben reality and science do not work this way.] Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? [No. In his and his audiences' mind Ben is establishing an us and them victim mentality.] Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad. [I agree with that statement but how does he link atheism with celebrity gossip articles which is were the e-mail eventually takes us? None of the above celebrities are explicit atheists or would dare to push an atheist agenda. There is no reason to infer an implicit one either. I bet the people buying this stuff are statistically far more religious than non-religious. So isn't the way out of this problem critical thinking and education? That is my bet and not some heavenly revelation. More likely, religion stifles critical thinking and falls back to authority, which advertisers can exploit. Moreover, Ben is an economist. This celebrity appeal keeps people watching TV, which in turn attracts more advertising, and then sells more products. For example, celebrity appeal helps sell musical instruments and recording equipment to wannabe music stars. Economic profits are great for the country. Free market economists should not be making intrinsic value judgments because the market determines the price. Ben knows all of this and it is a despicable trick to win the hearts of the religious right by equating celebrity "greed" as an atheistic agenda.] Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. [Fantastic, because we wouldn't take you seriously if you weren't 100% Jewish. Ben is the Hebrew Hammer!] And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. [I am not bothered here, either. This is a straw man argument to say atheists are mean.] I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. [No problems, here as long as this is not happening on government property or function.] I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. [Who is doing the pushing here? Next, the us and them dichotomy is fulfilled.] I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. [The constitution certainly says nothing about Jesus or the ten commandments and it is a God free statement besides the date. The Government is neutral to religion. It is neither for nor against. A secular society is where all religions and the non-religious can live together. The government should not get involved. It is simple and uncomplicated. I know Ben may be dying to have Judge Roy Moore's 10 commandments memorial in a courthouse. That is a symbol that God's law is higher than the constitution but that is not how it works in a constitution driven democracy. (The 10 commandments appear more than once in the Bible and they are not the same- so the whole title is wrong, too.) Do you really want to legislate no work on Saturday or Sunday? Which is it anyway? What would happen to the economy if we were all sitting around and praying? Or maybe, Ben wants non-scientific religious rhetoric taught in science classes. An argument from personal incredulity is all intelligent design is and therefore not science. There is no how, when, where, what mechanism, and with what materials type of scientific knowledge in ID. ID cannot satisfy a prediction. Present your scientific evidence for ID and see if it holds up. If it doesn't fly try again with another experiment. Then try again. That is science. Until then, stay out of basic grade school science classes and stop manipulating confused and concerned students and parents using religious rhetoric hidden in a poor me free speech argument.] I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. [I prefer to whack the bill of rights on Ben's head several times. This is junior high civics and it is really scary that Ben is helping deliver a Christian theocracy. Ben you won't feel this way about the constitution when Ann Coulter, James Dobson, or scarier Christian Dominionist/Reconstrutionalists get their way and ship your 100% Jewish butt to Israel to bring on the 2nd coming. They are only putting up with you for now and they think you are going to hell despite the work you are doing for them. The constitution protects individuals from the tyranny of the majority.] Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? [It is religious people who are "worshiping" and are Nick and Jessica. Is worship really the correct word? Wow, who says they cannot worship God the way they want. This is such a vague statement that any religious nut can interpret it anyway they want. Ben, I will fight for your right to worship at your home, temple, and anywhere no one objects. Pray at the restaurant, work, or whatever. It is simple. Just keep that part out of the government functions and property. However, this is not good enough for you. You want to legislate your religious notions and laws on me. Sorry, keep your non-provable invisible daddy deity to yourself please. I have an invisible floating purple dragon in my garage that can take him if he comes near. Ben, you cannot stop progress and the Internet is busting through all this BS non-scientific quackery in the long run. It is the short run opportunity cost you are causing that is so uneconomic and stupid. I cannot believe you fell for the Discovery's Institutes crap and now you lost a former fan.] I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to. [This whole email message is echoing the main message of discovery institute. This is designed to link Hollywood image based materialism/consumerism to atheism, and set up his religious right friends for his upcoming movie on intelligent design. See Wedge Strategy This is so ironic because of the religious right's link to capitalism. Evolution is a bottom up type of organization very similar to how complex economies form. The religious right believes in the invisible hand but somehow cannot make it through the tangible fossil and genetic evidence for evolution. Scarcity is a major motivator in both Adam Smith and Charles Darwin worlds. I am not in the least pushing a social Darwinism policy. Capitalism without compassion is unhealthy, too. I rather like when Richard Dawkins your arch enemy and others point out cooperative game theory techniques in the development of altruism in evolution. But let's be honest with our children. Isn't that the good message of Jesus instead of the all the Hell and superstitious stuff. How about the republic of heaven here on earth now instead of some not provable totalitarian kingdom off in the distance somewhere? Ben, you are lying to America motivated by some misguided religious ideology. Now think of the damage that you caused to every science teacher in America! They are going to have to put up with a strong emotional resistance to learning and make an already hard subject much harder. What does science and technology mean to today's knowledge worker economy? Without technical innovation and biological sciences we could destroy our species in the extreme and collapse the economy in least. Thomas Friedman in, "The World is Flat" has pointed out the graying of our current scientists, as a whirlwind effect will hurt our global economy. I thought Republicans want to be rich. We are giving other countries a huge comparative advantage. Do Republicans want to live! Avian Flu and HIV reduction depends on scientists who understand evolution. This is so immature and childish and yet they do it with such an sense of arrogant self-righteousness. This battle has been raging for 150 years with more and more evidence pilling on. Yes, I blame religion and I cannot believe an economist is falling for this considering the enormous opportunity cost. I suppose it may be impossible to use reason to get someone to reject something in which reason was not called on in the first place, but the rest of us will have to wake up if we want to stay out of the dark ages.]
Last Edited By: AndysCatHouse 03/07/08 00:15:27.
Edited 4 times.
|
|||
|
|
||||
