Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

Lets take a break for some RL entertainment.RL's THEME SONG

COURSE I COULD've posted Nothin from Nothin for the Big Bang Fans

0 Replies

Re: Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

Diest TKO wrote:

So Ben Stein is made a movie about science and religion, call EXSPELLED. It's thesis is basically that people in the scientific community are forced to supress their religious beliefs in favor of other worldviews. I think from the trailer that it also makes the claim that ID science is being supressed.

here is a link to the official site.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com

It comes out on Friday. Let the madness begin. I'll go see it, but I suspect that there are more facts going to be represented here and other forums on the related topics. Stein is a funny guy, if nothing, it should still be entertaining.

aaaaaaand go.

T
K
O

Deist:

Have you seen the movie?

If yes; what are your thoughts?

0 Replies

I have not yet. It's not playing here in my small college town.

NOTE: Before anyone says that is suppression, I'd like to note that many movies outside of typical hollywood action blah don't come through our lame 4 screen theater. (Man I can't wait to get out to DC.)

BD, trust that I plan to see it. I'd additionally like to offer further commentary on the subject in terms of relating it to other movies on the same topic. Until I reach a theater that is playing it (or I have to rent it later), is there any other documentaries you'd suggest? I'm pretty familiar with the ongoing debate surrounding ID/EVO, but I'd like to familiarize myself with the media surrounding both.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I have not yet. It's not playing here in my small college town.

NOTE: Before anyone says that is suppression, I'd like to note that many movies outside of typical hollywood action blah don't come through our lame 4 screen theater. (Man I can't wait to get out to DC.)

BD, trust that I plan to see it. I'd additionally like to offer further commentary on the subject in terms of relating it to other movies on the same topic. Until I reach a theater that is playing it (or I have to rent it later), is there any other documentaries you'd suggest? I'm pretty familiar with the ongoing debate surrounding ID/EVO, but I'd like to familiarize myself with the media surrounding both.

T
K
O

I trust that you will see the movie. You seem the type to see things through. I thought the movie production was average, but feel that you will enjoy the questions that it raises.

After seeing it in a theater - I plan to rent it for closer scrutiny. As to reviewing documentaries beforehand - I would say not to, for the sake of objectivity. (Like me) You will probably have the desire to review some afterward due to the questions posed.

As to the media surrounding both ID/EVO; the post-showing responses that I've seen are typically biased on both sides, so I don't give either much credence.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Likewise Canis are all dog-like animals, yet are you saying that the wolf and coyote aren't different species? They both have muzzles, pointed ears, tails, four legs and fur. So they must be the same species.

Can they interbreed?

I'm not going to answer that here. You'll find the answer in the The Creationism topic

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
You want to prove how he did it, so you can say, "Oh, so that's how he did. Isn't he clever?"

But no.

ID doesn't even come close to doing that.

For the IDer represented by the likes of Spendi, it's 'cause they don't want to take anymore time away from the pub than what is absolutely necessary.

"The platypus is the way he is because the Intelligent Designer made him that way.

Let's go get us a pint now."

Speaking of the platypus, it's genome has been mapped. Here are exerpts from articles from NPR and the Washington Post.

Platypus Is Even More Strange Than It LooksPlatypus Genome Found Fittingly Strange
Cobbled-Together Creature Yields New Evolutionary Insights
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 8, 2008; Page A01

When the British naturalist George Shaw received a weird specimen from Australia in 1799 -- one with a mole's fur, a duck's bill and serpentlike spurs on its rear legs -- he did what any skeptical scientist would do: He looked for the stitching and glue that would reveal it to be a hoax.

"It was impossible not to entertain some distant doubts as to the genuine nature of the animal," Shaw wrote of the seemingly built-by-committee creature, which he eventually named "platypus," for its flat, webbed feet.

"It's such a wacky organism," said Richard Wilson, director of the Genome Sequencing Center at Washington University in St. Louis, who with colleague Wesley Warren led the two-year effort, described today in the journal Nature.

Yet in its wackiness, Wilson said, the platypus genome offers an unprecedented glimpse of how evolution made its first stabs at producing mammals. It tells the tale of how early mammals learned to nurse their young; how they matched poisonous snakes at their venomous game; and how they struggled to build a system of fertilization and gestation that would eventually, through relatives that took a different tack, give rise to the first humans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050702048.html?wpisrc=newsletter

0 Replies

Expelled Exposed

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Expelled Exposed

Eugenie Scott (Exec. Director of the National Center for Science Education) has her panties in a wad about Stein's movie and is emotionally reacting to it in ExpelledExposed. There's not much to it really.

Likewise, the lovable Richard Dawkins is using 'Expelled" to springboard more sales of his boring books. Check out his site; http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins and get your credit card out.

0 Replies

Ho, the irony in your statements is unbelievable. The Discovery Institute and many high profile Creationists are all about fleecing gullible Christians. They make millions.

0 Replies

Baddog1 - Why do you believe is reaction is emotional?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Admittedly, though, part of the money for the Discovery Institute does go into this Cascadia Project thing, which on the surface looks rather commendable.

Thing is, if even the John Templeton Foundation, which is dedicated to the uniting of science and religion, sees Intelligent Design as pretty vacuous, then you're not really onto a winner.

0 Replies

later

0 Replies

I saw the movie. Obviously, Stein used the footage most likely to advance his thesis. He can hardly be faulted for that; he warned us in the promos.

However, I was astounded by his ability to get Dawkins to speculate on seeding.

Arrogance is as stupid does. . .

0 Replies

"Lightning striking a mud puddle."

T
K
O

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I saw the movie. Obviously, Stein used the footage most likely to advance his thesis. He can hardly be faulted for that; he warned us in the promos.

However, I was astounded by his ability to get Dawkins to speculate on seeding.

Arrogance is as stupid does. . .

Stein could have likely used a myriad of movie-topics for his thesis. He chose this one. You're correct - he should not be faulted for this.

Did you come away from the movie with more or less than you're describing here neo?

0 Replies

In the case of Dawkins, the movie provides an authoritative answer to the question, "Is there such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ?"

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

In the case of Dawkins, the movie provides an authoritative answer to the question, "Is there such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ?"

Given Dawkin's large volume of work, I'd be hard pressed to believe you'd be able to trump him in a full length film with any amount of soundbytes selected.

If you do believe this, then know in advance that there are enough available soundbytes of Stein that in summation are greater in length than his film. Those soundbytes accompanied with the proper retort (also available) if compiled make a pretty strong case that Stein's claims of academic suppression etc are not truly built on any real foundation.

If interested take 1 hour and 30 minutes (the typical amount of time for a full length motion picture) and go visit our friend youtube. There you;ll find plenty of responses to stien's claims by people who are not a part of some conspiracy to suppress information (because they have zero authority.) You'll never have to watch the same clip twice.

However, if you're smart, you can simply take the film for what it is. It's not proof of anything, simply an artistic expression of one man's perception of the world. Emphasis on "perception." I won't fault Stein for his choices of what material was included. Any Highschool debate team will tell you he's doing his best. However, I think the Highschool team would also tell you that he could do a MUCH better job of defusing future arguments by supporting his claims better.

All in all, I grade as follows.

In terms of a documentary (style): B+
In terms of supporting material: C-
In terms of influence: C-

I won't fail him, but I am grading on a curve. Kirk Cameron's "way fo the master" series sets the standard for bad.

T
K
O

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

In the case of Dawkins, the movie provides an authoritative answer to the question, "Is there such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ?"

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Given Dawkin's large volume of work, I'd be hard pressed to believe you'd be able to trump him in a full length film with any amount of soundbytes selected.

Speculative thought Deist. You should also assume that Stein had/has a large volume of work (as I've heard) - yet Stein made the commitment to participate in this movie. With his connections & following; surely Dawkins could also make his own movie and interview anyone he chooses.

Diest TKO wrote:

However, if you're smart, you can simply take the film for what it is. It's not proof of anything, simply an artistic expression of one man's perception of the world. Emphasis on "perception."...

Isn't this true for all films?

0 Replies

While that may be true there baddog, the Stein movie is presenting itself as "FACT". when all through the movie is the false thesis that the ID/Creationists are losing their "tenured" positions. In all cases of individuals mentioned, they were, at best part timers, volunteers, and adjunct faculty.
Stein has made a mockery of the documentary as much as Al Gores "Inconvenient Truth", both movies are twaddle.

Ive finally seen Steins movie and can quickly go through each item of his points and find information that disputes it soundly.

0 Replies

Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know